Class 153 discussion

[43074]

What are Northern replacing theirs with??

There's no ''like-for-like'' replacement planned as such, but I suppose the replacement is made possible by the arrival of the extra 150s, 156s, 158s, 170s, 195s, 319s, 331s and the internal cascade that results from this.

 

[43096]

wont they just be used as trailers and/or marshaled into 2 car trains?

They won't be trailers though.

Trailer = vehicle without engine/motors
Motor = vehicle with engine/motors
Driving = vehicle with driving cab

So a car with driving cab and engine is a Driving Motor, one with driving cab and no motor is a Driving Trailer. An intermediate car with no cab is just a motor or trailer.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

153s are not cleared to work north of Radyr, similar to 158s, being 26m stock.

23m, not 26m, to be pedantic.

 

[gareth950]

153s are not cleared to work north of Radyr, similar to 158s, being 26m stock. They would have to be confined to the Rhymney route. Coryton and as far as Radyr where they currently have diagrammed work also Barry Island and Penarth no problem.

What's the issue with 153s north of Radyr exactly? If it's platform length/clearance, then doubled up Pacers run daily north of Radyr, which gives a 60 metre train length (2 x 30 m) so what would be the problem with 2 x 23m 153s, giving an overall 46m train length?

 

[YorkshireBear]

What's the issue with 153s north of Radyr exactly? If it's platform length/clearance, then doubled up Pacers run daily north of Radyr, which gives a 60 metre train length (2 x 30 m) so what would be the problem with 2 x 23m 153s, giving an overall 46m train length?

I think it is less total train length and more carriage length, larger throws on corners from longer carriage. There might not be platform or structure clearance.

 

[DarloRich]

They won't be trailers though.

Trailer = vehicle without engine/motors
Motor = vehicle with engine/motors
Driving = vehicle with driving cab

So a car with driving cab and engine is a Driving Motor, one with driving cab and no motor is a Driving Trailer. An intermediate car with no cab is just a motor or trailer.

Fine - an additional carriage then. :roll:

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I think it is less total train length and more carriage length, larger throws on corners from longer carriage. There might not be platform or structure clearance.

I'm not sure of the situation North of Radyr, but 153s are barred from Portsmouth due to the steps at the small cab end for use by traincrews which were added when they were split. 155s could run to Pompey back in the day as these steps weren't present- and presumably could be removed if they were returned to being 2+ car units.

 

[ChrisHogan]

Northern are releasing theirs (18), with 1 going to EMT. GWR are releasing theirs (14), with 6 going to London Midland, (5).

The West Midlands ITT published this week refers to the 150s possibly being refurbished by the new franchise, suggesting the 3 LM 150s aren't going off lease next summer after all. (although this was specified in the Direct Award FA) Bedford - Bletchley services said to be unworkable with pairs of 153s.

 

[headshot119]

What's the issue with 153s north of Radyr exactly? If it's platform length/clearance, then doubled up Pacers run daily north of Radyr, which gives a 60 metre train length (2 x 30 m) so what would be the problem with 2 x 23m 153s, giving an overall 46m train length?

A 23m vehicle has a larger swing over the bogies than one which is 16m (Just ignore the fact pacer doesn't have bogies it still has less of a swing than a longer vehicle)

I'm not sure of the situation North of Radyr, but 153s are barred from Portsmouth due to the steps at the small cab end for use by traincrews which were added when they were split. 155s could run to Pompey back in the day as these steps weren't present- and presumably could be removed if they were returned to being 2+ car units.

All 23m vehicles are banned north of Radyr. It's not just a cab step issue, though I don't know exactly what prevents them. (It might be an easy fix it might not be)

 

[43096]

The West Midlands ITT published this week refers to the 150s possibly being refurbished by the new franchise, suggesting the 3 LM 150s aren't going off lease next summer after all. (although this was specified in the Direct Award FA) Bedford - Bletchley services said to be unworkable with pairs of 153s.

That's not the case. The West Mids ITT specifically states that bidders CANNOT offer the Class 150s. The specific statement in the ITT is:

"To that end, only the following rolling stock may be proposed by Bidders for inclusion within the West Midlands franchise Train Fleet:
a) the rolling stock that is comprised within the West Midlands franchise Train Fleet at the date of issuing this ITT, except for the Class 150 units that are due to be cascaded to the Northern franchise before the start date;"

 

[ChrisHogan]

That's not the case. The West Mids ITT specifically states that bidders CANNOT offer the Class 150s. The specific statement in the ITT is:

"To that end, only the following rolling stock may be proposed by Bidders for inclusion within the West Midlands franchise Train Fleet:
a) the rolling stock that is comprised within the West Midlands franchise Train Fleet at the date of issuing this ITT, except for the Class 150 units that are due to be cascaded to the Northern franchise before the start date;"

Whoops. Missed that clause. Apologies.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

The only solution that I have for the 153's is to reform them into a mix of 3 car units numbered in the 1559xx range (what with them being hybrids) and a small pool of around about ten being reformed into 2 car units numbered into the 1556xx range.

The future of Melksham railway station is looking bleak as the platform can only hold a single 153 in it. I wonder if Portabrook is planning on converting more 2 car 143/144 units into the 14x evolution range? Now that would be a sight.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The future of Melksham railway station is looking bleak as the platform can only hold a single 153 in it. I wonder if Portabrook is planning on converting more 2 car 143/144 units into the 14x evolution range? Now that would be a sight.

Extending platforms is not that expensive, or a local door only solution (as the 185s use on some of the Cumbrian local stations) would work.

 

[BestWestern]

The only solution that I have for the 153's is to reform them into a mix of 3 car units numbered in the 1559xx range (what with them being hybrids) and a small pool of around about ten being reformed into 2 car units numbered into the 1556xx range.

The future of Melksham railway station is looking bleak as the platform can only hold a single 153 in it. I wonder if Portabrook is planning on converting more 2 car 143/144 units into the 14x evolution range? Now that would be a sight.

The future of Melksham is not likely to be affected in any way; overlength trains already stop there on a daily basis and use 'local door only', just the same as Dilton Marsh, Avoncliff and various locations on the Weymouth route and in the west.

I agree that three car 155s would be a useful idea; one car could retain the current toilet, one could have it removed to provide additional luggage space, and only one vehicle would require the mods.

 

[PHILIPE]

The future of Melksham is not likely to be affected in any way; overlength trains already stop there on a daily basis and use 'local door only', just the same as Dilton Marsh, Avoncliff and various locations on the Weymouth route and in the west.

I agree that three car 155s would be a useful idea; one car could retain the current toilet, one could have it removed to provide additional luggage space, and only one vehicle would require the mods.

There are 4 x 158 Diagrams calling at Melksham each day. When engineering work takes place that results in Portsmouth to Cardiff diverting to Swindon and calling at Melksham, there are 3 Car 158s calling all day.

 

[BestWestern]

There are 4 x 158 Diagrams calling at Melksham each day. When engineering work takes place that results in Portsmouth to Cardiff diverting to Swindon and calling at Melksham, there are 3 Car 158s calling all day.

Indeed. What does remain to be seen is how the cascaded Turbo fleet will be adapted to call at such places, given that no form of local door control currently exists on them.

 

[superkev]

With the construction of the 153/5's being similar to the rust afflicted 142's I can't see them having a long life. 155 seating designed by someone with no legs.
K

 

[NorthernSpirit]

The future of Melksham is not likely to be affected in any way; overlength trains already stop there on a daily basis and use 'local door only', just the same as Dilton Marsh, Avoncliff and various locations on the Weymouth route and in the west.

I agree that three car 155s would be a useful idea; one car could retain the current toilet, one could have it removed to provide additional luggage space, and only one vehicle would require the mods.

When I went to Melksham, I was on a 153 at the time which made me think that ALL services that called there off peak were 153's.

A three car 155 doubled up would be ideal for the Cardiff - Pompey services as the three car 158's currently used are at breaking point on Saturdays. The same for the Harrogates and also the Calder Valley's.

 

[PHILIPE]

When I went to Melksham, I was on a 153 at the time which made me think that ALL services that called there off peak were 153's.

A three car 155 doubled up would be ideal for the Cardiff - Pompey services as the three car 158's currently used are at breaking point on Saturdays. The same for the Harrogates and also the Calder Valley's.

The 153 works the shuttle through Melksham but some of the services which run through to and from Cheltenham or beyond are 158s.

 

[Johncleesefan]

When I went to Melksham, I was on a 153 at the time which made me think that ALL services that called there off peak were 153's.

A three car 155 doubled up would be ideal for the Cardiff - Pompey services as the three car 158's currently used are at breaking point on Saturdays. The same for the Harrogates and also the Calder Valley's.

Definitely not ideal, they are banned Southampton onwards anyway and would never keep time

 

[richw]

Definitely not ideal, they are banned Southampton onwards anyway and would never keep time

153s are banned I believe due to the small end cab step fouling of platforms. That step could be removed if put back to 155s.
A timetable could eaaily be adjusted to suit different stock

 

[Parallel]

When I went to Melksham, I was on a 153 at the time which made me think that ALL services that called there off peak were 153's.

A three car 155 doubled up would be ideal for the Cardiff - Pompey services as the three car 158's currently used are at breaking point on Saturdays. The same for the Harrogates and also the Calder Valley's.

Three car 155 doubled up would make 6 cars, and would be too long to call at Filton Abbey Wood, Bradford On Avon, Platform 1 at Trowbridge, Warminster, and possibly Severn Tunnel Junction. I'm not sure about Romsey. (Unless they end up using 16x, that have SDO)

If 5 cars become the standard on these services in the future, GWR or the next franchise holder would need to consider platform extensions at some stations for strengthening.

The sole 153 operates most on the Transwilts line, though 150s and 158s operate on the morning/evening longer services. IMO the shuttle services should be extended to Salisbury when possible. Westbury - Salisbury is the only part of the route that currently gets less than 2tph most of the day (though there are a few SWT and GWR extras)

 

[Johncleesefan]

153s are banned I believe due to the small end cab step fouling of platforms. That step could be removed if put back to 155s.
A timetable could eaaily be adjusted to suit different stock

This is true but I don't think it would be gwrs best business plan to send 153s on one of their busiest west flagship routes anymore than they need to. Although still a better plan than permanent 3+2 turbo formations. A guards nightmare

 

[centraltrains]

On the London Midland 153 at least; where the toilet is there seems to be loads of luggage space. Surely the simple fix is to remove some of these luggage areas, add a large disabled toilet and have a curving corridor area similar to how toilets are in voyagers? Not sure if it is possible and cost. I was very surprised to see the LM 153 had a proper porcelain toilet!

Very sad to hear the 150s will be leaving the WM, they're my favourite trains!

 

[swt_passenger]

Three car 155 doubled up would make 6 cars, and would be too long to call at Filton Abbey Wood, Bradford On Avon, Platform 1 at Trowbridge, Warminster, and possibly Severn Tunnel Junction. I'm not sure about Romsey. (Unless they end up using 16x, that have SDO)

Romsey should be OK, SWT consider it is long enough for 6 x 23m vehicles. I've stopped there on a diverted Salisbury train and all doors opened.

 

[Muzer]

Indeed. What does remain to be seen is how the cascaded Turbo fleet will be adapted to call at such places, given that no form of local door control currently exists on them.

I would be surprised if guards' control panels don't end up being fitted on them for this reason (among others). Perhaps they'll take this opportunity to retrofit ASDO...