• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

EMR Class 153 Future

Status
Not open for further replies.

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,672
Location
Another planet...
Why is it remarkable to be starting to scrap vehicles which are over 30 years old? Plenty of railway rolling stock has lasted a shorter time than that. And it's not as if all Sprinters are going immediately, a lot will be around for a while yet.
I don't think @WillPS was suggesting that it's remarkable because it's happening sooner than expected. Conjecture on my part here, but I interpreted it more as being an "I remember when these were new, and now they're pretty much done. Doesn't time fly?" sort of sentiment.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

WillPS

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2008
Messages
2,421
Location
Nottingham
Why is it remarkable to be starting to scrap vehicles which are over 30 years old? Plenty of railway rolling stock has lasted a shorter time than that. And it's not as if all Sprinters are going immediately, a lot will be around for a while yet.
I think because in recent decades we’ve suffered from a shortage in DMU vehicles.
Yeah absolutely, it doesn't seem like long ago when the arrival of, I think, 2 153s from Northern was a big deal in increasing capacity. This was early in the EMT franchise, when (allegedly) it became apparent that the numbers Central Trains had provided were not accurate.

Back then things like loco hauled Mk2s were being considered - there just wasn't any DMUs to be had anywhere. The big hope was the 172s for LM triggering a cascade which eventually would give EMT another handful of 156s.

It's a good thing that knackered units are now being withdrawn.

I don't think @WillPS was suggesting that it's remarkable because it's happening sooner than expected. Conjecture on my part here, but I interpreted it more as being an "I remember when these were new, and now they're pretty much done. Doesn't time fly?" sort of sentiment.
I don't remember them being new. To me Sprinters always looked and felt old and Turbostars looked and felt new and modern.

The rest of what you say is accurate though.
 
Joined
31 Jan 2020
Messages
345
Location
Inverness
Now a couple of 153s on the Marston Vale line in addition to the 230s would be useful.
Allowing the infrequent hourly service to become half hourly.
Lock the lavatory and simply advertise those services as not PRM compliant. Same as a replacement bus.
PRM is to ensure equal accessibility for all, so unsurprisingly you're not allowed to just say "this train isn't accessible". Similarly supposed workarounds like booking alternative transport for disabled passengers isn't providing equal access to disabled passengers.

If they're otherwise heading for scrap maybe Scotrail might take a few more as luggage vans?
 
Last edited:

hooverboy

On Moderation
Joined
12 Oct 2017
Messages
1,372
PRM is to ensure equal accessibility for all, so unsurprisingly you're not allowed to just say "this train isn't accessible". Similarly supposed workarounds like booking alternative transport for disabled passengers isn't providing equal access to disabled passengers.

If they're otherwise heading for scrap maybe Scotrail might take a few more as luggage vans?
a more sensible adoption of PRM means accessibility for the substantial majority-with a view toward equal access as an objective.It is better for a service to run,than no service at all.


If used for emergency services,then an uncompliant unit will still allow 95% of prospective passengers to get to where they need to go,when they need to go.
a bit of common sense needs to be applied to the rules,rather than sticking to every single letter/paragraph of the text.

In this case, arbitrary cut off dates and Dft/government goalpost shifting re electrification have not helped matters, but it should have been feasible for a franchise committment to be written into the contracts stating TOC xxx will be leasing/purchasing PRM compliant units to replace them, to be introduced on a rolling one in/one out basis as and when the new units become available or have passed acceptance test and route clearing/training.
That way the TOC is under legal obligation to do so,with threat of legal action if they do not comply, but the time period has a bit of flexibility for things going pear-shaped built in.
 
Last edited:

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
7,600
Yeah absolutely, it doesn't seem like long ago when the arrival of, I think, 2 153s from Northern was a big deal in increasing capacity. This was early in the EMT franchise, when (allegedly) it became apparent that the numbers Central Trains had provided were not accurate.

Back then things like loco hauled Mk2s were being considered - there just wasn't any DMUs to be had anywhere. The big hope was the 172s for LM triggering a cascade which eventually would give EMT another handful of 156s.

It's a good thing that knackered units are now being withdrawn.


I don't remember them being new. To me Sprinters always looked and felt old and Turbostars looked and felt new and modern.

The rest of what you say is accurate though.

I can still remember walking on a 158 for the first time and if you were used to first gen DMMUs, 150s and if you were lucky the odd 156 they were pretty revolutionary. Just a shame they were probably built a few years too early in the technology curve and to a cost to boot so they've never really met their promise.
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,341
I can still remember walking on a 158 for the first time and if you were used to first gen DMMUs, 150s and if you were lucky the odd 156 they were pretty revolutionary. Just a shame they were probably built a few years too early in the technology curve and to a cost to boot so they've never really met their promise.

Class 158s have certainly earned their keep for nearly 30 years, although I personally prefer the 156s. Both suffered the same fault in that they should all have been at least 3 coaches, and in the case of 158s, they were too small to waste space on frequently underused 1st Class seating.
 
Joined
31 Jan 2020
Messages
345
Location
Inverness
a more sensible adoption of PRM means accessibility for the substantial majority-with a view toward equal access as an objective.It is better for a service to run,than no service at all.


If used for emergency services,then an uncompliant unit will still allow 95% of prospective passengers to get to where they need to go,when they need to go.
a bit of common sense needs to be applied to the rules,rather than sticking to every single letter/paragraph of the text.

In this case, arbitrary cut off dates and Dft/government goalpost shifting re electrification have not helped matters, but it should have been feasible for a franchise committment to be written into the contracts stating TOC xxx will be leasing/purchasing PRM compliant units to replace them, to be introduced on a rolling one in/one out basis as and when the new units become available or have passed acceptance test and route clearing/training.
That way the TOC is under legal obligation to do so,with threat of legal action if they do not comply, but the time period has a bit of flexibility for things going pear-shaped built in.
That's really just backpedalling on PRM though. The government has committed to providing equal access for all and the cut off dates have been set for a decade by now. We've already had a decade of treating equal access as an objective

It would make a goal of accessibility for all meaningless if we allow train operators to use non compliant stock to run some services and just advertise them as not disabled accessible. The vast majority of rolling stock is compliant, TOCs and Stock owners have had long enough to either replace trains or to have them modified to comply. If they have a good cause then they can apply for extensions and abide by the conditions.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
a more sensible adoption of PRM means accessibility for the substantial majority-with a view toward equal access as an objective.It is better for a service to run,than no service at all.


If used for emergency services,then an uncompliant unit will still allow 95% of prospective passengers to get to where they need to go,when they need to go.
a bit of common sense needs to be applied to the rules,rather than sticking to every single letter/paragraph of the text.

In this case, arbitrary cut off dates and Dft/government goalpost shifting re electrification have not helped matters, but it should have been feasible for a franchise committment to be written into the contracts stating TOC xxx will be leasing/purchasing PRM compliant units to replace them, to be introduced on a rolling one in/one out basis as and when the new units become available or have passed acceptance test and route clearing/training.
That way the TOC is under legal obligation to do so,with threat of legal action if they do not comply, but the time period has a bit of flexibility for things going pear-shaped built in.

How long ago were the PRM requirements known ?
 

PHILIPE

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Nov 2011
Messages
13,472
Location
Caerphilly
At least 10 years ago,

They've had plenty of time to have them modified, there's no excuse at this point.

When TFW took over the franchise from ATW in October 2018 they had to start from scratch and play catch up as ATW or the Welsh Government had done absolutely nothing despite being reminded more than once. ATW would meet the requirements of their franchise and nothing more unless the Welsh Government paid for it.
 

WillPS

Established Member
Joined
18 Nov 2008
Messages
2,421
Location
Nottingham
When TFW took over the franchise from ATW in October 2018 they had to start from scratch and play catch up as ATW or the Welsh Government had done absolutely nothing despite being reminded more than once. ATW would meet the requirements of their franchise and nothing more unless the Welsh Government paid for it.
ATW had done up their 158s with PIS hadn't they?
 

PHILIPE

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Nov 2011
Messages
13,472
Location
Caerphilly
ATW had done up their 158s with PIS hadn't they?

Yes, they did but without fitting CET tanks which had to be done retrospectively but they did nothing to the 36 strong 150 fleet. Funded by the Weslh Government.
 
Last edited:

Murray J

Member
Joined
10 Aug 2019
Messages
712
Location
East Grinstead
any idea what has happened to the 14(?) EMR 153s that are stored? is it possible they might return after the COVID-19 crisis is over or are they off-lease?
 

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
7,600
any idea what has happened to the 14(?) EMR 153s that are stored? is it possible they might return after the COVID-19 crisis is over or are they off-lease?

They're being rotated as needed. They're still on lease as far as I know but whether they make a return who knows.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
I wouldn't be surprised if they did make some sort of comeback - until the 170s start coming on stream they'll be very useful for maxing out train lengths - the only reason not to use them is if there's absolutely nowhere to stable them
 

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
7,600
Ah, that explains: 5T51 (15:15 Barrow Hill to Derby) today. Shown as 153374 / 385

Yeah, they're balancing mileage and exams I think. Of the ones that are already at Eastcroft only 355 has done any work for a while (on the RHL every day), 383 and 319 are dumped round the back.
 

Stephen Lee

On Moderation
Joined
7 Jul 2019
Messages
675
Or maybe West Midlands Railway can lease some extra sets for extra capacity until Class 196s enter service?
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
About 3 to 4 weeks ago, a pair turned up on the Marston Vale - no idea what for but as I understand it, they spent a lot of the day just trundling around ECS on the branch line.

I don't know which units but they were in EMT livery with EMR Regional branding.
 

NoMorePacers

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2016
Messages
1,392
Location
Humberside
About 3 to 4 weeks ago, a pair turned up on the Marston Vale - no idea what for but as I understand it, they spent a lot of the day just trundling around ECS on the branch line.

I don't know which units but they were in EMT livery with EMR Regional branding.
Apparently ROG were using them for signal testing.
 

theblackwatch

Established Member
Joined
15 Feb 2006
Messages
10,713
30 years is around the age of many of the 'heritage' DMUs when they were retired (late 50s 'new', withdrawn in the late 80s). Probably the reason it's remarkable is that the 153s are in reasonable condition - whereas the BR policy seemed to be to run stock down, and withdraw it when it was falling to bits. Many Mk.1 (and early Mk.2) coaches lasted 25 years, if that, and when they were removed from service, they were only fit for the scrapyard.

Perhaps if the TOCs/Leasing Companies had let the stock run down to the same extent that BR did, people wouldn't consider it to be 'remarkable'!
 

Stephen Lee

On Moderation
Joined
7 Jul 2019
Messages
675
30 years is around the age of many of the 'heritage' DMUs when they were retired (late 50s 'new', withdrawn in the late 80s). Probably the reason it's remarkable is that the 153s are in reasonable condition - whereas the BR policy seemed to be to run stock down, and withdraw it when it was falling to bits. Many Mk.1 (and early Mk.2) coaches lasted 25 years, if that, and when they were removed from service, they were only fit for the scrapyard.

Perhaps if the TOCs/Leasing Companies had let the stock run down to the same extent that BR did, people wouldn't consider it to be 'remarkable'!
Put some into a heritage railway perhaps?
 

Phil Scott

Member
Joined
21 Aug 2017
Messages
206
I always thought it would be nice if the Ecclesbourne Valley Railway preserved their namesake 153383.
 

Energy

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2018
Messages
4,469
Or maybe West Midlands Railway can lease some extra sets for extra capacity until Class 196s enter service?
Why would they? Its just an extra small fleet when they can order more 196s if they don't have enough.
 

craigybagel

Established Member
Joined
25 Oct 2012
Messages
5,081
4 went to TFW and staying until their Class 769s come into play. Please don't ask when as they are nearly 2 years late now.
It would be nice if we could keep them, they're in much better condition then the original ex ATW fleet.
 

43055

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
2,903
It would be nice if we could keep them, they're in much better condition then the original ex ATW fleet.
Comparing to other 15x stock in general I think EMT have done a very good job on keeping them in a good condition although the TFW 158s are good as well. I cant compare to TFW 153's but the ex GWR 153's that EMR have now don't look as good at the ex EMT ones but the seats are better.
 

NoMorePacers

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2016
Messages
1,392
Location
Humberside
Comparing to other 15x stock in general I think EMT have done a very good job on keeping them in a good condition although the TFW 158s are good as well. I cant compare to TFW 153's but the ex GWR 153's that EMR have now don't look as good at the ex EMT ones but the seats are better.
The EMT 153s are certainly in much better condition than the Northern ones. Although you could say that about any piece of rolling stock that has had to deal with the devilish duo of Serco-Abellio and Arriva.
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
3,099
Location
Reading
30 years is around the age of many of the 'heritage' DMUs when they were retired (late 50s 'new', withdrawn in the late 80s). Probably the reason it's remarkable is that the 153s are in reasonable condition - whereas the BR policy seemed to be to run stock down, and withdraw it when it was falling to bits. Many Mk.1 (and early Mk.2) coaches lasted 25 years, if that, and when they were removed from service, they were only fit for the scrapyard.

Perhaps if the TOCs/Leasing Companies had let the stock run down to the same extent that BR did, people wouldn't consider it to be 'remarkable'!
A significant part of the reason for the apparent early withdrawal of the first generation DMUs and other rolling stock from the same era was the use of asbestos for sound, heat and fire insulation in the bodies. The use of blue asbestos in new or refurbished stock stopped in 1967 and in 1976 (or was it 1974?) BR made a decision to remove all sprayed blue asbestos by December 1987. If it was not cost effective to remove the asbestos the vehicles were scrapped.

Another factor is that corrosion protection in post war vehicle bodies was not good. Early monocoque-bodied cars tended to rust through in about 10 years and the same was true of rail vehicles, though it took a bit longer. Those early models of monocoque Mk 2 built with a door in the centre of the body also distorted as cutting a hole in a stressed skin structure was not a good idea. Steam heated Mk 1 coaches tended to suffer severe lower body side rusting due to condensation and leaks from the steam heating coils under the seats, similar effects (although electrically heated) were seen on the 4 CEPs and BEPs built for the Kent Coast electrification - which all went through a heavy mid-life rebuild at Swindon and the repair patches along the bottom edge of the body were obvious.

Attention to details enabled the later builds to last longer and the Mark 3 coaches were assembled by spot welding galvanised steel sheet so they are inherently more resistant to rusting - except for, if I remember rightly, the roofs which are mild steel.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top