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

[Bletchleyite]

I cannot understand the logic of ‘inserting’ the 153 into the middle of a 156. If the dogbox fails, the whole unit is then a failure, whereas if it’s bolted on at one end it’s simply uncoupled and the service can still run as a 156 or a 153.

Any advantage doing this over coupling it on the end?

If it was permanently in the formation it would be allowed to retain a non-compliant bog, because it's part of a unit that has a compliant one?

They could remove it to create more luggage/bike space, though.

 

[dk1]

I cannot understand the logic of ‘inserting’ the 153 into the middle of a 156. If the dogbox fails, the whole unit is then a failure, whereas if it’s bolted on at one end it’s simply uncoupled and the service can still run as a 156 or a 153.

Any advantage doing this over coupling it on the end?

The most important consideration here should be that the small cab is buried in at ALL times.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The most important consideration here should be that the small cab is buried in at ALL times.

Opinions may vary (see a few posts back)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Talking of cabs, though, one benefit of making it an intermediate vehicle would be the cost saving on not having to maintain the cabs, which could be completely removed. This would also allow the #2 vestibule to be extended back to full size.

 

[dk1]

Talking of cabs, though, one benefit of making it an intermediate vehicle would be the cost saving on not having to maintain the cabs, which could be completely removed. This would also allow the #2 vestibule to be extended back to full size.

Exactly. And there is no more chance of the 153 failing than one of the 156 vehicles.

 

[craigybagel]

That's the way I'm reading it. Apparently some drivers prefer the #2 cab!

Yes, allegedly it actually has more legroom!

The most important consideration here should be that the small cab is buried in at ALL times.

No allegedly about it - the small cab really DOES have more legroom then the large. The large cab is nicer to work from for guards though, as you get a full size desk to do paperwork on on the second mans side - in the small cab it's more like a 6 inch ledge.

Personally, I expected the 153s to go in the middle since it would mean they wouldn't have to have RETB fitted.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I wonder if the DDA rules are being interpreted to mean that the 153s don't need a disabled toilet, or to have their existing one ripped out, or to be permanently joined to a compliant train. It would have to hinge on the definition of a passenger train in the law. It could be put in policy that on its own, a 153 with these modifications does not count as a passenger train and cannot be used in service alone. It only counts as a train and can be used in service when joined to another train, which will have to be compliant. An analogy would be a train class which is made up of sub-units which are technically separate with different unit numbers, but can't ever run independently in service. There have been a few cases of this through history with single-ended multiple units, e.g. the 2-car Class 502 in Merseyside or the Eurostar half-sets. This means a 153 would be allowed to run on its own for ECS workings, so it'd still need both cabs.

Whether or not a 153 would be allowed to run on its own in passenger service under exceptional circumstances would still be a question. It'd probably have to be part of the deal to run them with Transport Scotland, since there's a reasonable case to make that a 153 on its own with a slightly odd interior could run an off-peak Anniesland service once in a while if the alternative is complete cancellation. It might have to have the toilet locked out to be legally compliant, but it'd have to be policy that this could never be relied upon for normal diagramming purposes. If it all meets the letter of the law, then this would probably defend Transport Scotland and ScotRail from complaints about missing the spirit of the law too from public interest groups.

 

[InOban]

My information is that the toilet will be not be modified, at least it means that a three coach train will haveve two toilets. I assume they will have to fit a retention tank.
It would be possible for the unit to be attached semipermanently if the 3-coach sets were used on Anniesland services between Oban turns and never needed to run joined to a FW service.

 

[HLE]

The most important consideration here should be that the small cab is buried in at ALL times.

I’m with you on that one.

@Bletchleyite didn’t realise they maintained the dogbox cabs round here! Filthy isn’t the word

 

[diligentdave]

Having spoken to Scotrail directly about these units I am told that the toilet will be removed from the 153's and half the carriage will be converted into a bike/ski rack configuration and the unit will be attached to whatever unit (presumably an Inverness 158) as an additional carriage, not in the middle of.

 

[gingertom]

Having spoken to Scotrail directly about these units I am told that the toilet will be removed from the 153's and half the carriage will be converted into a bike/ski rack configuration and the unit will be attached to whatever unit (presumably an Inverness 158) as an additional carriage, not in the middle of.

will they have RETB equipment fitted or will there be a shunt at termini to place them at the rear for their return working?

 

[mullac30]

will they have RETB equipment fitted or will there be a shunt at termini to place them at the rear for their return working?

They could just use portable RETB equipment (like the 800 proposal) instead of going to the effort of installing it.

 

[InOban]

Having spoken to Scotrail directly about these units I am told that the toilet will be removed from the 153's and half the carriage will be converted into a bike/ski rack configuration and the unit will be attached to whatever unit (presumably an Inverness 158) as an additional carriage, not in the middle of.

You must have spoken to a different person in Scotrail. Of course they won't be attached to a 158 since they're for the WHL, specifically for Oban, so it's a 156. And I was told that the toilet will remain, but unmodified, so at least the near 200 passengers will have two toilets. The tank might last to Oban.

 

[HLE]

Retention tank? Going all out with these mods!

 

[InOban]

The supply of water.

 

[Christmas]

I can see them being used on EK and other peak services in the winter months to strenghten 2 or 4 cars. No way will they be standing at Corkerhill for months on end doing nothing.

 

[43096]

You must have spoken to a different person in Scotrail. Of course they won't be attached to a 158 since they're for the WHL, specifically for Oban, so it's a 156. And I was told that the toilet will remain, but unmodified, so at least the near 200 passengers will have two toilets. The tank might last to Oban.

You must have missed the current Modern Railways where Alex Hynes states that full deployment will be 2 x West Highland, 1 x Far North, 1 x Kyle and 1 x spare - so they will be attached to 158s, regardless of the 158s-for-West-Highland plan.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

You must have spoken to a different person in Scotrail. Of course they won't be attached to a 158 since they're for the WHL, specifically for Oban, so it's a 156. And I was told that the toilet will remain, but unmodified, so at least the near 200 passengers will have two toilets. The tank might last to Oban.

The toilet would still need some modifications. Not all disabilities require a wheelchair.

 

[HLE]

If there is a compliant toilet in the other unit then why the need to mess with the 153 toilet?

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Can you pass a wheelchair through a Cl.153 end gangway? I know the end gangway on a 158 is too narrow which is most apparent on a GWR 3-car set, the difference in width is about 4-5 inches IMO.

 

[HLE]

Doubt it, it’s fairly narrow

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If there is a compliant toilet in the other unit then why the need to mess with the 153 toilet?

My understanding of the post-2019 rules are that small toilets still need to be compliant in terms of things like grab handles; buttons; and Braille signage, along with retention tanks needing to be fitted. The toilets on 153s as they are now would need to be locked out or removed.

 

[HLE]

Stick the grab handles in then and a tank it’s no biggie. Keep first cla- the bog open.

 

[Townsend Hook]

The simplest thing for DDA compliance would be simply to remove/permanently lock out the 153 bog. As they’re only gonna have limited seating, and will of course be running with a unit with a compliant bog, doesn’t seem to be any point in doing anything else.

 

[mcmad]

other than there then only being 1 for, in the summer, overcrowded 2 1/2 coach train on a 3 3/4 hour journey.

 

[Grinner]

Grab handles and Braille signs shouldn't be that hard to fit so I'd be surprised if DDA compliance is a reason to lock out the toilets. Retention tanks are the more pressing issue I would assume.

 

[Journeyman]

Grab handles and Braille signs shouldn't be that hard to fit so I'd be surprised if DDA compliance is a reason to lock out the toilets. Retention tanks are the more pressing issue I would assume.

I've read some leasing company and franchise bid stuff about making the 153s fully compliant - it's very, very difficult if you want a standalone, fully compliant vehicle, but if you're running them in tandem with other units, it's quite simple.

Basically, you can't fit a full-size accessible toilet in where the toilet is currently located, because of other equipment nearby, so you'd have to place it at the other end of the vehicle, and the impact on seating capacity is quite significant - although, that said, there's more of a tendency to use 153s to strengthen services now, rather than operate alone.

If you keep the existing toilet, the required upgrades for compliance are quite simple and do-able. The expense of a full upgrade is hard to justify given the amount of likely life they have left.

 

[Grinner]

I've read some leasing company and franchise bid stuff about making the 153s fully compliant - it's very, very difficult if you want a standalone, fully compliant vehicle, but if you're running them in tandem with other units, it's quite simple.

Basically, you can't fit a full-size accessible toilet in where the toilet is currently located, because of other equipment nearby, so you'd have to place it at the other end of the vehicle, and the impact on seating capacity is quite significant - although, that said, there's more of a tendency to use 153s to strengthen services now, rather than operate alone.

If you keep the existing toilet, the required upgrades for compliance are quite simple and do-able. The expense of a full upgrade is hard to justify given the amount of likely life they have left.

That's what I meant, obviously a full upgrade isn't very likely, but I don't see why you'd need to lock the toilet out of action.

 

[Journeyman]

That's what I meant, obviously a full upgrade isn't very likely, but I don't see why you'd need to lock the toilet out of action.

You'd have to lock it out of use if the unit was operating singly, but if it was paired with a unit that has an accessible toilet, you can leave it in use. If any 153s are going to stay in service anywhere post-2019, they'll need to operate like this, as I'm not aware anyone has a full PRM-TSI conversion planned.

I can't help but feel the "if we can't have accessible toilets then no-one can have any toilet at all" rule is counter-productive and stupid, but so be it, that's where we are.

 

[jopsuk]

if it's about grab handles and braile, it seems a reasonable expectation to have those fitted. Accessibility isn't just about wheelchairs, some people with reduced mobility can use "standard" loos if there's something to hold on to, and obviously visually impaired people can too, as long as they know what the buttons etc do.