Class 153 after 2020

[TheWalrus]

I was just wondering about what will happen about the 153s after 2020. Some have suggested reforming them to 155s and others have suggested scrapping them. Surely it would make sense not to scrap them as we will still need more carriages and despite a Disabled Toilet taking away seating capacity, surely they will still be useful for low-usage services such as Swindon-Westbury?

 

[TheEdge]

The options I've seen or heard.

1. Fit them up with Disability compliant features, accept the loss of seats and move on.
2. Make them disability compliant by taking out the toilet and just having them toiletless.
3. Reform them into a 155 Mk2.
4. Permanently couple them to another 15x unit.
5. Scrap.

I think the issue is compounded by the fact that there is a growing issue with bending of the chassis of the units.

 

[northwichcat]

Porterbrook declared a while back making the 153s complaint in single car formation is not an economically viable option and were looking at unspecified alternative options. They have proposed a brochure detailing what changes would need to be made to make 153s complaint but have made it clear they are options which haven't been committed to. Porterbrook have unveiled plans for the 155s and the wording of the relevant brochure makes it sound like the options have been committed to.

Porterbrook have also unveiled plans for complaint 143s and 144s which would have around 80 seats per 2 car unit so they could replace 153s on low-usage lines. I seem to recall Porterbrook want an approx 10 year lease to be signed for the 143s or 144s before they are made complaint.

 

[ryan125hst]

Personally, if they aren't going to be reformed into Class 155's, I would like to see them permanently coupled to Class 156's, making a 3 coach Super Sprinter with around 200 seats. I would couple them with the toilet/small cab end towards the DMS of the Class 156 (the coach without the toilet), so within the three coach train, you would have an accessible toilet and a standard toilet, with a formation of Class 153-Class 156 DMS-Class 156 DMSL.

I don't agree with removing the toilet altogether as I see that as discrimination as well in a way. What about people with bladder or bowel conditions, or who have a condition that means they have to use the toilet frequently.

Also, I thought Porterbrook had suggested removing the toilet and installing a new accessible one at the other (original cab) end. This is because there isn't enough room for wheelchairs at the small cab end because of how the cab pushes back into the vestibule. It would require a lot of work though (windows and seats being moved etc.), so I doubt it would be a cheap option.

 

[158722]

Porterbrook declared a while back making the 153s complaint in single car formation is not an economically viable option and were looking at unspecified alternative options. They have proposed a brochure detailing what changes would need to be made to make 153s complaint but have made it clear they are options which haven't been committed to. Porterbrook have unveiled plans for the 155s and the wording of the relevant brochure makes it sound like the options have been committed to.

Porterbrook have also unveiled plans for complaint 143s and 144s which would have around 80 seats per 2 car unit so they could replace 153s on low-usage lines. I seem to recall Porterbrook want an approx 10 year lease to be signed for the 143s or 144s before they are made complaint.

Reforming them as 155s with only one car requiring the toilet treatment would seem the most likely option, especially as a fairly high percentage of the class now seem to find themselves working in pairs. That said, I've seen it mentioned that FGW has stated that winter services on the Cornish branches can only be justified financially when operated with a single 153, which leaves a bit of a dilemma.

I'd suggest that some consolidation of operators will also have to happen; LM should loose theirs when the Chase line gets wired and the small fleets at EA and ATW should be dealt with - EA and EMT exchange 156s and 153s (which become 155s), concentrating the class at one or the other operator, whilst ATW's could be sent off to FGW. This would leave the class at just FGW, NOR and EA or EMT, making reforming as 155s easier. This will however reduce the overall number of units available, when surely the priority will be to divest the network of 142s thence 143/144s.

Given all the electrification plans plus continuing upward trends in passenger usage, I can see the 153s (and 150s) surviving beyond 2020, but probably not the Pacer fleets.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I think the issue is compounded by the fact that there is a growing issue with bending of the chassis of the units.

Could someone 'in the know' possibly confirm this? I've heard it from numerous places but nothing conclusive- I've also heard that it's a myth brought about by an optical illusion due to lots of small windows on a long bodyshell.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

If I was Porterbrook, I'd form the former 153's into a new class - the 152 but use the 'small cabs' as the main cabs and the old '155' cabs being made into toilets, they could also be modified to run as a three car unit with any 153 left overs being kept as spares.

 

[dk1]

If I was Porterbrook, I'd form the former 153's into a new class - the 152 but use the 'small cabs' as the main cabs and the old '155' cabs being made into toilets, they could also be modified to run as a three car unit with any 153 left overs being kept as spares.

You wouldn't say that if you had to drive the darn things. How too would you find the required space for disabled toilets in the larger cab & what about the relays, vestibule etc?

 

[HSTEd]

They will simply lock the toilets OOU and things will continue as they did before, possibly with a nice certificate from the secretary of state.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

They will simply lock the toilets OOU and things will continue as they did before, possibly with a nice certificate from the secretary of state.

Yep, completely crackers! (There is a lack of public loos already)
You don't have to sport a wheelchair to be disabled.
Some may have bladder related problems.
(Can we afford to scrap/ limit rolling stock before replacements are purchased?
As much as I dislike pacers etc, and sympathize with persons with limited mobility)
DfT = cheque book!

 

[AndrewP]

How much does an accessible wc really cost?

Based on the cost of putting them in buildings with some metal framed partitioning, wc and sanitary fittings and a powered door it would not cost more than £5k (being generous) - would it really be that much more on a train?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Yep, completely crackers! (There is a lack of public loos already)
You don't have to sport a wheelchair to be disabled.
Some may have bladder related problems.
(Can we afford to scrap/ limit rolling stock before replacements are purchased?
As much as I dislike pacers etc, and sympathize with persons with limited mobility)
DfT = cheque book!

There are plenty of services that don't have toilets- some of them being fairly long, too (though only a minority of passengers will do the full run Waterloo-Guildford via Epsom, for example). There's also plenty of services that don't really need a toilet- but have them simply because the trains used have toilets fitted. Huddersfield-Bradford or Wakefield will have a toilet, but the buses running between these places don't have them, and in particular the X6 from Huddersfield-Bradford probably has a greater proportion of passengers doing the full run (at least on that half of the journey- which of course runs on to Leeds) than many of Northern's West Yorkshire locals.

 

[Yew]

How much does an accessible wc really cost?

Based on the cost of putting them in buildings with some metal framed partitioning, wc and sanitary fittings and a powered door it would not cost more than £5k (being generous) - would it really be that much more on a train?

Its not the cost, but the loss of seating capacity in a one carriage railcar

 

[CalderRail]

Surely the best thing to do with them would be top use them as "extenders" for other (fully compliant) trains?

Connect them for the evening rush, otherwise leave them stabled at key locations. Saves fuel, yet improves passenger volume.

 

[TheWalrus]

I think the amount required for lightly loaded services should be fitted with DDA toilets and used on these services. Any remaining units should be reformed to 155s and used on routes where 150/156s are used.

 

[Qwerty133]

Personally I'd like to either scrap them, or cascade them as far away from EMT as physically possible, I think the best way to achieve this would be EMT, to retain all of the 4 and 5 coach meridians (the 6 7 coach trains would also be retained but for other reasons) after electrification of the MML with them being moved onto Liverpool to Norwich services. As all of the 158s would be freed from said service around 6-8 of the 156 fleet could be freed up and cascaded to GA to free their 153s. LMs 153s should hopefully be made available by electrification in the West Midlands.
This would leave just Northern ATW and FGW with 153s, and as FGW have stated that some of their branch lines are only viable with a 153 they would be left with their 153s, with the franchise operator being given the choice whether to install a disabled toilet or to lock the current toilet out of use.
If my calculations are correct there would then be enough freed 153s to reform both ATWs and Northerns 153s into 155s as well as 2 extra 155s being made which would go to Northern to allow a cascade of 158s to TPE if necessary or as additional capacity.

 

[455driver]

Personally I'd like to either scrap them, or cascade them as far away from EMT as physically possible, I think the best way to achieve this would be EMT, to retain all of the 4 and 5 coach meridians (the 6 7 coach trains would also be retained but for other reasons) after electrification of the MML with them being moved onto Liverpool to Norwich services. As all of the 158s would be freed from said service around 6-8 of the 156 fleet could be freed up and cascaded to GA to free their 153s. LMs 153s should hopefully be made available by electrification in the West Midlands.
This would leave just Northern ATW and FGW with 153s, and as FGW have stated that some of their branch lines are only viable with a 153 they would be left with their 153s, with the franchise operator being given the choice whether to install a disabled toilet or to lock the current toilet out of use.
If my calculations are correct there would then be enough freed 153s to reform both ATWs and Northerns 153s into 155s as well as 2 extra 155s being made which would go to Northern to allow a cascade of 158s to TPE if necessary or as additional capacity.

So you are going to slow the Liverpool to Norwich services are you?

meridians cannot take advantage of the MU speeds on the route as they are too heavy (unless they have changed something in the last couple of years).

Stick the 153 in the middle of a (compliant) 150, extra seating capacity, extra (non compliant) toilet and a through gangway.

Quick, easy and cheap.
Oh and change the <deleted> brakes so they dont take a week to release!

 

[Qwerty133]

So you are going to slow the Liverpool to Norwich services are you?

meridians cannot take advantage of the MU speeds on the route as they are too heavy (unless they have changed something in the last couple of years).

Stick the 153 in the middle of a (compliant) 150, extra seating capacity, extra (non compliant) toilet and a through gangway.

Quick, easy and cheap.
Oh and change the <deleted> brakes so they dont take a week to release!

Going to cancel a load of services are you
I'm sure I've seen a post on here somewhere by an EMT driver saying that 222s can stick to time on Liverpool to Norwich services (better acceleration and higher top speed).
As for your suggestion what do propose is drafted in to operate services in the East Midlands, Anglia and The North where singular 153s are needed to maintain current service levels?
Edit found the post: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1548854&postcount=40

 

[43074]

Going to cancel a load of services are you
I'm sure I've seen a post on here somewhere by an EMT driver saying that 222s can stick to time on Liverpool to Norwich services (better acceleration and higher top speed).
As for your suggestion what do propose is drafted in to operate services in the East Midlands, Anglia and The North where singular 153s are needed to maintain current service levels?
Edit found the post: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1548854&postcount=40

That post relates to the North West (i.e. Nottingham to Liverpool) section of the route, whilst the journey time issues arise from the Norwich to Peterborough section of the route, which explains why 222s don't run to Norwich regularly. Also, a 158 can reverse at Ely in 3/4 minutes, whereas more time has to be allowed for a 222 (possibly 7, but I'm not sure on that) so that would also add time.

Just keep the 153s at EMT, and reform them into pairs or insert into 156s, job done. Skegness and Crewe could do with longer trains anyway, what's the problem? Most passengers don't care if its a 153 in any case: all they want is a means of getting from A to B. All you need is something to replace the 153s with so they could be reformed, but don't go transferring them away from EMT if you don't need to.

 

[Kneedown]

Going to cancel a load of services are you
I'm sure I've seen a post on here somewhere by an EMT driver saying that 222s can stick to time on Liverpool to Norwich services (better acceleration and higher top speed).
As for your suggestion what do propose is drafted in to operate services in the East Midlands, Anglia and The North where singular 153s are needed to maintain current service levels?
Edit found the post: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1548854&postcount=40

That'd be me, and I stand by it. A 222 can easily keep to 158 timings on the Notts - Liverpool section of the route. They would lose a bit of time east of Ely though due to the condition of the track to Lakenheath.
I stand to be corrected but I think i've read somewhere that it is NR's intention to improve the linespeed in this area?
Maybe time could be saved elsewhere too, for instance reduced dwell times, especially at Nottingham with no need to couple/uncouple at Nottingham, higher speeds between Grantham and Peterborough if fast line paths were regularly available, etc.

 

[Bodie]

Oh dear, all this toilet talk is getting me down.

Just issue grandfather rights to all trains built before 2020 and bob's your uncle.

Or leave the flaming EU and avoid any of this madness in the first place.

We should as a country be looking at replacing each ageing class of train in a sensible order. Seems to me that companies are wasting a lot of time messing around with adding ruddy great disabled toilets etc to meet EU demands, EVEN on trains that may just live on into the 2020's

So if the last Pacer say was going to go by 2022, some prat might fit them with all the gear to legally get past 2020 and then they'll stay till at least the 2030's because of all the money that was spent on them!

 

[SpacePhoenix]

What sort of state will the 153s be in by 2020? As they were built as two car 155, when first built they didn't have cabs at one end, would the addition of a cab at the original non-cab end have had any long term affect on them structually?

 

[northwichcat]

Personally I'd like to either scrap them, or cascade them as far away from EMT as physically possible

Careful what you wish for. Given no new single car trains are to be built and some EMT lines are very rural the option of making 143s and 144s accessible may be taken up to be used as replacement for 153s.

Or a more positive view- if you reform the 153s in to 155s then you could give EMT all the 155s and EMT could then release their 156s and the some of the 158s to another operator.

That'd be me, and I stand by it. A 222 can easily keep to 158 timings on the Notts - Liverpool section of the route. They would lose a bit of time east of Ely though due to the condition of the track to Lakenheath

The option of having a fast Manchester-Nottingham service (avoiding Sheffield) was being considered. So you could have a Liverpool-Manchester-Nottingham service and a Manchester-Sheffield-Nottingham-Norwich service.

Plans for changing services on the Hope Valley line seem to be a less advanced stage than plans on other lines. It does, however, look likely that a Liverpool-Sheffield service will take the place of Liverpool-Scarborough on the CLC line and also that platforms at Liverpool South Parkway will be extended to be able to take 6 car 185s despite North TPE services not expected to call there after December 2016.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just issue grandfather rights to all trains built before 2020 and bob's your uncle.

Or leave the flaming EU and avoid any of this madness in the first place.

Pacers, Sprinters and certain EMUs have been running on grandfather rights since 1994. The 31 December 2019 deadline was agreed because by then all pre-1990 stock should have been withdrawn or had a full mid-life refurbishment which should have then included accessibility improvements. The shelf-life of a DMU which hasn't had a major refurbishment is 25-30 years (35-40 for an EMU) so the 142s with the original bus seats should have either had a full refurbishment by now or been scrapped.

Any toilets on trains should be retention toilets from 31 December 2019 for the same reason - by then the 158s (and any older DMUs) should have had a full refurbishment or been scrapped.

31 December 2019 was what John Major's government proposed not what the EU proposed.

I'm not sure why leaving the EU would help, it's government policy in practically every country to support disabled people whether or not they're anything to do with the EU. Even Haiti's government has a "Secretary of State for the Integration of Persons with Disabilities".

 

[DXMachina]

I'd have thought by about 2020 they'll all need balancing on their chassis centrepoints and leaving thus poised for a few months to un-banana-shape the bodyshells.

 

[Chris125]

Or leave the flaming EU and avoid any of this madness in the first place.

Eh? This is government policy, that comes from the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995 if I remember correctly and would apply whether we were in the EU or not.

Chris

 

[northwichcat]

Eh? This is government policy, that comes from the Disability Discrimination Act of 1995 if I remember correctly and would apply whether we were in the EU or not.

Chris

Some people want to blame everything they don't like on the EU at the moment.

Our requirements for accessibility on public transport are certainly different to Spain's or Italy's. PIS on British trains has to be done using LED displays to comply. Both Spain and Italy have fairly new trains which have TV style screens with the PIS which means they can display more information - in the case of TrenItalia they show a live map of the route on some trains, while Renfe on some trains give you the current time, exterior temperature and current train speed at all times.

 

[455driver]

Going to cancel a load of services are you

Yep!

I'm sure I've seen a post on here somewhere by an EMT driver saying that 222s can stick to time on Liverpool to Norwich services (better acceleration and higher top speed).

Not East of Leicester they cant!

As for your suggestion what do propose is drafted in to operate services in the East Midlands, Anglia and The North where singular 153s are needed to maintain current service levels?

There will be cascades of other units (or units displaced from cascades elsewhere) to suppliment the fleet.

Edit found the post: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1548854&postcount=40

Which section of line is that thread on about?

 

[Qwerty133]

Careful what you wish for. Given no new single car trains are to be built and some EMT lines are very rural the option of making 143s and 144s accessible may be taken up to be used as replacement for 153s.

Or a more positive view- if you reform the 153s in to 155s then you could give EMT all the 155s and EMT could then release their 156s and the some of the 158s to another operator.
.

Other than the 158s are almost exclusively used on Liverpool to Norwich, which whatever you think, without new seats, more tables, more legroom, new lighting, new body panels, internal doors, new luggage racks as they would be needed at every door and in all probability a new engine a 155 would be no use on... They struggle to not break down on the Matlock branch at (I think) 35MPH, some can't get past 60 according to an EMT driver so I'm sure a service where they would be needed to go flat out is the most sensible place to put them.
They could probably manage about another 10 years on branch lines, but trying to put them on regional express lines is a really bad idea.
Also EMT see both 156s and 158s as superior than 153s (without taking into account the extra coach offered by the former), so I'd be very surprised if they would accept any 'solution' which meant them losing the 156s and 158s.
As for your pacer suggestion, I can't think of a single EMT line which a 153 is consistently enough capacity for. The Matlock branch for example may be 'rural' but it has 2 heritage railways, Crich tramway and Matlock bath, making a 2 car very comfortable at certain times of year.

 

[northwichcat]

Other than the 158s are almost exclusively used on Liverpool to Norwich

I thought Liverpool to Norwich used around 18 of the 25 x 158s in the EMT fleet meaning there's 4-5 available for use on other lines.

a 155 would be no use on

A 155 and 156 both have 1 engine per carriage which is a Cummins NT855-R5 Diesel, so in theory a 155 can do anything a 156 can do. A 153 only has a single engine which limits it's acceleration significantly.

Also EMT see both 156s and 158s as superior than 153s (without taking into account the extra coach offered by the former), so I'd be very surprised if they would accept any 'solution' which meant them losing the 156s and 158s.

EMT's franchise ends in 2017. Don't you remember what happened when the EMT franchise started and 158s replaced 170s on some routes while 153s replaced 150s on others? Stagecoach weren't particularly happy about it* but it was a choice of that or not taking on the EMT franchise.

* They commented on the rolling stock they acquired for the non-mainline routes being of very poor quality and the fact it would take years to bring it up to an acceptable condition.

As for your pacer suggestion, I can't think of a single EMT line which a 153 is consistently enough capacity for.

Well EMT have 17 x 153s which you want to get rid of. A Pacer is bigger than a 153 and there's 23 x 143s and 23 x 144s - 10 of the 144s are 3 car as well. That's why I said be careful what you wish for when you saying EMT should get rid of their 153s - getting all either the 143s or 144s in lieu would be a capacity increase for EMT. Pacers can operate in 4 and 5 car formation - the Southport line sees all day 4 car Pacer operation, while Calder Vale has some booked 5 car Pacer workings at peak times.

Going back to what you said about EMT wouldn't accept a downgrade - both Northern and FGW have accepted downgrades where it's resulted in an overall net gain of carriages.

 

[edwin_m]

I thought Liverpool to Norwich used around 18 of the 25 x 158s in the EMT fleet meaning there's 4-5 available for use on other lines.

I can't vouch for the actual numbers but EMT 158s certainly appear on services from Nottingham other than the Liverpool-Norwich.

A 155 and 156 both have 1 engine per carriage which is a Cummins NT855-R5 Diesel, so in theory a 155 can do anything a 156 can do. A 153 only has a single engine which limits it's acceleration significantly.

But since a 153 only has one coach its power to weight ratio is almost identical to that of a 156 so in theory the acceleration should be the same.

However in practice 153s do seem to be slower off the mark, which seems to be something to do with the brakes being slower to release.