Class 153 diesel train questions.

[yh00157]

hello. I am a railroad fanatic living in Korea.

While studying mechanics in high school and junior college, I also watch railroad cars.

I am writing to ask questions.

I would like to know about the Class 153 diesel train used by British Rail.

I have confirmed that it is currently used for regional passenger trains in Wales and Scotland and for inspection of Network Rail operation tracks.

I have a question here. I would like to know why this train was retired.

I looked at the PRM-TSI content on Wikipedia, but it is very insufficient.

For reference, Korea has a similar "Act on the Promotion of Transportation Convenience for the Mobility Disadvantaged" as the European PRM-TSI regulation.

In Korea, it is operated by Korail, SR (Seoul Suseo Station-based high-speed rail operator), and there are facilities for the disabled, elderly, and pregnant women.

Translated from Korean to English with Google Translate. There may be grammar mistakes, so please forgive me.

 

[krus_aragon]

Your question has come through the translation very clearly, thank you.

There are three main reasons that the class 153 is being withdrawn:

>The trains are getting old, all are over 30 years.
>They were made into single carriage trains back when some UK passenger lines had few passengers. Most lines are too busy for a single carriage these days.
>The PRM-TSI rules said what must be done to make trains accessible. (Toilets suitable for wheelchairs, announcement systems, door controls, etc.) New trains had to have these when they were built, but owners of old trains were given time to make the changes, or stop using the old trains.

Because the 153 is a single carriage, it doesn't have many seats. Adding a wheelchair toilet would mean removing even more seats, meaning the 153 does not have enough seats for most train lines.

When the deadline came, a lot of companies decided to stop using the class 153. They felt that spending money on the upgrades wouldn't be worth the cost, especially when the trains are quite old, and will need to be replaced in a few years anyway.

The companies that still use the 153s either have very quiet lines that suit a small 153, or only use their non-toilet 153s as part of a larger train (which has a disabled toilet elsewhere). Some have experimented with using them to carry luggage or bicycles, gain as part of a larger train.


I hope this explanation helps.

 

[yh00157]

Your question has come through the translation very clearly, thank you.

There are three main reasons that the class 153 is being withdrawn:

>The trains are getting old, all are over 30 years.
>They were made into single carriage trains back when some UK passenger lines had few passengers. Most lines are too busy for a single carriage these days.
>The PRM-TSI rules said what must be done to make trains accessible. (Toilets suitable for wheelchairs, announcement systems, door controls, etc.) New trains had to have these when they were built, but owners of old trains were given time to make the changes, or stop using the old trains.

Because the 153 is a single carriage, it doesn't have many seats. Adding a wheelchair toilet would mean removing even more seats, meaning the 153 does not have enough seats for most train lines.

When the deadline came, a lot of companies decided to stop using the class 153. They felt that spending money on the upgrades wouldn't be worth the cost, especially when the trains are quite old, and will need to be replaced in a few years anyway.

The companies that still use the 153s either have very quiet lines that suit a small 153, or only use their non-toilet 153s as part of a larger train (which has a disabled toilet elsewhere). Some have experimented with using them to carry luggage or bicycles, gain as part of a larger train.


I hope this explanation helps.

Yes, I understand.

Then, the class 142, 143, and 144 trains were also forcibly retired by the British Department of Transport.

Korea has the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, which is located in the Sejong Government Complex.

To explain in Korean style, were there any problems for disabled, elderly, and pregnant women to use the train?

For reference, in Korea, the subway has separate seats for disabled, elderly, and pregnant women.

There are also wheelchair spaces in common.

 

[MikePJ]

The problem with these older trains is that they were designed with only a small toilet for use by the able-bodied. The law in the UK now requires that trains that are fitted with toilets have a toilet big enough for a wheelchair user to use. On the Class 153s here in Wales, which I use regularly, a large area at one end of the coach is now taken up with the new, bigger toilet cubicle. This reduces the number of available seats. Not all the train operators wanted to do this conversion work, especially on a train that is already quite old, and so many of them chose to replace the trains instead.

 

[yh00157]

The problem with these older trains is that they were designed with only a small toilet for use by the able-bodied. The law in the UK now requires that trains that are fitted with toilets have a toilet big enough for a wheelchair user to use. On the Class 153s here in Wales, which I use regularly, a large area at one end of the coach is now taken up with the new, bigger toilet cubicle. This reduces the number of available seats. Not all the train operators wanted to do this conversion work, especially on a train that is already quite old, and so many of them chose to replace the trains instead.

Yes. There was a problem with the restrooms for disabled people using wheelchairs.

For your information, Korea has Mugunghwa-ho passenger cars, but older trains do not have many restrooms for the disabled.

They are currently being scrapped due to aging and replaced with ITX-Maeum electric trains.

 

[Snow1964]

Back in the early 1980s when the basic trains (pacer type classes 142, 143, 144) and later the decision to convert the 2car 155s into single car 153s happened. Money for railways was very limited and it followed a period of lots of rural rail routes being closed.

The option at the time was almost have these cheap basic trains or your local rail route might be closed, because cannot afford anything better. They kept routes open so were good choice at the time.

20-25 years later (early to mid 2000s) the railway had much higher passenger numbers, and attitudes to disabled passengers, and standards had been changed. Then new regulations (in law) came in which had a deadline for upgrade. It was decided that upgrading 30+ year old trains was not viable (especially as after 2008 financial crash borrowing money for financing new trains at very low interest rates was a relatively cheap option), so replacement trains were built (although new trains often went to busier lines, and other fleets changed routes)

As stated above, apart from a few 153s which were retained to work joined to other units to provide extra seats (but are no longer permitted to operate on their own) withdrawal was chosen option.

 

[DelW]

As stated above, apart from a few 153s which were retained to work joined to other units to provide extra seats (but are no longer permitted to operate on their own) withdrawal was chosen option.

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you (and it doesn't invalidate your main point), but TfW 153s do still work solo on the Heart of Wales. 303, 323 and 327 have each been out on their own in the last couple of days (per know your train allocations on RTT).

 

[Trainman40083]

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you (and it doesn't invalidate your main point), but TfW 153s do still work solo on the Heart of Wales. 303, 323 and 327 have each been out on their own in the last couple of days (per know your train allocations on RTT).

Is it not that the 1533** units have the disabled toilets and in theory the TFW 1539** don't, meaning the latter shouldn't work on their own (but seem to)..

 

[Anonymous10]

Is it not that the 1533** units have the disabled toilets and in theory the TFW 1539** don't, meaning the latter shouldn't work on their own (but seem to)..

The 1539xx units work alone on the frequent (every 5 or 10 mins ) service between Caerphilly and Penarth and have formerly worked the even more frequent Cardiff bay shuttle (which was 5 mins long) as well as the short coyton- Radyr train.

 

[norbitonflyer]

Is it not that the 1533** units have the disabled toilets and in theory the TFW 1539** don't, meaning the latter shouldn't work on their own (but seem to)..

"The law in the UK now requires that trains that are fitted with toilets have a toilet big enough for a wheelchair user to use".
There is nothing to say there has to be an accessible toilet, just that if there are any toilets, at least one of them must be accessible. hence the decision by SET to order the 376s without toilets, although the older 465s had them.

So some 153s had a disabled toilet fitted. This reduces passenger capacity, but they can be used on routes with very few passengers such as the Heart of Wales line.
Others had the toilet removed and were renumbered as 153/9s. They can run coupled to another unit (153/3 or 156) or, on their own, on very short journeys such as the Cardiff Bay shuttle runs

 

[Trainman40083]

"The law in the UK now requires that trains that are fitted with toilets have a toilet big enough for a wheelchair user to use".
There is nothing to say there has to be an accessible toilet, just that if there are any toilets, at least one of them must be accessible. hence the decision by SET to order the 376s without toilets, although the older 465s had them.

So some 153s had a disabled toilet fitted. This reduces passenger capacity, but they can be used on routes with very few passengers such as the Heart of Wales line.
Others had the toilet removed and were renumbered as 153/9s. They can run coupled to another unit (153/3 or 156) or, on their own, on very short journeys such as the Cardiff Bay shuttle runs

Were they actually removed on 153/9s, or just locked out of use

 

[stadler]

Were they actually removed on 153/9s, or just locked out of use

They are just permanently locked out of use. The toilets are still there. But just permanently locked out with a sticker on them saying not in use.

 

[Doomotron]

They are just permanently locked out of use. The toilets are still there. But just permanently locked out with a sticker on them saying not in use.

It is a weird quirk of the law which means that a train with a fully functional toilet can't be used because there aren't any accessible ones on the same train. If the 153s were going to be around long-term and accessible toilets were out of the question I wouldn't be shocked to see the toilets entirely removed with seating put in its place, like Southern's 456s. But as a fleet that probably won't be around in ten years' time I don't think it matters that much.

 

[Trainman40083]

It is a weird quirk of the law which means that a train with a fully functional toilet can't be used because there aren't any accessible ones on the same train. If the 153s were going to be around long-term and accessible toilets were out of the question I wouldn't be shocked to see the toilets entirely removed with seating put in its place, like Southern's 456s. But as a fleet that probably won't be around in ten years' time I don't think it matters that much.

Well, you say "not around in 10 years" then elsewhere, there is talk of Go-op using them for their new service.

 

[Lewisham2221]

It is a weird quirk of the law which means that a train with a fully functional toilet can't be used because there aren't any accessible ones on the same train. If the 153s were going to be around long-term and accessible toilets were out of the question I wouldn't be shocked to see the toilets entirely removed with seating put in its place, like Southern's 456s. But as a fleet that probably won't be around in ten years' time I don't think it matters that much.

They didn't have toilet retention tanks either, so they still wouldn't be able use them anyway (without having them fitted)

 

[yh00157]

Back in the early 1980s when the basic trains (pacer type classes 142, 143, 144) and later the decision to convert the 2car 155s into single car 153s happened. Money for railways was very limited and it followed a period of lots of rural rail routes being closed.

The option at the time was almost have these cheap basic trains or your local rail route might be closed, because cannot afford anything better. They kept routes open so were good choice at the time.

20-25 years later (early to mid 2000s) the railway had much higher passenger numbers, and attitudes to disabled passengers, and standards had been changed. Then new regulations (in law) came in which had a deadline for upgrade. It was decided that upgrading 30+ year old trains was not viable (especially as after 2008 financial crash borrowing money for financing new trains at very low interest rates was a relatively cheap option), so replacement trains were built (although new trains often went to busier lines, and other fleets changed routes)

As stated above, apart from a few 153s which were retained to work joined to other units to provide extra seats (but are no longer permitted to operate on their own) withdrawal was chosen option.

Okay, thank you.