5x Class 153 conversion to bike and baggage vans for Scotrail

[The_Engineer]

So this may have been mentioned elsewhere in the thread, but why the hell are DMUs being converted to luggage vans when we currently have a shortage of DMUs and services in GWR land are being regularly short formed because of that?

Given the commitment to "carrying cyclists" I'd imagine the Scotrail ones may have a considerably larger cycle area and less seating than that

As the internal options are still to be specified, I am sure ScotRail will arrive at the best option for the traffic. I can't see that less than 50% of the seats will be retained, with cycle storage and luggage (backpack) racks in the rest. I'd agree that a disabled toilet is a possibility, catering has NOT been mentioned except by speculation on this thread. I'd agree that the layout shown on the Angel trains website is aimed customers wanting a more normal inter-urban use. It will be interesting to see what the final configuration will be!

 

[Macwomble]

You sure? I'm surprised they would enjoy being squashed in the smaller cab at one end!

Simple solution......couple the "small" cab end to the 156...sorted!

 

[InOban]

I don't believe that there is any intention of fitting a disabled toilet. Whichever train they are coupled to, a156 or a 158, will have that facility.

After all the reason these units will be available is that it isn't worth refurbishing them to PRM requirements. For any sort of business case to stand up, the modifications will be minimal, and confined to removing seats.

 

[adamedwards]

I do hope the cycle bit will take a tandem, as then with Pendolino to Glasgow the west coast of Scotland will be accessible. We'd been planning to take ours to Edinburgh and ride to Inverness, but the IETs have stopped that. You used to be able to take a tandem in East Coast HSTs and Mk4 DVTs, but no more.

 

[Aictos]

Simple solution......couple the "small" cab end to the 156...sorted!

Yes but they could also do what they did with the 150s and the 158s and that's place the 153 in the middle of the 156 and besides the 153s would need to be fitted with RETB equipment if they were going to be at either end as you proposed which I don't think will happen.

 

[Journeyman]

Yes but they could also do what they did with the 150s and the 158s and that's place the 153 in the middle of the 156 and besides the 153s would need to be fitted with RETB equipment if they were going to be at either end as you proposed which I don't think will happen.

I've seen it reported elsewhere that the 153 will indeed go in the middle, making WHL trains pairs of three-car units.

 

[AlistairCowell]

I've seen it reported elsewhere that the 153 will indeed go in the middle, making WHL trains pairs of three-car units.

I have read somewhere that the Class 153s would become centre cars with cabs removed, but it is not confirmed.

 

[GrimShady]

I have read somewhere that the Class 153s would become centre cars with cabs removed, but it is not confirmed.

Surely it's would be better just isolating the control desk and leaving the cabs in situ otherwise it's an extra expense for little gain.

 

[Journeyman]

Surely it's would be better just isolating the control desk and leaving the cabs in situ otherwise it's an extra expense for little gain.

...especially given that one of the cabs is absolutely tiny anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

...especially given that one of the cabs is absolutely tiny anyway.

A driver I know at GWR prefers the small end, he says it's better laid out and due to the shape of the desk actually has better legroom.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

A driver I know at GWR prefers the small end, he says it's better laid out and due to the shape of the desk actually has better legroom.

I've heard similar from a Northern driver (and former guard): namely that a bit more thought went into making sure the small cabs were designed in a way that didn't hinder the driver's ability to do the job in comfort- something Leyland neglected to do when building the 155s originally. For a guard however, the smaller cabs were said to be extremely cramped on the secondman's side.

 

[GrimShady]

I was reading somewhere recently (can't for the life of me remember where) that they are to used as middle coaches and will be in service this coming winter!

Any insiders care to comment?

 

[AndrewE]

1. For a guard however, the smaller cabs were said to be extremely cramped on the secondman's side.

   Why not sit on the driver's side then?
   

 

[Aictos]

Actually instead of converting the 153s to simply carry baggage and bikes why don't the powers to be have a look at what Angel are proposing with their Class 156s and run them as 3 cars especially their ideas for the West Highland lines actually seem to be quite good and they seem to be listening to what people actually want.

The link is here, I won't spoil it too much but one idea that they do have involves a scenic coach as well as a mini bar area which no doubt will make people here quite happy

 

[GrimShady]

Very nice!

But what are the chances?

 

[NotATrainspott]

Given what has happened with the 321 Renatus project, why would TS/SR ever want to do something similar for a DMU fleet? A refurbishment on that scale would cost a very significant amount of money but it won't magically make the trains last another 40 years. The 156 was a good design for BR for the nadir of rail usage across GB, since it could do most regional journeys reasonably well. Now that rail is on the up and there's a reasonably compelling case for dedicated scenic trains, why bother bodging this together? A new train could have an even more sophisticated layout and set of onboard features.

 

[43096]

Given what has happened with the 321 Renatus project, why would TS/SR ever want to do something similar for a DMU fleet? A refurbishment on that scale would cost a very significant amount of money but it won't magically make the trains last another 40 years. The 156 was a good design for BR for the nadir of rail usage across GB, since it could do most regional journeys reasonably well. Now that rail is on the up and there's a reasonably compelling case for dedicated scenic trains, why bother bodging this together? A new train could have an even more sophisticated layout and set of onboard features.

Are you aware of just what a financial basket case the West Highland lines are? Very difficult to justify brand new stock for that route.

 

[Darandio]

Are you aware of just what a financial basket case the West Highland lines are? Very difficult to justify brand new stock for that route.

I'm also finding it hard to justify a 3-car Class 156 with a 'snug' on the route.

 

[GrimShady]

Are you aware of just what a financial basket case the West Highland lines are? Very difficult to justify brand new stock for that route.

Your looking at it the wrong way. The rail service should not be a purely profit and loss case (remember that thinking in the 60s). It should be a tool for improvident of the rural area. Like all seasonal business, you sell hard in the summer to make up for losses in the winter, and both those lines are very busy in the summer!

With the WHL your main attraction is free, i.e. the outstanding scenery, however no one is going to use your service if its clapped out crap. These thing need marketed properly too. Scenic trains were popular in the 80s/early 90s only to come to and end due to privatisation.

With your argument a certain western ferry operator would be running about with ships from the 50s with no amenities.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Are you aware of just what a financial basket case the West Highland lines are? Very difficult to justify brand new stock for that route.

That isn't how rolling stock financing works. KeolisAmey is replacing essentially the entire Welsh rail fleet despite it being as much of a financial basket-case, because the traditional notion of old stock ending up on the loss-making lines no longer holds. I mean, remember that the 156s themselves were new once, and were on these sorts of basket-case lines from the very beginning of their existence. The reason this happened was that new Sprinters were a better option than running loco-hauled trains, even if those trains were essentially worth nothing more than scrap. Operational costs are becoming more and more significant on the modern railway because trains need to be used far more intensively than they have before.

 

[HLE]

Keep the cabs in place. Waste of money removing them for little to no gain.

 

[43096]

Your looking at it the wrong way. The rail service should not be a purely profit and loss case (remember that thinking in the 60s). It should be a tool for improvident of the rural area. Like all seasonal business, you sell hard in the summer to make up for losses in the winter, and both those lines are very busy in the summer!

With the WHL your main attraction is free, i.e. the outstanding scenery, however no one is going to use your service if its clapped out crap. These thing need marketed properly too. Scenic trains were popular in the 80s/early 90s only to come to and end due to privatisation.

With your argument a certain western ferry operator would be running about with ships from the 50s with no amenities.

Ah, the magic money tree funds everything then.

 

[43096]

That isn't how rolling stock financing works. KeolisAmey is replacing essentially the entire Welsh rail fleet despite it being as much of a financial basket-case, because the traditional notion of old stock ending up on the loss-making lines no longer holds. I mean, remember that the 156s themselves were new once, and were on these sorts of basket-case lines from the very beginning of their existence. The reason this happened was that new Sprinters were a better option than running loco-hauled trains, even if those trains were essentially worth nothing more than scrap. Operational costs are becoming more and more significant on the modern railway because trains need to be used far more intensively than they have before.

The Sprinters offered considerable cost savings over both LHCS and the old bog carts - effectively they were bought on a 2 replace 3 basis - so there was a clear business case for doing so. How much of a cost saving would new stock on the West Highland offer over 156s or 158s?

 

[InOban]

Your looking at it the wrong way. The rail service should not be a purely profit and loss case (remember that thinking in the 60s). It should be a tool for improvident of the rural area. Like all seasonal business, you sell hard in the summer to make up for losses in the winter, and both those lines are very busy in the summer!

With the WHL your main attraction is free, i.e. the outstanding scenery, however no one is going to use your service if its clapped out crap. These thing need marketed properly too. Scenic trains were popular in the 80s/early 90s only to come to and end due to privatisation.

With your argument a certain western ferry operator would be running about with ships from the 50s with no amenities.

Can I make a comparison?
The traditional ferry service to orkney is provided by a full service ferry which operates twice a day, three times in summer between Scrabster and stromness. By full set I mean that it has a large passenger capacity, and offers everything from a cup of coffee to a full meal. It is highly subsidised, and because the boat weighs thousands of tons, it has a huge carbon footprint.

The recent competition runs a bare bones service between Gill Bay and St Margaret's Hope. It operates up to five times a day, uses much lighter boats which use a fraction of the fuel, with a much smaller crew. It needs no subsidy, and carries the vast majority of the traffic. They're getting another new boat.

It supports the economy of Orkney by allowing people and goods to be carried at lower cost. And personally I think the AYR service to Mull should be similarly provided by a smaller, more basic boat operating a much longer day. No

These tourist-orientated luxury services make no sense unless there are enough people prepared to pay fares which are a multiple of the normal fare. In some cases there are: you can travel between FW and Mallaig and back for around £14.40 on a 156 or £35 on the unsubsidised Jacobite.

So, if you think a luxury service on the rest of the WHL is justified, you have to ask whether there is a market prepared to spend a multiple of standard fare for your enhanced service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are you aware of just what a financial basket case the West Highland lines are? Very difficult to justify brand new stock for that route.

The Conwy Valley is getting just that...

 

[haggishunter]

Ah, the magic money tree funds everything then.

So are you going to share your figures on this basket case then? Would those be figures that take full account of the economic importance of a line that is central to underpinning a large part of the critically important tourism industry in the West Highlands?

Even if you include the Jacobite, the off rail spend in the area that primarily exists because of the railway is going to be multiples of the farebox. Perhaps the Scottish ski industry might offer a lose parallel, economic research reckons on 3x the on mountain spend is spent off mountain in surrounding communities and for CairnGorm and Nevis Range with a bigger share of short break stays that multiplier is higher than the national average. Given a lot of visitors traveling for rail / train connected reasons will be travelling a lot further than most Scottish skiers are - that off rail but rail related spent multiplier is going to be even higher.

It would be fairly typical of the right wing to say 'magic money tree is subsidising this all'. But pull it all down and what are the costs, what are the costs of dealing with the economic and social dislocation, the loss of businesses, jobs, thus loss of tax revenue and replacement by benefit expenditure, costs from resultant ill health due to the economic damage (something that Scotland is all to familiar with).

Price of everything, value of nothing. Of course as pointed out the 156s were new when introduced onto the WHL.

 

[haggishunter]

Can I make a comparison?
The traditional ferry service to orkney is provided by a full service ferry which operates twice a day, three times in summer between Scrabster and stromness. By full set I mean that it has a large passenger capacity, and offers everything from a cup of coffee to a full meal. It is highly subsidised, and because the boat weighs thousands of tons, it has a huge carbon footprint.

The recent competition runs a bare bones service between Gill Bay and St Margaret's Hope. It operates up to five times a day, uses much lighter boats which use a fraction of the fuel, with a much smaller crew. It needs no subsidy, and carries the vast majority of the traffic. They're getting another new boat.

It supports the economy of Orkney by allowing people and goods to be carried at lower cost. And personally I think the AYR service to Mull should be similarly provided by a smaller, more basic boat operating a much longer day. No
.

A point missing from that comparison, the MV Hamnavoe was sized and equipped as it is because it has to be able to do Lerwick <-> Aberdeen crossings as well as Scrabster <-> Stromness to cover for when one of the larger ships is undergoing maintenance. The Gills Bay ferries don't have to do anything else.

 

[Rick1984]

I thought you'd have the 153 at one end of the formation so you can take it off and join as needed?

 

[Scotrail84]

I was reading somewhere recently (can't for the life of me remember where) that they are to used as middle coaches and will be in service this coming winter!

Any insiders care to comment?

When loadings are generally much, much lighter?

 

[Scotrail84]

Keep the cabs in place. Waste of money removing them for little to no gain.

Especially when they potentially could be used elsewhere on the ScotRail network to strengthen as required when not in use on the WHL