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

[Anonymous10]

Maybe they've a van or two on standby!

or plan b is hire a van while hiring the replacement bus

 

[snookertam]

As long as the brakes etc don't fail I'm guessing dragging it to the destination and trying to batter it or dump it would be the idea (or maybe they simply haven't got a plan and will improvise). Cue some struggling/late services whenever one shuts down and won't restart as a 3 car dmu with only 2 working engines wouldn't enjoy that route (good job the 156s were very reliable really). There's no way you can get shut of the vehicle en route though without riots breaking out with the cyclists being turfed off or told to dump their bikes. At least in the old days it was just another carriage dragged by a loco and had to be in the consist. OK so long as it didn't fail.

Not sure even 3 cars running off two engines would cope very well between Oban and Glasgow Queen Street.

 

[47827]

Not sure even 3 cars running off two engines would cope very well between Oban and Glasgow Queen Street.

I doubt it would cope brilliantly but better than a 2 car unit on 1 engine I'd imagine. Not that I expect the latter happens all that often.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

or plan b is hire a van while hiring the replacement bus

Plan c: call out the Network Rail 'Hilux'* road/rail pickup and throw the bikes in the back. Fit some wooden benches and the owners can be accommodated alongside.

*it may be another make of vehicle.

 

[Journeyman]

Not sure even 3 cars running off two engines would cope very well between Oban and Glasgow Queen Street.

Heading out of Glasgow, it would be lucky to get halfway along the tunnel before rolling back to the platform again.

 

[Speed43125]

Heading out of Glasgow, it would be lucky to get halfway along the tunnel before rolling back to the platform again.

Surely it would be more like 4 engines out of 5 cars running out of Queen Street?

 

[Journeyman]

Surely it would be more like 4 engines out of 5 cars running out of Queen Street?

Even so, that tunnel is a challenge.

 

[John Bishop]

I suspect the problems will start when coupled up to the 156s, pretty much as we see almost daily with 170/170 and 158/170 couple ups. Who knows what’s going to happen when your driving a DMU combo. They’re becoming a nightmare to be honest (in my experience)

 

[Steven_G]

I have faith in the Scotrail mechanics, they've dealt with the 156's for many years and the 153's are mechanically very similar so they will get on top of it.

 

[LowLevel]

I have faith in the Scotrail mechanics, they've dealt with the 156's for many years and the 153's are mechanically very similar so they will get on top of it.

The 153 is a very different beast to a 156 in a lot of ways. I'm sure things will improve as they get used to them but it basically used to be a facet of 153 operation that the training manuals were a guide - things would be in different places, set up differently, or have different reactions when you used them and the wiring was basically bespoke to each unit. Not so much "this will happen if you do x, y or z", more "this might/should happen if you do x, y or z but something completely different might happen instead".

 

[Meerkat]

The 153 is a very different beast to a 156 in a lot of ways. I'm sure things will improve as they get used to them but it basically used to be a facet of 153 operation that the training manuals were a guide - things would be in different places, set up differently, or have different reactions when you used them and the wiring was basically bespoke to each unit. Not so much "this will happen if you do x, y or z", more "this might/should happen if you do x, y or z but something completely different might happen instead".

Is baselining not a thing during refurbishments?
As in making all units the same wiring spec etc.

 

[sd0733]

Is baselining not a thing during refurbishments?
As in making all units the same wiring spec etc.

The odd bits are done to Standardise during refurbs and modifications but by and large they seem to be left as they are.
It means that where units have been drafted in from various Tocs over time there are a huge amount of variations across the fleet. Even the same fleet running on the same Toc but belonging to a different leasing company can have their own differences too.

 

[skyhigh]

Even the same fleet running on the same Toc but belonging to a different leasing company can have their own differences too.

Absolutely- of our 158s, there's 2 different types of data recorder, 2 different types of air con controller, different types of toilet, different engines, different PIS screens in the saloon (even though they were installed during the same program), different cab desk styles and probably more besides.

From my 153 experience the conversion from 155s seems to have made them even more 'bespoke'.

 

[Robertj21a]

I suspect the problems will start when coupled up to the 156s, pretty much as we see almost daily with 170/170 and 158/170 couple ups. Who knows what’s going to happen when your driving a DMU combo. They’re becoming a nightmare to be honest (in my experience)

Surely, 153s and 156s have operated together on numerous occasions in some TOCs ?

 

[LowLevel]

Surely, 153s and 156s have operated together on numerous occasions in some TOCs ?

They do. Doesn't mean it always goes smoothly though! 15x coupling largely works reliably but considering it involves trains built by different manufacturers there can be niggles. Some of our 156s and 158s don't like working together and develop spurious faults on occasion.

153s always introduced an element of excitement to the coupling process. Will we have a buzzer today or is it going to be waving a flag? Brake release on both trains, one train or none, etc etc.

 

[InOban]

AIUI there won't normally be any need to couple/uncouple.

 

[the sniper]

AIUI there won't normally be any need to couple/uncouple.

If the 153 decides it's uncoupling, you won't have much choice. That wasn't unheard-of either.

 

[Helvellyn]

I suspect the problems will start when coupled up to the 156s, pretty much as we see almost daily with 170/170 and 158/170 couple ups. Who knows what’s going to happen when your driving a DMU combo. They’re becoming a nightmare to be honest (in my experience)

Ever had a 156/153/158 combo. Now that is fun!

 

[Journeyman]

Ever had a 156/153/158 combo. Now that is fun!

This is why I don't have much time for those "we should have one coupling standard" threads!

 

[James James]

This is why I don't have much time for those "we should have one coupling standard" threads!

Starting to get a bit OT here, but on the continent consists with 3 different manufacturers don't seem to be an issue (now they don't do that in regular service, but a mix of 2 manufacturers is common in service): https://www.flickr.com/photos/165942775@N07/50317354292/
So there's nothing inherently stopping a standard, it's mostly up to the customers to push for it (and to push for it being sufficiently reliable) - and it's probably easier to do that when you can iterate with software rather than hardware. Also likely to be easier when you don't have to think about doors and such mind you.

Of course it's too late to try and do that with the sprinters - I'm guessing the control systems are all implemented in hardware, so good luck trying to improve compatibility?

 

[47827]

This is why I don't have much time for those "we should have one coupling standard" threads!

It does generally help if a set needs rescuing even if it's not a daily occurrence. Yes the trains are mostly more reliable than in BR days, but now trains failing en route will sometimes sit for hours blocking platforms or lines with greater knock on effects. It makes the railways look incompetent and useless when it does happen. Thank goodness these 153s were built in era of some degree of sense when second generation DMU's could all couple together in an emergency. The last 20 years has seen us re-enter the selfish era with individual fleets built without serious consideration of trains being left stranded. It isn't like it would have been a great cost to keep standard couplings, but it would be now to fix the issue.

 

[Anonymous10]

It does generally help if a set needs rescuing even if it's not a daily occurrence. Yes the trains are mostly more reliable than in BR days, but now trains failing en route will sometimes sit for hours blocking platforms or lines with greater knock on effects. It makes the railways look incompetent and useless when it does happen. Thank goodness these 153s were built in era of some degree of sense when second generation DMU's could all couple together in an emergency. The last 20 years has seen us re-enter the selfish era with individual fleets built without serious consideration of trains being left stranded. It isn't like it would have been a great cost to keep standard couplings, but it would be now to fix the issue.

really is a questionable decision you take wales for example atm all trains except the 170 and 175 can couple together in a emergency the 170s work on a line where many others pass so conceivably if one got stranded either another tfw 170 or a cross-country could rescue it for the 175 again they work lines where others do alot too but still makes you wonder but lets get back to the scotrail 153's

 

[sd0733]

really is a questionable decision you take wales for example atm all trains except the 170 and 175 can couple together in a emergency the 170s work on a line where many others pass so conceivably if one got stranded either another tfw 170 or a cross-country could rescue it for the 175 again they work lines where others do alot too but still makes you wonder but lets get back to the scotrail 153's

170s can an do couple to the 15x fleet regularly, almost entirely for moves to and from Canton but its a booked daily occurance.
The 175s are the ones that can only multi amongst themselves

 

[Anonymous10]

170s can an do couple to the 15x fleet regularly, almost entirely for moves to and from Canton but its a booked daily occurance.
The 175s are the ones that can only multi amongst themselves

apologies i dont know why i thought the 170s couldn't but the 175s work where they can be rescued by eachother usually the 769 well we shall leave that for its own thread

 

[craigybagel]

To be fair, the fact they don't like coupling to other units very much is just one part of a very large list of problems with 153s. Even when working by themselves they're still problematic at the best of times.

 

[applepie2100]

To be fair, the fact they don't like coupling to other units very much is just one part of a very large list of problems with 153s. Even when working by themselves they're still problematic at the best of times.

This is starting to sound like another of those ideas that sounded good when someone mentioned it at a management meeting but in reality is anything but!

 

[scotraildriver]

This is starting to sound like another of those ideas that sounded good when someone mentioned it at a management meeting but in reality is anything but!

Sadly I fear that's going to be the case. I hope I'm wrong as it's a innovative idea, but like the HST project I fear more of an appealing idea that a successful reality.

 

[applepie2100]

Sadly I fear that's going to be the case. I hope I'm wrong as it's a innovative idea, but like the HST project I fear more of an appealing idea that a successful reality.

Despite sounding like an innovative and actually rather clever idea, it does have to be asked whether taking on a micro fleet of units with which ScotRail have little familiarity, which were built by a company which a rather patchy record for build quality (Leyland) and which were seemingly constructed using whichever version of the plans someone could find in the workshop that day (or even whether the plans were used at all!) was ever going to be a sensible proposition.

Unfortunately money has now been spent and promises made so somehow the whole enterprise will need to be made to work. Only time will tell how this will happen.

 

[Failed Unit]

I am sure it can. 153s and 156s were running around the network (although with problems) No enough to stop EMR diagramming them daily. I wonder if the could permanently couple them. Yes it removes flexibility but not a new concept when you consider that we split 150/2, 156 and 158s in the past to make 3 coach units that are inflexible on daily diagrams.

 

[Killingworth]

This is starting to sound like another of those ideas that sounded good when someone mentioned it at a management meeting but in reality is anything but!

Sadly I fear that's right, and it may have been predictable.

Back in the days of the North Tyneside electrics they were 4 and 2 car units with additional single car luggage vans. In those days families had large prams and all Tyneside children had to go to the beach at Whitley Bay, Cullercoats or Tynemouth. During August and on sunny weekends it was fairly easy to roll out a parcels van from the nearby Gosforth car sheds to strengthen a 4 or 6 car train to take the prams.

The similarities and differences between that operation and Scotrail's are interesting.

Without a pram coach an 8 car train could be formed and that was quite common at rush hours. With a pram coach seating capacity was limited to 4 or 6 coaches.
I'm sure there was some element of weather forecasting and short term flexibility determining which units and pram coaches were to be deployed.
The entire Tyneside loop took only about an hour so on hot summer days they'd get intensive use for half the journey all day.
It was less than 3 miles from the car sheds to the Central station so pulling out an extra unit was fairly easy, even at short notice.
During the week they were parcels vans.
They were built at the same time (either NER or LNER) as the passenger carriages and had been maintained by the same team at Gosforth throughout.
The North Tyneside loop is relatively flat with short distances between stations and easy alternative road connections
Perambulators, bicycles and dogs were charged a fare and it wasn't particularly cheap.

(In diesel days there were guards vans for prams. The pram coaches may have been withdrawn before then.)

Scotrail aren't charging any extra for the bikes or skis
It seems that by adding a 153 the maximum length of a train may be restricted.
The limited number of 153s must restrict the number of services to which they can be attached.
It's a long way to go to bring up an extra or replacement unit.
It's a long way to go for replacement emergency road transport.
The lines are not flat and weather can be severe.
153 cycle units are of limited use for anything else.
They're 30 year old conversions about to be maintained by a currently unfamiliar team.

Here on the Hope Valley line some cycling lobbyists were wanting some of these units for our trains. Walkers with rucksacks and airport travellers with large bags would do better being served by 4 coach trains, which our platforms will take.