ScotRail active travel 153s - what to do with them? (and related West Highland Line rolling stock options)

Bletchleyite · 29 May 2025

scotraildriver said:
The Scottish Government have spent £6m converting 153s to bike carriages and extending a large number of platforms on the West Highland Line. It's been a complete waste of money. Despite all the noise about cycle provision on trains in reality very few bikes are actually carried. Bank holiday Friday last week, 7 car train fully booked, 38 bike spaces, 4 bikes. Same on Monday and that's a busy day. Most of the time the 153s carry nothing but fresh air.

Perhaps a case to reduce the bike spaces down to maybe 10 or so and add more seats in the 153s?

I think it's fairly clear that 2 bike spaces isn't enough (no use for instance for a family of four), but the EU has if I recall mandated 6 (shame we weren't still in when that happened) and that may well be a better number, particularly as the space can be used for standees if the train is very busy. 6 can fit easily in a small van area like the Class 156 has with a luggage shelf above (which could be folded up if the train had lots of people and little luggage/no bikes).

RailUK Forums

HighlandStorm · 29 May 2025

They were supposed to have mini buffets - but all the catering got wound down during the pandemic. So was dropped from the conversion. (See mock-up picture).

So there’s more bike / luggage space than originally envisaged. The extra toilet the 153 gives is very welcome, particularly on a 3 coach service. Only 1 toilet per unit vs 2 on 158s is one of the big short comings of 156s on the WHL.

Bletchleyite · 29 May 2025

HighlandStorm said:
They were supposed to have mini buffets - but all the catering got wound down during the pandemic. So was dropped from the conversion. (See mock-up picture).

TBH a decent restaurant car would make money on such a touristy route, as would *good* First Class (not 2+2 with awful Richmond seats as they tried in the 153s).

However that's probably not practical for lots of reasons, so I guess stick with reducing bike spaces and adding seats.

Also, are they being used on the right services in a timing sense?

scotraildriver · 29 May 2025

Bletchleyite said:
Perhaps a case to reduce the bike spaces down to maybe 10 or so and add more seats in the 153s?

I think it's fairly clear that 2 bike spaces isn't enough (no use for instance for a family of four), but the EU has if I recall mandated 6 (shame we weren't still in when that happened) and that may well be a better number, particularly as the space can be used for standees if the train is very busy. 6 can fit easily in a small van area like the Class 156 has with a luggage shelf above (which could be folded up if the train had lots of people and little luggage/no bikes).

Scotrail's 156 units already have 6 bikes spaces and a fold down shelf as you suggested. Adding more seats is probably bigger issue than it sounds as the bulkheads have been moved and there are tall heaters in the bike area which would obstruct seats. They are used on the busiest services.

Bletchleyite · 29 May 2025

scotraildriver said:
Scotrail's 156 units already have 6 bikes spaces and a fold down shelf as you suggested.

Perhaps then the 153s should just be converted to being seats throughout? Two 156s (as most WHL services are I think) would I guess be twelve spaces which is plenty.

lachlan · 29 May 2025

I presume the 153s are good for other large items of outdoor equipment (eg kayaks) and also adapted bikes or tandems. Has anyone seen these be carried?

The exile · 29 May 2025

Why not just leave things as they are and let demand develop? This seems to me be another example of the bean counters’ “it’s not 100% used so we’ll cut it”.

SC318250 · 29 May 2025

153s not shown as operating from end of October in summer diagrams.

scotraildriver · 29 May 2025

The exile said:
Why not just leave things as they are and let demand develop? This seems to me be another example of the bean counters’ “it’s not 100% used so we’ll cut it”.

This is the 5th summer season for the 153s. The demand isn't developing.

HighlandStorm · 29 May 2025

scotraildriver said:
This is the 5th summer season for the 153s. The demand isn't developing.

They were intended for Fort William, they run to Oban mainly because they could. Isn’t this the first year to Fort William, so it’s a bit early to say demand isn’t developing to Fort William yet?

Plus the intention wasn’t just bikes, it was somewhere to put bulky / wet outdoor gear. Also provides plenty of standing space!

More widely on the West Highland Line - the railway needs to be more responsive. There is now 17 coaches a day from the central belt, not quite 24/7 but frankly not far from it. Gives a feeling that there is significant untapped demand for the WHL with a better frequency.

There is also a need for ScotRail to prove it can reliably deliver the bike transport timetables. If a train is set to depart Queen Street without the scheduled 153, 20 people could be faced with being unable to travel at all.

HSTEd · 29 May 2025

HighlandStorm said:
More widely on the West Highland Line - the railway needs to be more responsive. There is now 17 coaches a day from the central belt, not quite 24/7 but frankly not far from it. Gives a feeling that there is significant untapped demand for the WHL with a better frequency.

Unfortunately Ember beats the railway from Glasgow to Fort William.
It crushes the railway from Edinburgh.

I'm not sure there is much the railway can really do against them, given the infrastructure limitations.

Starmill · 29 May 2025

Nothing. They're expensive to maintain, are a small non-standard fleet, and provide very little financial or economic benefit. Even if they did, they're life expired and will be scrapped in a few years regardless.

I'm here now · 29 May 2025

HSTEd said:
Unfortunately Ember beats the railway from Glasgow to Fort William.
It crushes the railway from Edinburgh.

I'm not sure there is much the railway can really do against them, given the infrastructure limitations.

Electrify it and cut corners, but then the 153 for AC will be useless. That’s a bit off topic though.

Bletchleyite · 29 May 2025

HSTEd said:
Unfortunately Ember beats the railway from Glasgow to Fort William.
It crushes the railway from Edinburgh.

The tourist market (which is a big part on this route) prefers a train, though.

AHBD · 29 May 2025

I thought lejog / jogler 'ers would like them on the far north and inverness lines?

scotraildriver · 30 May 2025

Bletchleyite said:
Perhaps then the 153s should just be converted to being seats throughout? Two 156s (as most WHL services are I think) would I guess be twelve spaces which is plenty.

It generally was. Only on the odd occasion were bikes turned away. But the Scottish Government is obsessed with cycling and clearly willing to spend huge amounts cash on it. But in reality bikes make up a tiny percentage of (free) journeys and I can't help feeling the money would be better spent elsewhere.

JohnRegular · 30 May 2025

lachlan said:
I presume the 153s are good for other large items of outdoor equipment (eg kayaks) and also adapted bikes or tandems. Has anyone seen these be carried?

I booked space for a tandem from Oban to Glasgow in 2023 and for whatever reason the 153 didn't turn up. Cue a van being summoned (eventually) to carry the tandem and several other cycles which could not be fit on the train.

NIT100 · 30 May 2025

I have also seen a few tandems on them. It was not a bad idea, when converted they could have done with adding a few more seats and slightly less bike space, but not worth another set of modifications to change it. Depending on how much longer 156s are expect to keep going (forever seems to be the current plan), and if East Kilbride line can be fully EMU operated, then it may be worth converting a couple of 156s back to 3-car as used to operate on the West Highland, and make the most use of the 7-car platform lengths

SuspectUsual · 30 May 2025

From what I’ve seen on the WHL, demand for bike spaces can fluctuate quite a lot, because cyclists often like to do stuff in decent sized groups. The 153s are the only way to deal with a group of 8 or 10 wanting to travel. The issue is it seems that isn’t happening often enough.

Have Scotrail marketed the 153s in the right places - cycling websites / blogs etc etc?

Snow1964 · 30 May 2025

SuspectUsual said:
From what I’ve seen on the WHL, demand for bike spaces can fluctuate quite a lot, because cyclists often like to do stuff in decent sized groups. The 153s are the only way to deal with a group of 8 or 10 wanting to travel. The issue is it seems that isn’t happening often enough.

Have Scotrail marketed the 153s in the right places - cycling websites / blogs etc etc?

I think part of the problem might be the tourist getting their bikes to the area, if you are part of a group of cyclists, and you live elsewhere in UK then all got to split up, and take different trains to take your bike to Scotland.

You are unlikely to find out about the service either, if you live elsewhere. In most parts of UK if you asked about taking a few bikes, they would laugh at you / say not possible. Regardless if you enquire at stations and if you look on local rail operators website, Unlikely to even mention the service.

AHBD · 30 May 2025

scotraildriver said:
It generally was. Only on the odd occasion were bikes turned away. But the Scottish Government is obsessed with cycling and clearly willing to spend huge amounts cash on it. But in reality bikes make up a tiny percentage of (free) journeys and I can't help feeling the money would be better spent elsewhere.

I don't see anything wrong with paying for an easy to use and access cycle space, and it avoids people suggesting getting rid of cycle spaces cause they are free...

My memory of 156 cycle spaces was of awkwardness, and those in IEPs are a disaster.

NIT100 · 30 May 2025

Snow1964 said:
I think part of the problem might be the tourist getting their bikes to the area, if you are part of a group of cyclists, and you live elsewhere in UK then all got to split up, and take different trains to take your bike to Scotland.

You are unlikely to find out about the service either, if you live elsewhere. In most parts of UK if you asked about taking a few bikes, they would laugh at you / say not possible. Regardless if you enquire at stations and if you look on local rail operators website, Unlikely to even mention the service.

And the current timings don't work for a daytrip from Glasgow.

lachlan · 30 May 2025

Ideally we would have multiple units with the equipment spaces built in as well as larger windows, comfy seats, and onboard catering. None of this seems too outlandish for the Scottish routes which are long, scenic journeys.

You've got to hope the converted 153s are a stop-gap while a more suitable train is developed.

Bletchleyite · 30 May 2025

lachlan said:
Ideally we would have multiple units with the equipment spaces built in as well as larger windows, comfy seats, and onboard catering. None of this seems too outlandish for the Scottish routes which are long, scenic journeys.

You've got to hope the converted 153s are a stop-gap while a more suitable train is developed.

Best (realistically affordable) thing would probably be 170s to be honest. You could always change the interior to add more bike spaces as EMR have done. The windows are huge and the slight bodyside taper means they give a good view up as well, so they're excellent panoramic units. Some work would clearly need to be done to clear them, but it's not exactly rocket science.

A mix of 3 and 4-car formations would be good, you could send the 4 to FW and the 3 to Oban if demand to Oban is lower.

There is a shortage of 170s to be fair, but sensible things like electrifying Chiltern/Uckfield would release some. Or Northern's new order could release theirs in due course, they aren't particularly well suited to Harrogate stoppers and the likes anyway.

It's a pity they don't have gangways, but aside from that they are just about perfect with some interior tweaking (more bike space, full window alignment of seats, maybe even a decent quality first class area for some extra income - you'd easily flog that to e.g. rich American tourists). Perhaps even a buffet and small cafe area, again you'll flog stuff to tourists.

I've edited the thread title by the way, we are drifting onto general talk of rolling stock over that way and I think the things are usefully inter-related rather than having a totally separate thread.

AHBD · 30 May 2025

Is there some reason they are not being used on the Inverness/ Far North line where they would suit touring cyclists / lejog * / jogle riders?

*Lands End to John to JohnOGroats as your honours already knew..

HighlandStorm · 30 May 2025

AHBD said:
Is there some reason they are not being used on the Inverness/ Far North line where they would suit touring cyclists / lejog * / jogle riders?

*Lands End to John to JohnOGroats as your honours already knew..

From FoFNL* comments / publications this was looked at for additional 153s, but add a 153 to the mix and the train can’t keep to 158 timings and the whole timetable falls apart.

In my experience the 153s have provided an improvement in service on the WHL, more seats and a desperately needed extra toilet! On the FNL however they’d degrade the service with slower journey times and be a poorer passenger experience vs 158s.

On improving passenger experience on the WHL, if the 222s do come to Scotland in 2026, the HSTs still have several years on lease! Just saying!

* FoFNL - Friends of the Far North Line

scotraildriver · 30 May 2025

Bletchleyite said:
Best (realistically affordable) thing would probably be 170s to be honest. You could always change the interior to add more bike spaces as EMR have done. The windows are huge and the slight bodyside taper means they give a good view up as well, so they're excellent panoramic units. Some work would clearly need to be done to clear them, but it's not exactly rocket science.

A mix of 3 and 4-car formations would be good, you could send the 4 to FW and the 3 to Oban if demand to Oban is lower.

There is a shortage of 170s to be fair, but sensible things like electrifying Chiltern/Uckfield would release some. Or Northern's new order could release theirs in due course, they aren't particularly well suited to Harrogate stoppers and the likes anyway.

It's a pity they don't have gangways, but aside from that they are just about perfect with some interior tweaking (more bike space, full window alignment of seats, maybe even a decent quality first class area for some extra income - you'd easily flog that to e.g. rich American tourists). Perhaps even a buffet and small cafe area, again you'll flog stuff to tourists.

I've edited the thread title by the way, we are drifting onto general talk of rolling stock over that way and I think the things are usefully inter-related rather than having a totally separate thread.

170s cannot operate on the West Highland Line, the bogie wheelbase is too long. Ironically the first 24 units delivered to ScotRail had a ready wired RETB space in the cab so it must have been a plan at some time.

AHBD · 30 May 2025

HighlandStorm said:
From FoFNL* comments / publications this was looked at for additional 153s, but add a 153 to the mix and the train can’t keep to 158 timings and the whole timetable falls apart.

In my experience the 153s have provided an improvement in service on the WHL, more seats and a desperately needed extra toilet! On the FNL however they’d degrade the service with slower journey times and be a poorer passenger experience vs 158s.

On improving passenger experience on the WHL, if the 222s do come to Scotland in 2026, the HSTs still have several years on lease! Just saying!

* FoFNL - Friends of the Far North Line

Thanks, a pity the 75mph 153 would slow the 90mph 158s down: a pity there wasn't a surplus of 158 or 159s to allow some 158 based active travel units.

Nb I think lejog cyclists will be less concerned about the 158 vs 153 passenger experience* and more about the ability to easily get their bike into a train (rather than awkwardly wrestle it into a small begrudged space) or more likely have to find another mode of transport.

Wheb introduced 158s didnt seem much improved over 156s to me, and in original form very awkward for bikes.

Brubulus · 30 May 2025

Bletchleyite said:
Best (realistically affordable) thing would probably be 170s to be honest. You could always change the interior to add more bike spaces as EMR have done. The windows are huge and the slight bodyside taper means they give a good view up as well, so they're excellent panoramic units. Some work would clearly need to be done to clear them, but it's not exactly rocket science.

A mix of 3 and 4-car formations would be good, you could send the 4 to FW and the 3 to Oban if demand to Oban is lower.

There is a shortage of 170s to be fair, but sensible things like electrifying Chiltern/Uckfield would release some. Or Northern's new order could release theirs in due course, they aren't particularly well suited to Harrogate stoppers and the likes anyway.

It's a pity they don't have gangways, but aside from that they are just about perfect with some interior tweaking (more bike space, full window alignment of seats, maybe even a decent quality first class area for some extra income - you'd easily flog that to e.g. rich American tourists). Perhaps even a buffet and small cafe area, again you'll flog stuff to tourists.

I've edited the thread title by the way, we are drifting onto general talk of rolling stock over that way and I think the things are usefully inter-related rather than having a totally separate thread.

Given that 170s can't operate on the WHL, in the medium/long term there should be a permanent replacement for the interim HST replacement on intercity routes alongside replacements for regional routes. Therefore a solution is the provision of 80M long units (4 car 755 with end gangways) with 2 derivatives. 1 with a micro buffet and first class and one without. On intercity routes a /1 and /0 would be coupled, while on regional routes the provision of catering and first class would be based on demand. Both types of units should have capacity for at least 4 bikes, but bike capacity should not be excessive as with the 153s.

The problem is the lower demand on Oban services while FW needs a premium service, which then presents the argument that the /1 model should be a very short 40M unit, that can bolster capacity, offer service to Oban, and enable a more modular railway, however would only have around 110 seats, even with a single toilet and only 2 bike spaces. This can be paired alongside a 120M unit with a buffet and first class, that can run FW services and Intercity, plus potentially 1-2 tourist trains per day on the FNL and the Kyle Line, which is likely a better overall solution.

The best option for the WHL and the Kyle Line in terms of subsidy reduction is for a specific tourism focused product in First Class - based on services such as the Glacier Express in Switzerland, that can charge very high ticket prices to subsidise the rest of the route.

ScotRail active travel 153s - what to do with them? (and related West Highland Line rolling stock options)

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Attachments

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member