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

[haggishunter]

Midges would certainly be happy with 170s with 1/3 2/3 doors on the WHL!

In terms of passenger facilities the significant short coming of the 156 for long runs at busy times of the year is only having 1 toilet per 2 car set.

 

[GrimShady]

170s aren't cleared for the route or have enough power for the gradients. Excluding these factors, Midges were the first thing I thought of

 

[47271]

I'm getting a funny feeling of deja vu here, can anyone help me?

I have a distinct childhood memory of brand new 156s operating to Mallaig as three car sets in the summer of 1989. So presumably three two car units reorganised as two three car sets, and with one inward facing cab.

Can anyone corroborate this, am I imagining things?

 

[GrimShady]

I'm getting a funny feeling of deja vu here, can anyone help me?

I have a distinct childhood memory of brand new 156s operating to Mallaig as three car sets in the summer of 1989. So presumably three two car units reorganised as two three car sets, and with one inward facing cab.

Can anyone corroborate this, am I imagining things?

They did indeed!

From day one capacity was an issue. The 37/4 formation used to be 3 x Mk2s one of which being a BSO with micro buffet if have remember correctly.

 

[haggishunter]

170s aren't cleared for the route or have enough power for the gradients. Excluding these factors, Midges were the first thing I thought of

Whatever anyone thinks of the 156s, turbostars or anything else (such as dragged 380s or 385s as others suggested) which opens the middle of the passenger saloon to the outside would be substantially worse on the WHL. Thankfully there seems to be quite a long list of reasons why 170s won't reach the WHL!

 

[Aictos]

I'm getting a funny feeling of deja vu here, can anyone help me?

I have a distinct childhood memory of brand new 156s operating to Mallaig as three car sets in the summer of 1989. So presumably three two car units reorganised as two three car sets, and with one inward facing cab.

Can anyone corroborate this, am I imagining things?

Indeed they did, during the summers of 1989 and 1992 a number of Class 156s were reformed into 3 car units.

The 3 car units during Summer 1989 would have been

156.445 formed of 52445 + 57499 + 57445
156.447 formed of 52447 + 52500 + 57447
156.449 formed of 52449 + 52499 + 57449
156.450 formed of 52450 + 57500 + 57450
156.453 formed of 52453 + 57435 + 57453
156.456 formed of 52456 + 57435 + 57456

This was made possible by splitting units 156499/500 when they were delivered to Haymarket in May 1989 and added as the centre car to four of the above, when 156435 was delivered to Haymarket from Corkerhill in July 1989 this enabled the last 2 units above to be made into 3 car sets.

They were however reformed into their original 2 car formations in September 1989.

As to Summer 1992, the entire West Highland fleet was transferred over to Corkerhill in May 1992 and between July to September 1992 again BR formed 3 car sets by splitting 156436/492/496.

In May 1992 the West Highland fleet was transferred to Corkerhill depot in Glasgow.
From July to September of that year 3-car sets were formed once more, by splitting units 156436/492/496.

156.445 formed of 52445 + 52496 + 57445
156.449 formed of 52449 + 57492 + 57449
156.450 formed of 52450 + 52492 + 57450
156.453 formed of 52453 + 57496 + 57453
156.465 formed of 52465 + 52436 + 57465
156.495 formed of 52495 + 57436 + 57495

More information can be found here.

 

[47271]

Thank you both for the detailed info on the 3 car sets that I recalled.

I particularly like 'from day one capacity was an issue'. So here we are 29 years later...

 

[InOban]

The trouble with the three car sets is that half of them had only one toilet for over 200 passengers.

In answer to other posts
1.156 or 158? NR have been asked to cost the gauging mods needed to clear the line for 158s. Presumably there will then be a discussion between Abellio, NR and Transport Scotland as to whether the works can be justified, or whetto agree a deviation from the franchise contract. I may hear at a meeting in October.

2. As others have said, the WHL units at present operate as part of a larger pool, and have turns before the first WHL service, between 15.30 and 18.21,and I assume between the arrival of the early Oban train an its 10.37 return. I have been told that after egip is complete, the units will be captive, which will allow a different timetable.

3. If the line is cleared for 158, I have a suggestion. Two units arrive in Glasgow on a direct working from Fife via the Dalmeny chord. These could deliver an additional seasonal train to FW. One of the units could be marketed to the tour operators (Highland Experience and the like). They could offer an enhanced experience at whatever fare their clients will pay. It doesn't have to be just a day return by train. They could go one way by road through Glencoe, or it coukd be done as part of a 2-3 West Highland tour.

 

[ANWP Tom]

156 diagrams that are in and out of Queen Streen normally involve a stirling/Falkirk Grahamston out and back inbetween whl turns.

 

[GrimShady]

Thank you both for the detailed info on the 3 car sets that I recalled.

I particularly like 'from day one capacity was an issue'. So here we are 29 years later...

Progress!

37/4 and MK2 formations were reintroduced untill 1994 at weekends to handle the tourist traffic. Even then capacity was an issue especially at weekends in the summer months. Privatisation came, that was the end of anyone giving two hoots about the WHL.

 

[capital12]

Indeed they did, during the summers of 1989 and 1992 a number of Class 156s were reformed into 3 car units.

The 3 car units during Summer 1989 would have been

156.445 formed of 52445 + 57499 + 57445
156.447 formed of 52447 + 52500 + 57447
156.449 formed of 52449 + 52499 + 57449
156.450 formed of 52450 + 57500 + 57450
156.453 formed of 52453 + 57435 + 57453
156.456 formed of 52456 + 57435 + 57456

This was made possible by splitting units 156499/500 when they were delivered to Haymarket in May 1989 and added as the centre car to four of the above, when 156435 was delivered to Haymarket from Corkerhill in July 1989 this enabled the last 2 units above to be made into 3 car sets.

They were however reformed into their original 2 car formations in September 1989.

As to Summer 1992, the entire West Highland fleet was transferred over to Corkerhill in May 1992 and between July to September 1992 again BR formed 3 car sets by splitting 156436/492/496.

In May 1992 the West Highland fleet was transferred to Corkerhill depot in Glasgow.
From July to September of that year 3-car sets were formed once more, by splitting units 156436/492/496.

156.445 formed of 52445 + 52496 + 57445
156.449 formed of 52449 + 57492 + 57449
156.450 formed of 52450 + 52492 + 57450
156.453 formed of 52453 + 57496 + 57453
156.465 formed of 52465 + 52436 + 57465
156.495 formed of 52495 + 57436 + 57495

More information can be found here.

As it’s nearly 30 years ago it doesn’t really matter that much, but I’m intrigued as to the reason for putting the extra coach in the middle when it surely would have been a lot less hassle to put it on one end?!

 

[Glenmutchkin]

156 diagrams that are in and out of Queen Streen normally involve a stirling/Falkirk Grahamston out and back inbetween whl turns.

QS to Falkirk Grahamston is already wired. Stirling will be in the foreseeable future so those 156 trips are going to disappear.

 

[Journeyman]

THe first RETB 156 for full refurbishment has enetered the wotks in the shape of 156458. We'll see how well thats received in a few weeks time.

Please tell me it's not getting ironing boards.

 

[Journeyman]

No-one would dream of ordering brand new stock for the West Highland.

Except for the Mark 5 sleepers, of course.

But again, they're built for other services and not exclusively for the WHL. Have you seen how empty the Fort William sleeper is in the depths of winter? No way you could justify that on the WHL alone!

 

[Journeyman]

Progress!

37/4 and MK2 formations were reintroduced untill 1994 at weekends to handle the tourist traffic. Even then capacity was an issue especially at weekends in the summer months. Privatisation came, that was the end of anyone giving two hoots about the WHL.

Oh, come on. Oban's got the best service it's had in years. BR never ran six trains a day there.

 

[GrimShady]

Please tell me it's not getting ironing boards.

God I hope not!

Oh, come on. Oban's got the best service it's had in years. BR never ran six trains a day there.

Maybe so, but 30 years of the same clapped out DMUs?

 

[Journeyman]

Maybe so, but 30 years of the same clapped out DMUs?

But the loco hauled stock you were waxing lyrical about was pretty clapped out in 1994 as well.

Personally I have no issues with the 156 on the WHL and find it quite comfortable, with good seat alignment and views. Yes, I'd like something better, but I recognise why it's problematic. Clearly the 156s don't put many people off, the trains are still crowded at the height of summer.

 

[GrimShady]

But the loco hauled stock you were waxing lyrical about was pretty clapped out in 1994 as well.

A MK2 comfort wise still beats the 156 hands down, better seats, quiet and vibration free.

I know lots of locals who detest 156s and always have. Being 6ft tall I find them extremely uncomfortable with no leg room. Always a joy having to stand all the way to/from Queen Street is always a pleasure!

 

[Journeyman]

A MK2 comfort wise still beats the 156 hands down, better seats, quiet and vibration free.

I know lots of locals who detest 156s and always have. Being 6ft tall I find them extremely uncomfortable with no leg room. Always a joy having to stand all the way from to Queen Street is always a pleasure!

Bring back a Mark 2 and see how they react to it - it's had an extra 24 years to age and moulder since then. I'm not buying the "LHCS = automatically better than DMUs" argument. They're less accessible, more expensive to operate, less reliable and not a practical solution to today's problems.

 

[GrimShady]

Bring back a Mark 2 and see how they react to it - it's had an extra 24 years to age and moulder since then. I'm not buying the "LHCS = automatically better than DMUs" argument. They're less accessible, more expensive to operate, less reliable and not a practical solution to today's problems.

I'm not suggesting to bring back Mk2s. LHCS is renowned for being far more comfortable than DMUs. I personally would prefer LHCS however I realise DMUs are far more likely. DMUs are fine if there's a good salon spec.

I don't subscribe to your view of being less accessible, less reliable, more expensive etc, that maybe be true of older stock not modern. As a trailer there is far less that can go wrong mechanically than with a DMU. Many operators would seem to disagree with your position of not being a solution to today's problems.

I would guess that a follow on order of Mk5s for example is far cheaper than and new customised DMU class.

 

[Journeyman]

LHCS is renowned for being far more comfortable than DMUs.

Is it? That's a view held by enthusiasts. 99.9% of normals don't care. They just want something that meets their needs.

I don't subscribe to your view of being less accessible, less reliable, more expensive etc, that maybe be true of older stock not modern. As a trailer there is far less that can go wrong mechanically than with a DMU.

But you were talking about Mark 2s, which are, and always have been, unreliable. The electrical systems are hopeless and fail with depressing regularity - look at the problems Caledonian Sleeper are having. And yes, they are less accessible, because they don't comply with PRM-TSI regulations, and they're less reliable than almost all modern DMU classes.

Many operators would seem to disagree with your position of not being a solution to today's problems.

I would guess that a follow on order of Mk5s for example is far cheaper than and new customised DMU class.

One operator has ordered them, in fixed five-coach sets for a very different service. They might be cheap, but the locos sure as hell aren't, and this solution is absolutely not practical for a service that carries hardly anyone in the winter and lots of people in the summer - it isn't flexible enough, and doesn't easily offer portion working.

The WHL won't get a customised DMU class and it doesn't need one. There's plenty of stock that can be cascaded to it in years to come.

 

[GrimShady]

Is it? That's a view held by enthusiasts. 99.9% of normals don't care. They just want something that meets their needs.



But you were talking about Mark 2s, which are, and always have been, unreliable. The electrical systems are hopeless and fail with depressing regularity - look at the problems Caledonian Sleeper are having. And yes, they are less accessible, because they don't comply with PRM-TSI regulations, and they're less reliable than almost all modern DMU classes.



One operator has ordered them, in fixed five-coach sets for a very different service. They might be cheap, but the locos sure as hell aren't, and this solution is absolutely not practical for a service that carries hardly anyone in the winter and lots of people in the summer - it isn't flexible enough, and doesn't easily offer portion working.

The WHL won't get a customised DMU class and it doesn't need one. There's plenty of stock that can be cascaded to it in years to come.

It is, the traveling public aren't completely clueless.

I was talking about Mk2s back then pointing out the inadequacy of the new 156s back then. Obviously they're in no fit state to be used now. No wonder the sleeper is having issues with stock from the 70s that's probably never be rewired.

Two operators have ordered them, maybe more in the future? There are still other operators using LHCS throughout the UK, ScotRails one of them.

 

[Journeyman]

It is, the traveling public aren't completely clueless.

I was talking about Mk2s back then pointing out the inadequacy of the new 156s back then. Obviously they're in no fit state to be used now. No wonder the sleeper is having issues with stock from the 70s that's probably never be rewired.

Two operators have ordered them, maybe more in the future? There are still other operators using LHCS throughout the UK, ScotRails one of them.

In terms of what the difference between a DMU and a loco-hauled train is, yes, the general public is completely clueless. They want a train with a reasonable comfort level, a decent chance of getting a seat, and a few modern things like wifi and power sockets. A DMU can capably deliver all of this. It is also nonsense to say "LHCS is always inherently superior to DMUs" because it's a subjective opinion, and patently not true.

I didn't count the Caledonian Sleeper Mark 5 order because they operate a completely different kind of service and obviously multiple units can't be used for it. In terms of WHL daytime services, the Mark 5 is not a sensible or cost-effective solution, and won't be ordered. At some point, new DMUs will be needed to replace the 156s across ScotRail, and it's highly likely that a common solution will be adopted for all routes they will be required to operate on long-term.

 

[haggishunter]

Is it? That's a view held by enthusiasts. 99.9% of normals don't care. They just want something that meets their needs.

Having a preference for a train that doesn't have underfloor diesel engines doesn't make someone an enthusiast. In terms of the Highland Mainline and East Coast from Aberdeen to the central belt a lot of people go out of their way to use the LNER HST services over ScotRail DMUs.

I know there has been mention of it before, but the proposal for either early weekend Northbound or late Fri / Sat evening HST services and corresponding return on the WHL is something which has been mentioned to more than one body involved in West Coast outdoor/tourism sector at ministerial level, because there's been discussions back and fore about whether evening or early morning departures for such a service from Glasgow would bring greater benefits to those travelling for outdoor recreation and which would likely increase visitor spend in Lochaber.

 

[Journeyman]

Having a preference for a train that doesn't have underfloor diesel engines doesn't make someone an enthusiast. In terms of the Highland Mainline and East Coast from Aberdeen to the central belt a lot of people go out of their way to use the LNER HST services over ScotRail DMUs.

I suspect that's got something to do with the superior on-board service and much greater amount of space on board. You have a point, but I suspect the locations of the engines have absolutely nothing to do with it, as most people won't know or care. I agree that the HST is a superior train to the alternative, but the WHL is rather a different kettle of fish as it's highly unlikely that you'd have a distinction like this on it.

I just think "LHCS is always superior/more comfortable/preferred to DMUs" is a lazy generalisation that most of the time isn't true. Yes, if there's a superior type of train on offer, people might opt to use it, but it's got nothing to do with the type of traction, which is something only a tiny number of people care about.

 

[GrimShady]

In terms of what the difference between a DMU and a loco-hauled train is, yes, the general public is completely clueless. They want a train with a reasonable comfort level, a decent chance of getting a seat, and a few modern things like wifi and power sockets. A DMU can capably deliver all of this. It is also nonsense to say "LHCS is always inherently superior to DMUs" because it's a subjective opinion, and patently not true.

I didn't count the Caledonian Sleeper Mark 5 order because they operate a completely different kind of service and obviously multiple units can't be used for it. In terms of WHL daytime services, the Mark 5 is not a sensible or cost-effective solution, and won't be ordered. At some point, new DMUs will be needed to replace the 156s across ScotRail, and it's highly likely that a common solution will be adopted for all routes they will be required to operate on long-term.

Haggishunter beat me to it, I was going to mention the public's preference for HSTs heading north than the ScotRail DMUs.

With regards to being sensible or cost effective, well that all depends on what kind of service we want in the future. Not everything has to be multiple units.

 

[Journeyman]

Haggishunter beat me to it, I was going to mention the public's prefrenpre for HSTs heading north than the ScotRail DMUs.

With regards to being sensible or cost effective, well that all depends on what kind of service we want in the future. Not everything has to be multiple units.

I'm pretty sure, given the economics of it, on the WHL it does.

 

[RLBH]

At some point, new DMUs will be needed to replace the 156s across ScotRail, and it's highly likely that a common solution will be adopted for all routes they will be required to operate on long-term.

True enough - but the routes needing new DMUs will mostly be of similar character to the West Highland Line, so something geared towards that kind of market wouldn't be unreasonable.

I suspect that's got something to do with the superior on-board service and much greater amount of space on board. You have a point, but I suspect the locations of the engines have absolutely nothing to do with it, as most people won't know or care. I agree that the HST is a superior train to the alternative, but the WHL is rather a different kettle of fish as it's highly unlikely that you'd have a distinction like this on it.

I just think "LHCS is always superior/more comfortable/preferred to DMUs" is a lazy generalisation that most of the time isn't true. Yes, if there's a superior type of train on offer, people might opt to use it, but it's got nothing to do with the type of traction, which is something only a tiny number of people care about.

People do notice the increased level of vibration on DMUs compared to LHCS - not all the time, but when the traction is working hard it's very noticeable. It seems to be a particular issue on the HML because, for some reason, going flat out up Slochd seems to excite the resonant frequency of some part of the internal fittings, which gets very tedious. But that's an edge case, pretty much limited to that rolling stock on that particular part of the network.

By and large, the travelling public will prefer any new train to any old train, simply because it isn't worn out. A refurbished Pacer would probably be fairly popular for that reason!

 

[Journeyman]

True enough - but the routes needing new DMUs will mostly be of similar character to the West Highland Line, so something geared towards that kind of market wouldn't be unreasonable.

By and large, the travelling public will prefer any new train to any old train, simply because it isn't worn out. A refurbished Pacer would probably be fairly popular for that reason!

Yup. Given that the remaining 156 routes will be quite long and reasonably scenic, there may be a case for a slightly more tourist-orientated train, but don't hold your breath waiting for fine dining and vista dome cars etc - I think you might get the end-doored version of the CAF Civity, which looks like a very nice train and perfectly suited to the routes concerned. It also has very good sound insulation, which will make it better than current DMUs in terms of noise. It's fairly obvious the public would like a quieter train, but they won't care how it's delivered, and where the engines are. That's the point I'm making. It's only hardcore enthusiasts who wibble about this stuff. Yes, it's interesting that TPE have ordered LHCS for the first time in years, but their operations are entirely different to a line like the West Highland, and I don't think it would be a solution that would work.

Agreed, most normals think that an extensively-refurbed train is actually new. I overheard several remarks to that effect when SWT transformed the 455s.

 

[jopsuk]

It is, the traveling public aren't completely clueless.There are still other operators using LHCS throughout the UK, ScotRails one of them.

Scotrail, Northern and Greater Anglia only use LCHS with diesel locos because there's a shortage of suitable DMUs for their services.