Northern Unit Refurbishments

[Astradyne]

Surely like new means seats have to be returned to a 'similar condition' as to when they were new.

If you had a dining room chair renovated to like new ... you would not expect a new one?

A brand new seat would not be like new ... it would be new.

 

[pemma]

Surely like new means seats have to be returned to a 'similar condition' as to when they were new.

If you had a dining room chair renovated to like new ... you would not expect a new one?

I don't think you understand the context. The idea was passengers boarding the train shouldn't get the impression they are travelling on an old train. Returning the trains to a similar condition as when they were new would be a downgrade with some of the Sprinters that have already had their 1980s seating replaced by a newer type of seating. Part of the 'like new' requirement includes replacing the original internal lighting with LED lighting so it certainly doesn't mean recreating the interior as it was in the 1980s.

A brand new seat would not be like new ... it would be new.

A 'like new' interior was required not a 'like new' seat. The interior includes the panelling, carpets, seats, grab handles, toilets, door controls, lighting etc.

 

[tom1649]

I don't understand this obsession with new seating. Many older BR units and carriages retained their original seating throughout their lives and I don't remember there being a fuss about it. Indeed I travelled on 1956 vintage Class 101s in 2003 still with original seat frames.

Many on here would seem to want new seating regardless of whether it is actually an improvement over the original, which is always subjective anyway.

 

[pemma]

I don't understand this obsession with new seating. Many older BR units and carriages retained their original seating throughout their lives and I don't remember there being a fuss about it. Indeed I travelled on 1956 vintage Class 101s in 2003 still with original seat frames.

Many on here would seem to want new seating regardless of whether it is actually an improvement over the original, which is always subjective anyway.

I haven't been on any of the Northern 158s recently but I'm aware some of the North West 150s and 156s seats have problems which won't be fixed by new seat cushions, covers and a repaint. You don't have to look too hard to find cracks in the plastic on some trains or broken fold-down tables (on the trains which have them.)

With the original interior 150s they have very narrow seats which aren't comfortable, so the only way to solve that problem is to replace the seats and not try to cram in as many seats as possible (as happened on the refurbished FNW 150s.)

 

[mrbluelips]

Really underwhelming, especially the outside... :/

 

[WatcherZero]

Don't tell me they're taking away a toilet on the 158's ? Loony tunes if they are.

Isnt it presently one disabled toilet and two normal toilets with one locked out of use. I think the idea is to remove the redudant normal toilet and fit a larger disabled toilet. The location of the toilet may have to change to allow a CET tank to be fitted as well.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I don't understand this obsession with new seating. Many older BR units and carriages retained their original seating throughout their lives and I don't remember there being a fuss about it. Indeed I travelled on 1956 vintage Class 101s in 2003 still with original seat frames.

Many on here would seem to want new seating regardless of whether it is actually an improvement over the original, which is always subjective anyway.

Part of the problem is that Northern units have such a varied history that there's quite a variety of seating types and layouts within a single class. The Pacers and 153s are leaving so that's less of an issue, but the 150s, 156s, 158s are a bit of a mish-mash in terms of seating and layout. There's only the 155s that are uniform and there's only 7 of them. That's the refurbishment I'm more curious about, because it might give a clue to 153 future and we'll find out if it is in fact possible to polish a t**d!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Isnt it presently one disabled toilet and two normal toilets with one locked out of use. I think the idea is to remove the redudant normal toilet and fit a larger disabled toilet. The location of the toilet may have to change to allow a CET tank to be fitted as well.

I think (but may be mistaken) that the locked out toilet is in MS vehicles only. All 2-car units have 1 large and 1 small loo apart from 158901-910 which AIUI have just the large loo.

 

[TEW]

Isnt it presently one disabled toilet and two normal toilets with one locked out of use. I think the idea is to remove the redudant normal toilet and fit a larger disabled toilet. The location of the toilet may have to change to allow a CET tank to be fitted as well.

I believe the Northern 158s already have CET tanks, and if they don't, SWT units certainly do, and they have toilets in the same place as Northern units. A larger toilet isn't required for compliance with the 2020 regulations either.

 

[Brian Aylott]

A larger toilet isn't required for compliance with the 2020 regulations either.

They do however need to be modified
Brian

 

[WatcherZero]

The ATW and East Midlands 158 disabled toilets were enlarged or otherwise improved in 2008 after the Dft sent them a letter saying they wernt happy with their current state.

No reference to other operators I can see but the 158 disabled toilets for all operators are on the RVAR 2020 compliance list assessed 2011 as non-compliant expected to be made compliant and this assessment hasn't been updated. It lists a whole slew of things they are non compliant for including corridor width (too narrow for a wheelchair to pass by), facilities inside which they would need to be expanded to accommodate and various other things.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...03710/class-158-all-compliance-assessment.xls

Looking at the list the Northern disabled toilets will have to be made narrower and longer to comply.


edit: Found a news article from last year saying the ATW 158 will have to have further work on the disabled toilets to make them compliant at Neville Hill in 2016.

 

[Haydn1971]

I can't see how the EMT 158 loos could be compliant, so I'm not surprised they are on the list - it's a shambles that everyone's leaving modifications so close to the deadline.

 

[yorksrob]

Isnt it presently one disabled toilet and two normal toilets with one locked out of use. I think the idea is to remove the redudant normal toilet and fit a larger disabled toilet. The location of the toilet may have to change to allow a CET tank to be fitted as well.

As others have said, the 2 carriage ones (which are the majority) only have two toilets, so the loss of one would be a major step backwards on these very intensively used units.

And yes, they have toilet tanks now.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

As others have said, the 2 carriage ones (which are the majority) only have two toilets, so the loss of one would be a major step backwards on these very intensively used units.

And yes, they have toilet tanks now.

It would be a step back, but not a major one. Most 2-car units have one toilet including more modern units than the 158s. One toilet per 2 cars is plenty, there are lots of 4-car units with just the one toilet (333s, 2020-compliant mk3 based units) and plenty of units with no toilets at all. Of course one downside of fitting tanks is that once the tank is full, the toilet can't be used- that seems to me to be the only reason for more toilets.

 

[superkev]

The 7 former wypte 158's only ever had one wc.
K

 

[WatcherZero]

It was removing the 3rd toilet from the three cars I was referring to. I believe Porterbrook in their train diagrams even actually labels it as 'Redundant'.

I presume it was locked out of use and marked redundant because they couldn't fit a tank to that one.

 

[yorksrob]

It would be a step back, but not a major one. Most 2-car units have one toilet including more modern units than the 158s. One toilet per 2 cars is plenty, there are lots of 4-car units with just the one toilet (333s, 2020-compliant mk3 based units) and plenty of units with no toilets at all. Of course one downside of fitting tanks is that once the tank is full, the toilet can't be used- that seems to me to be the only reason for more toilets.

No it's not plenty, particularly if they're going to be locking themselves out of use. The 158's in particular are used for longer distance, well used journeys where a back up is necessary.

People seem prepared to supinely accept any deterioration of design and passenger accommodation standards that the railway can throw at them on this forum.

 

[TEW]

The ATW and East Midlands 158 disabled toilets were enlarged or otherwise improved in 2008 after the Dft sent them a letter saying they wernt happy with their current state.

No reference to other operators I can see but the 158 disabled toilets for all operators are on the RVAR 2020 compliance list assessed 2011 as non-compliant expected to be made compliant and this assessment hasn't been updated. It lists a whole slew of things they are non compliant for including corridor width (too narrow for a wheelchair to pass by), facilities inside which they would need to be expanded to accommodate and various other things.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...03710/class-158-all-compliance-assessment.xls

Looking at the list the Northern disabled toilets will have to be made narrower and longer to comply.


edit: Found a news article from last year saying the ATW 158 will have to have further work on the disabled toilets to make them compliant at Neville Hill in 2016.

I think things may have changed since that was published. The current SWT 158/159 refurbishment makes the units compliant, and the modifications to the toilet are pretty minor. They certainly don't extend to changing the shape of it.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

No it's not plenty, particularly if they're going to be locking themselves out of use. The 158's in particular are used for longer distance, well used journeys where a back up is necessary.

People seem prepared to supinely accept any deterioration of design and passenger accommodation standards that the railway can throw at them on this forum.

I can't speak for others, but I genuinely can't remember the last time I used a toilet on board a train. Most journeys I make are short hops which in certain other parts of the country would be made on trains with no toilets anyway, but even on longer journeys I'm unlikely to need the use of a toilet. On local journeys the only reason toilets are provided is because they always have been, and there's uproar if anyone suggests getting rid. Once discharging onto the track is a thing of the past there'll have to be some tough decisions made, as tanks will fill up long before the unit returns to a depot with discharge facilities. Do local and regional trains on the continent have toilets provided as a matter of course?

Of course on routes like Leeds to Carlisle, toilets are likely to be needed, and the tanking issue will need looking at in those cases- how easy would it be to install facilities to allow tanks to be emptied at the bay platforms at Leeds and Carlisle? Not very easy, I imagine.

 

[yorksrob]

I can't speak for others, but I genuinely can't remember the last time I used a toilet on board a train. Most journeys I make are short hops which in certain other parts of the country would be made on trains with no toilets anyway, but even on longer journeys I'm unlikely to need the use of a toilet. On local journeys the only reason toilets are provided is because they always have been, and there's uproar if anyone suggests getting rid. Once discharging onto the track is a thing of the past there'll have to be some tough decisions made, as tanks will fill up long before the unit returns to a depot with discharge facilities. Do local and regional trains on the continent have toilets provided as a matter of course?

Of course on routes like Leeds to Carlisle, toilets are likely to be needed, and the tanking issue will need looking at in those cases- how easy would it be to install facilities to allow tanks to be emptied at the bay platforms at Leeds and Carlisle? Not very easy, I imagine.

In other words, precisely the sort of routes on which 158's are used.

I should imagine it would be very expensive and difficult to install tanking facilities in a bay platform at Leeds, therefore the only sensible solution would be to leave the two existing toilets on the train.

You may have a particularly strong bladder, but that doesn't mean that you're representative of the population as a whole.

 

[sprinterguy]

The 7 former wypte 158's only ever had one wc.
K

There are ten former WYPTE class 158s, though you are correct on them only ever having one toilet.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It would be a step back, but not a major one. Most 2-car units have one toilet including more modern units than the 158s. One toilet per 2 cars is plenty, there are lots of 4-car units with just the one toilet (333s, 2020-compliant mk3 based units) and plenty of units with no toilets at all. Of course one downside of fitting tanks is that once the tank is full, the toilet can't be used- that seems to me to be the only reason for more toilets.

On a regional train where many passengers might be travelling for more (sometimes significantly more) than an hour then one toilet on a two carriage train is not really sufficient, in terms of either range (limited by water/effluent tank capacity) on often lengthy diagrams or providing redundancy when one packs up. Even on a four carriage commuter train I think that two would be preferable for similar reasons.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can't speak for others, but I genuinely can't remember the last time I used a toilet on board a train. Most journeys I make are short hops which in certain other parts of the country would be made on trains with no toilets anyway, but even on longer journeys I'm unlikely to need the use of a toilet. On local journeys the only reason toilets are provided is because they always have been, and there's uproar if anyone suggests getting rid. Once discharging onto the track is a thing of the past there'll have to be some tough decisions made, as tanks will fill up long before the unit returns to a depot with discharge facilities.

I assume that you never enjoy getting a few beers down your neck before (or during!) a train journey of any length, or travel long distances to rural locations to start a walk where making use of the on board facilities is more acceptable than p*ssing in a bush en route? That's to say nothing of those with small or weak bladders, unexpected illnesses or genuine medical conditions.

If any TOC operates diagrams on the assumption that the toilet tanks will fill up long before the unit has access to discharge facilities then that smacks of very poor fleet management practices and I don't think that there are any TOCs that do so: None of the three TOCs that I have worked for, which have all operated almost exclusively CET fitted stock, have operated in such a way. This includes operations with a diverse range of outbases where stock is stabled overnight. A good TOC (any TOC, really!) will also recognise weekly variations in toilet usage (low demand weekday commuter market versus high demand weekend leisure market) and adapt their tanking schedules to suit.

 

[pemma]

I can't speak for others, but I genuinely can't remember the last time I used a toilet on board a train. Most journeys I make are short hops which in certain other parts of the country would be made on trains with no toilets anyway, but even on longer journeys I'm unlikely to need the use of a toilet.

I used the toilet on a 15 minute journey last week as I was making a journey which involved 3 legs - 1 on Northern and 2 on Metrolink (with no toilets.)

As many trains only have 1 toilet if I making a longer journey which involves using multiple trains I sometimes use the toilet on a train even if I don't really need it just in case the second train doesn't have a working toilet and I can't hang on until my final destination.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In other words, precisely the sort of routes on which 158's are used.

The routes which the 158s are used on will change as a number of the current 158 routes will be getting 195s, while they'll be 8 extra 158s arriving at Northern.

The platform lengthening plans produced suggest 3 car 158s will be used on routes going north and west from Victoria in the long term. It's harder to work out where the 2 car ones will be used given they are the same length as 155s and 156s.

 

[Mollman]

I was under the impression that the majority of 158s would be moved to Heaton for Newcastle - Carlisle and Newcastle - Middlesbrough services, although the former is more suited to 156s given the low but regularly changing line speed. I use the Blackpool - York train regularly and can say that two toilets are definitely needed (especially when theirs football traffic!).

 

[pemma]

I was under the impression that the majority of 158s would be moved to Heaton for Newcastle - Carlisle and Newcastle - Middlesbrough services

Northern will have 53 x 158s by 2019. While that route has been promised refurbished 158s I don't think it requires the 'majority' of a fleet of 53 trains.

 

[Astradyne]

Do you seriously expect the new 2 car CAF units to have 2 toilets. I suspect you to be very disappointed, one per unit seems to be the normal these days.

As for the 158s, you want 'like new' ... so if you can't tell the difference it needs to be the same.

The Class 377s I use have 1 toilet per unit ... they can be five carriages long and are used on services over an hour

 

[sprinterguy]

I was under the impression that the majority of 158s would be moved to Heaton for Newcastle - Carlisle and Newcastle - Middlesbrough services, although the former is more suited to 156s given the low but regularly changing line speed.

Interesting to note that the Newcastle - Carlisle line was earmarked to receive class 158 units when new, before the 158 order was tightened up. Given the routes that class 158s have been cascaded onto, replacing Super Sprinter stock such as 156s on the North Highland lines and Calderdale route, I see no problem in utilising them on the Tyne Valley line as a means to improve the travelling experience.

 

[yorksrob]

Do you seriously expect the new 2 car CAF units to have 2 toilets. I suspect you to be very disappointed, one between 2 coaches seems to be the normal these days.

As for the 158s, you want 'like new' ... so if you can't tell the difference it needs to be the same.

I usually find myself disappointed with new stock compared to what they replace, at least since the early 1990's.

As far as the internal ambience of the 158's is concerned, I'd rather they stuck with the present seating and lighting personally.

 

[sprinterguy]

Do you seriously expect the new 2 car CAF units to have 2 toilets.

No, I don't unfortunately. It's a shame, as the 170 units which are used on comparable services elsewhere in the country seem to have been able to get it right in providing two toilets per 2-car train and achieve PRM TSI compliance without needlessly sacrificing seating capacity.

 

[TEW]

Do you seriously expect the new 2 car CAF units to have 2 toilets. I suspect you to be very disappointed, one per unit seems to be the normal these days.

As for the 158s, you want 'like new' ... so if you can't tell the difference it needs to be the same.

The Class 377s I use have 1 toilet per unit ... they can be five carriages long and are used on services over an hour

Only the 3-car 377s have only 1 toilet, the 4 and 5 carriage units both have 2.

 

[notlob.divad]

The class 319s have 2 toilets for 4 carriages which works out as 1 for every two carriages. They will be doing Blackpool to Liverpool - (+ SParkway?) Which 1.5 hrs end to end the same as Newcastle - Carlisle. The last I read the accessibility mods would mean getting rid of 1 to make a single toilet for a 4 carriage set although I am not sure how accurate that is.

1 per two carriages seems to be about the right number for regional trains. Intercity trains where people could spend over two hours probably need 1 per carriage. But that is just my opinion.

 

[Rail Blues]

I can't speak for others, but I genuinely can't remember the last time I used a toilet on board a train. Most journeys I make are short hops which in certain other parts of the country would be made on trains with no toilets anyway, but even on longer journeys I'm unlikely to need the use of a toilet. On local journeys the only reason toilets are provided is because they always have been, and there's uproar if anyone suggests getting rid

Given that I have IBS fairly frequently. The prospect of being on a regional express and the single toilet being out of commission or engaged fora lengthy period isn't a prospect I care to contemplate. As fellow IBS sufferers will confirm, the urge to go is often sudden and urgent.