LM Class 150s Refurb?

[willas00]

Shouldn't really want to push out the 150s, but LM could do with three 172s with shorter car lengths. If that couldn't be done then maybe turn to CAF or CSRE.

LM's class 153's seem to be failing a lot recently, quite a few cancellations on Cov - Nuneaton line over the past month

Maybe LM should go to Bombardier to design a Class 173. Designed based on the Class 172 spec with gangways, disabled toilet at one end and slightly longer than a current 153 with better seating arrangement's so you can fit more people in than on a 153?

It would be a good replacement for many Class 14X and 15X trains too

 

[MCR247]

If it's longer than a 153 then it isn't much use as a one carriage train, especially if 153s are 23m (I don't know!). Also, the cab(s) would require more room because I doubt you'd get away with making a small end 153 cab today!

 

[150001]

Also I think if you make the cars much longer then on curved platforms I think some of the paintwork is going to be wrecked!

 

[Class172]

The only way I could see a longer 153 happening would be if the train had a shared bogey between two sections that were articulated like the S-stock, so appearing as one unit from the inside.

 

[Nym]

I'm sure I went through a growth calculation compared with the amount of seating available on services taking into account the lifespan of any single unit, and came to the conclusion that by 2025 there would be no need for any single car units anywhere, as it would only require something like a 4% growth year on year on these marginal routes to warrant 2 car units with low density seating and disabled toilet by this point, even less time if one designed an electro diesel two car unit that made use of 20m carriages and was based on a new off the shelf EMU with a disabled toilet, low density seating and a diesel generator installed, would come out with about 110 seats per unit, only an increase of 40 odd on a Class 153, more suited to potential growth over the next 10 years, where demand would 'grow into' the stock. It would also potentially form a 'pacer replacement' in 2 or 3 car form with go-anywhere ability.

 

[sprinterguy]

If it's longer than a 153 then it isn't much use as a one carriage train, especially if 153s are 23m (I don't know!). Also, the cab(s) would require more room because I doubt you'd get away with making a small end 153 cab today!

The 153s were originally part of the Super Sprinter family as class 155s, so yes they are 23 metres in length, and as you say a "stretched" modern equivalent would be fairly pointless.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The only way I could see a longer 153 happening would be if the train had a shared bogey between two sections that were articulated like the S-stock, so appearing as one unit from the inside.

Sounds exactly like some of the Parry People Mover products:
http://www.parrypeoplemovers.com/PPM175-spec.htm

As Nym has extensively detailed, I don't think that there is much call for a new build of single carriage railcars; you would lose too many seats compared to a 153 due to the modern requirement for things like universal toilets and wheelchair spaces. For the time being, 150s would be suitable to replace 153s on those few low demand routes that warrant a 153 being used singly, and in the future it would be better to order new 2-car DMUs to allow for growth.