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

[HLE]

I can see this idea being a given a chance in the BR days, but now with costs like track access charges and rolling stock leasing, as well as the costs of diesel and crew conversion courses amongst other things, it will be much harder to justify the initial cost of conversion and it’ll need to be well used and justify it’s running cost within a specific timeframe.

The railway is ran like a business these days. Good ideas don’t necessarily happen.

 

[Highlandspring]

Surely if a business wants to stay in business then it must adapt, innovate and adopt 'good ideas'...

 

[Ash Bridge]

I'd have to disagree there regarding adding unpowered vehicles to the likes of Class 150/156 or similar, especially on steeply graded routes such as the West Highland Etc.

 

[sprinterguy]

Considering their placement on these trains would be semi-permanent for the summer season, there'd be little need for chopping and changing - just couple them up with the cab end facing outwards and you're good to go for the season. That would significantly reduce the conversion costs of any single carriage compared to trying to make them match a 153's 2-cab design.

I don't know that that would necessarily be the case: I'd assume there'd be a be a benefit to being able to attach and detach luggage vans and shunt them around at depots overnight if nothing else.

They won't go on forever, but I can still see a number of TOCs being unhappy with any number of 153s being gutted and turned into glorified mail vans while clawing around for passenger capacity and operational flexibility of their own

As I've noted, there's not likely to be a huge number of units required as luggage vans, and plenty of class 153s likely to up for grabs amongst the handful of operators likely to want them in the next few years.

especially with a number of other options with similar design architecture also becoming available and more likely to go for scrap - pacers and 313s in particular fit the billing, with neither necessarily needing to be powered to serve a luggage van function and likely needing minimal alteration to be compatible with the sprinter family units used on their intended routes.

So we're now looking at clearing completely different classes of unit over the routes as opposed to relatively similar, compatible ones? I also agree with others that say that an unpowered trailer would have a detrimental efffects on performance and scheduling.

Class 153s have been suggested because they're available and aren't dissimilar to the stock currently traversing the routes; unlike any of the other stock being made redundant. I don't imagine that any ROSCOs are expecting to make any more money out of Pacers post-2019.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

How do you get away with “a load of bus grab poles welded together “ this would have to be designed and stress loads worked out , what happens to it in a crash etc

The bus grab poles are welded together in a way that resembles a cycle stand that would be bolted to the floor. Plus no passenger would be permitted inside the 153 apart from loading up and off loading their luggage. In the event of a rail disaster (thankfully quite rare in Britain) the unit along with peoples gear is destroyed, you can replace bikes, pushchairs, and luggage but not a life.

Failing that they could always be turned into sleeping coaches on the cheap and their top speed of only 75mph means that they could be shoved into service from lets say Scarborough to Dorchester and let DRS run it, since DRS are desperate to run a passenger service.

 

[brel york]

There’s a driver in there potentially and who loads the bikes in ?

And why would they want to provide free bike transport , imagine the grief if twenty cyclists are waiting at a platform for the final return service to civilisation of the day and the 153 van is declared a failure so is left at the terminal, where are the bikes going then lol,

Found the solution lol

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Found the solution lol

Class 76.5! Well it is half 153.

If it did fail then at least there's an excuse to chuck them and the ungrateful uncivilised familiies off use to a servere lack of space.

 

[43096]

They won't go on forever, but I can still see a number of TOCs being unhappy with any number of 153s being gutted and turned into glorified mail vans while clawing around for passenger capacity and operational flexibility of their own, especially with a number of other options with similar design architecture also becoming available and more likely to go for scrap - pacers and 313s in particular fit the billing, with neither necessarily needing to be powered to serve a luggage van function and likely needing minimal alteration to be compatible with the sprinter family units used on their intended routes.

As of now, NO 153s have received PRM work, and as far as I know currently there are no plans to do any. So come 31/12/19 they have all to be out of service. Should that actually prove to be the case, they will be going cheap to anyone who wants one...

 

[brel york]

This is fantasy stuff

Class 76.5! Well it is half 153.

If it did fail then at least there's an excuse to chuck them and the ungrateful uncivilised familiies off use to a servere lack of space.

You mean the cyclists lol

Scotrail managers would come down the unit asking for volunteers to leave the train and be put up in some scotrail tents ( there been stored in a mk 1 horse box that was in the strategic store)as the cycles must be got home , if no volunteers come forward well who knows , we all saw the people been forcibly removed from the flights in America and that was for reasons way less important than cyclists

 

[Marklund]

This thread needs a dictaphone.

(Picture of Alan Partridge talking in to a micro cassette recorder, giving ludicrous suggestions for TV shows)

 

[brel york]

Lol it gets better , I’m just mulling over the suggestion about a sleeper service from Scarborough to Dorchester, apparently the demand is massive at both ends, rumour has it that some scarborians want to take their bikes on this sleeper service .
I recommend asking scotrail if they could borrow one of their newly acquired
DDBCCCVO vehicles
If your not sure what the classification stands for it’s
Driving disco bistro child care cycling van open
Very popular up north

 

[Marklund]

Lol it gets better , I’m just mulling over the suggestion about a sleeper service from Scarborough to Dorchester, apparently the demand is massive at both ends, rumour has it that some scarborians want to take their bikes on this sleeper service .
I recommend asking scotrail if they could borrow one of their newly acquired
DDBCCCVO vehicles
If your not sure what the classification stands for it’s
Driving disco bistro child care cycling van open
Very popular up north

Indeed.

 

[brel york]

Dragons den here we come , this is the future

 

[xotGD]

This thread exemplifies what is wrong with today's railway. In the past, if more bike space was needed, you would just tag an extra BG onto the back of the train. Now, there are 1,001 reasons why redundant units can't be used as the equivalent of said BG.

 

[brel york]

A bg was easy to tag on an stock was available, and the railway was run with the sole intention of moving things

 

[furnessvale]

Where’s the ‘Like’ button..?

???? On the "other forum" I mentioned it is in the bottom right corner where this forum has Quote and Reply buttons. Am I missing something here?

 

[Cowley]

???? On the "other forum" I mentioned it is in the bottom right corner where this forum has Quote and Reply buttons. Am I missing something here?

Yes sorry, just my sense of humour Furnessvale

 

[mushroomchow]

A bg was easy to tag on an stock was available, and the railway was run with the sole intention of moving things

A man can dream.

 

[brel york]

Nice dream

 

[route:oxford]

A bg was easy to tag on an stock was available, and the railway was run with the sole intention of moving things

But somehow it manages to move twice as many people as it did prior to privatisation.

I can't imagine the chaos of shuffling around an unpowered goods van in and out of Queen Street on a whim these days.

Even in the days of BR it doesn't seem likely that, if a dozen cyclists turned up at Queen Street, a BG would suddenly be available to be brought down from the carriage sidings and attached on a whim.

 

[brel york]

People are now encouraged to travel by train since Maggie thatchers car future turned into a nightmare , easiest way to stifle demand is to restrict supply

 

[brel york]

But somehow it manages to move twice as many people as it did prior to privatisation.

I can't imagine the chaos of shuffling around an unpowered goods van in and out of Queen Street on a whim these days.

Even in the days of BR it doesn't seem likely that, if a dozen cyclists turned up at Queen Street, a BG would suddenly be available to be brought down from the carriage sidings and attached on a whim.

And is any private company going to pay £1000s of pounds in hire charges on the off chance 18 cyclists turn up and demand their right to free bike travel

 

[InOban]

https://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/special-rail-carriages-plan-to-ease-bike-crowding-1-4681973
At least the Scotsman still has a transport correspondent. With most papers so understaffed that they are merely pasting together press releases and materials from the PA and Reuters, we must accept his limitations.

 

[47802]

People are now encouraged to travel by train since Maggie thatchers car future turned into a nightmare , easiest way to stifle demand is to restrict supply

How the heck does Maggie Thatcher come into, the car was decreed as a primary mode of transport in the UK long before Thatcher

 

[AndrewE]

This thread exemplifies what is wrong with today's railway. In the past, if more bike space was needed, you would just tag an extra BG onto the back of the train. Now, there are 1,001 reasons why redundant units can't be used as the equivalent of said BG.

...and modest quite sensible proposals are even rubbished from within the enthusiast community... we have a system ossified by franchise contracts, plus not a few industry insiders here who suffer from "not invented here" syndrome or who have been crushed by the difficulties that they have encountered.

Nice dream

Sadly too many good ideas remain dreams nowadays...

And is any private company going to pay £1000s of pounds in hire charges ?

Luckily the Scots have Scotrail, which, like a PTE of the past, is focussed on enabling rail travel in its area, so things could happen. If their government wants to assist tourism it might put up the money for the job...
Converting 153s to Motor Luggage Vans looks good to me, as they are fully compatible with all that generation of rolling stock, would provide extra powered axles on lines where adhesion can be a problem, and will be available at a knock-down price! You could even use the bogs as secure storage for mail or parcels...

 

[InOban]

What intrigued me in this piece was that there was a rumour that only three vehicles were being considered.

It might help the discussion if I described the current WHL operation.

In winter just six units are used. In summer three additional units are 'borrowed' from the central Scottish fleet, presumably to the annoyance of the commuters whose trains are shorter. These units are added to the Fort William trains.
It is my understanding that the franchise does not allocate any extra units to the route, the 156s will be replaced with the same number of 158s. Each of these units will have 2 reservable bike spaces, plus two non-bookable in the disabled spaces. Thus a fort William train can carry at least four bikes, more likely six to eight. An Oban train can carry two, not more than four.
Everyone knows that this is inadequate, but it is up to Transport Scotland to fund any enhancement.

Although the additional Oban services load well, they have abstracted little traffic from the joint FW/Oban trains. In particular, the oban portion of the 08.21 from QS is often over capacity when it leaves Crianlarich. The record is, I believe, over 100 standing PAX, plus their backpacks and bikes. Therefore the conversion of three 153s to be added to the Oban units would seem a reasonable idea. As has been pointed out, they will be going for scrap at the end of next year, so will be cheap. The conversion will be limited to removal of the toilet, instead of fitting retention tanks, and of a quarter to a third of the seats to provide the bike and luggage storage.
There is however one problem. This will make these Oban/FW trains 7 vehicles long. While QS will be able to take such a train by 2020, the WHL stations from Helensburgh Upper to Crianlarich all have platforms for six vehicles only, as far as I know. (I'm sure that there are posters here who will be able to correct me.) If that is the case, it would be necessary to run separate trains, which would have consequences for staffing etc.

 

[Clansman]

I'm sure there's nothing stopping SDO being installed, and short platforms being equipped with slightly revised stopping markers to ensure that at least 1 door on each 153 is at least served by a platform, with only 1 door compensating on a 156.

Given the length of a tripled 156 and a 153 is slightly less than that of the 6 x 2 sleeper that's run on the WHL recently, there's no reason for running the conjoined Fort William/Mallaig and Oban services separately on the basis of length, unless I'm missing something?

 

[InOban]

How come? All these vehicles are 23m, and it's not the length of the passing loop which is the issue - the CS engine doesn't need to be on the platform.

 

[Clansman]

What is the issue? If it's the length of the train (which I presume) then it wouldn't be an issue providing SDO was installed.

 

[InOban]

Except that you would always have to ensure that the 153 with its bikes was always on. Personally, we in Oban would love more separation of Oban and FW trains, and a redesign of the timetable around the natural flow, South in the morning, North in the afternoon.