Rumour: Porterbrook to go for cheap option with 153s

[Class 170101]

No. Pacer conversions are banned. Any bidder proposing use of class 14xs post-December 2019 will have their bid disqualified.



It is at least 120 vehicles. I think it's presumed Northern bidders will also take on 10 x 2 car 156s, 8 x 2 car 158s and 29 x 3 car 170s which Scotrail will release when they get cascaded HSTs, given 120 vehicles won't be enough (the specification requires extra services as well as withdrawal of 14xs) and specifically states bidders can take on 15xs and 17xs which become surplus to requirements in other franchises.

How many Pacers do Northern have to lose though?

In additon I expect it would also include unspecified number Class 319s for Liverpool to Blackpool and Manchester to Blackpool / Windermere services - reflecting NW Electrification schemes.

 

[pemma]

How many Pacers do Northern have to lose though?

79 x 2 car 142s (which wouldn't be refurbished anyway)
13 x 2 car 144s (which could be refurbished to give around 80 seats per set)
10 x 3 car 144s (which could be refurbished to give around 130 seats per set)

In additon I expect it would also include unspecified number Class 319s for Liverpool to Blackpool and Manchester to Blackpool / Windermere services - reflecting NW Electrification schemes.

Manchester Airport to Blackpool and Windermere services have been classed as regional routes for the next Northern franchise and Northern are required to introduce rolling stock will need to have the following characteristics:

i. Air conditioning and heating systems that are designed to operate effectively
and reliably within the range of ambient temperatures normally experienced
across the Franchise geography;
ii. Fixed or folding tables at a minimum of 90% of seats;
iii. Power sockets or USB charging points (a minimum of one socket for every two
seats);
iv. Adequate space for luggage (within passengers’ view so far as possible),
recognising that Northern Regional services will operate to/from airports and
significant tourist centres;
v. In the case of existing rolling stock (whether currently deployed on the Northern
Franchise or elsewhere), not increasing the proportion of standard-class
seating that is laid out in airline style compared to the internal configuration of
that rolling stock as at the date of issue of this ITT; and
vi. Full compliance with the accessibility requirements in the Railways
(Interoperability) Regulations 2011 (notwithstanding that compliance is not
required by law until 1 January 2020)

It's rumoured TPE will release the 350/4s to Northern for that purpose which Northern would then make changes to so that they meet the above requirements.

 

[WatcherZero]

Noticed elsewhere it says liverpool-man airport should be regional as well.

 

[Class 170101]

Can't see 10 Class 350s being enough though.

In some ways I hope this rumour is wrong as I think the 350s should be 'returned' to London Midland to bolster their services with TPE taking on new electric trains (and more of them compared to the 350s) for Scottish services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can't see 10 Class 350s being enough though.

In some ways I hope this rumour is wrong as I think the 350s should be 'returned' to London Midland to bolster their services with TPE taking on new electric trains (and more of them compared to the 350s) for Scottish services.

If new stock is bought, I can see no reason for not giving those services to West Coast where they make more sense. If Pendolinos could be obtained, they could be run as through London-Manchester-Scotland services like was done with the Brum services.

 

[pemma]

Can't see 10 Class 350s being enough though.

Really?

Manchester Airport to Blackpool is 4 diagrams

Manchester Airport to Windermere will likely be 1 diagram (2 return workings per day.)

So 10 x trains will be enough for 4 of those diagrams to be 8 car and 1 diagram to be 4 car. Maybe 11 would be the optimum number to allow all services to be doubled up?

In some ways I hope this rumour is wrong as I think the 350s should be 'returned' to London Midland to bolster their services

The Heathrow Connect 360s could go to LM (effectively a 5 car 350 without corridor connectors) once Crossrail is up and running.

What do you suggest for Northern instead?

There is already a thread for discussing the next Northern and TPE franchises here: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=112640

 

[Bletchleyite]

What do you suggest for Northern instead?

One option would be a Brighton Express style refurbishment of some 319s. But as the 350s are suitable, and LM will operate 319s, it would make more sense if that was being considered to use 350s instead.

Anyway, this has nowt to do with 153s so I guess best leave it there.

 

[Class 170101]

Really?

Manchester Airport to Blackpool is 4 diagrams

Manchester Airport to Windermere will likely be 1 diagram (2 return workings per day.)

So 10 x trains will be enough for 4 of those diagrams to be 8 car and 1 diagram to be 4 car. Maybe 11 would be the optimum number to allow all services to be doubled up?

Surprised at that. I expected Manchester to Blackpool to require more than four diagrams, nearer 6 diagrams so doubling up would be 12 units.

Is it confirmed that Windermere services will remain as a shuttle? Albeit one unit on the shuttle is clearly all thats needed.

The Heathrow Connect 360s could go to LM (effectively a 5 car 350 without corridor connectors) once Crossrail is up and running.

What do you suggest for Northern instead?

There is already a thread for discussing the next Northern and TPE franchises here: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=112640

I was thinking of the 319s here for Northern. The Class 360s would create a sub-fleet at LM which cannot work with the Class 350s. 350/4s won't have this issue.

In terms of the Pacers thats 214 vehicles potentially being retired if Class 143e / 144e isn't pursued with 120 vehicles only guaranteed to replace them.

 

[superkev]

With the 153/5 s bodys being of similar construction to the rust afflicted 142's I wonder what there remaining life is.
k

 

[edwin_m]

Manchester Airport to Windermere will likely be 1 diagram (2 return workings per day.)

It would be two for some of the day. They will have to pass each other somewhere not too far south of Oxenholme otherwise there would be a big gap in the timetable of shuttles on the branch itself.

 

[pemma]

I've posted a response to the Windermere/Blackpool posts in the thread discussing the next Northern and TPE franchises here: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=112640

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Could the 153s be permanently inserted into the middle of class 156s?

With the Heathrow Connect 360s assuming they would just need the 3rd rail shoes added and maybe some controls changed in the cab, could they automatically run on any route in the country where electric Desiros run or would they have to go through the whole route clearance process?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As one who has now had a Damascene moment of off-thread topic correction, may I ask if this thread is still concerned with the single-car Class 153 units or is it proposed that the OP changes the name of this thread to reflect other matters that have appeared upon this thread that are far removed from the basic simplicity of a Class 153 unit and possible re-uses of same.

 

[D365]

As one who has now had a Damascene moment of off-thread topic correction, may I ask if this thread is still concerned with the single-car Class 153 units or is it proposed that the OP changes the name of this thread to reflect other matters that have appeared upon this thread that are far removed from the basic simplicity of a Class 153 unit and possible re-uses of same.

Could this be the new 442 saga?

 

[pemma]

As one who has now had a Damascene moment of off-thread topic correction, may I ask if this thread is still concerned with the single-car Class 153 units or is it proposed that the OP changes the name of this thread to reflect other matters that have appeared upon this thread that are far removed from the basic simplicity of a Class 153 unit and possible re-uses of same.

I have twice given a link to a more appropriate link for a more suitable thread for discussing anything relating to the next Northern franchise and posted responses to some of the most recent posts in that thread.

I don't see the point of renaming this thread to be discussing rolling stock for the next Northern franchise, when we already have a thread for discussing the next Northern franchise and some of the off-topic points brought up had already been discussed in that thread.

There's only 17 x 153s in the Northern fleet (soon to become 16 when one gets cascaded to EMT for Barton Humber) so a thread discussing what happens to the 153s shouldn't focus on the Northern franchise.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Could this be the new 442 saga?

I think if Porterbrook do go ahead with making the 153s strengthening carriages to attach to other Sprinters, they'll only do it after all the other Sprinters they own have been given an accessible refurbishment. So we could be waiting a long time before a 153 has work done to it.

 

[Failed Unit]

Could the 153s be permanently inserted into the middle of class 156s?

With the Heathrow Connect 360s assuming they would just need the 3rd rail shoes added and maybe some controls changed in the cab, could they automatically run on any route in the country where electric Desiros run or would they have to go through the whole route clearance process?

I don't think that would be a good idea. At least if you have a 153 + another unit, you can drop a set off. Failed units as an example but also in the off peak the 153 could be left behind. Let's take Lincoln - Nottingham run the 156+153 in the peak. Leave the 153 in Lincoln and you have a stand-by unit and you are not burning fuel when you don't need to.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I don't think that would be a good idea. At least if you have a 153 + another unit, you can drop a set off. Failed units as an example but also in the off peak the 153 could be left behind. Let's take Lincoln - Nottingham run the 156+153 in the peak. Leave the 153 in Lincoln and you have a stand-by unit and you are not burning fuel when you don't need to.

Though if the 153 can't work alone, it'll be neither use nor ornament if you leave it behind as you can't use it until there's something to work with it. As we move forward trains will need more capacity, and as the total number of 153/155 vehicles is divisible by 3, 3-car units should be the way forward.

 

[Failed Unit]

Though if the 153 can't work alone, it'll be neither use nor ornament if you leave it behind as you can't use it until there's something to work with it. As we move forward trains will need more capacity, and as the total number of 153/155 vehicles is divisible by 3, 3-car units should be the way forward.

As others have said if they remove the toilet it can. What is better a train without a toilet or no train at all? Even now if the toilet fails on route in Lincolnshire (and probably everywhere else) the run without it. 455s still show up on london - reading with many passengers on it for over 1 hour. Forming into permanent 3 cars stops this. We may also have routes were toiletless trains are a acceptable. Ipswich - Felixstow, Cardiff - Cardiff Bay, Metrocentre - Sunderland are 2 that spring to mind. Anything with a duration of circa 30 minutes may be ok. (We could even double up 153s again).

 

[yorksrob]

As others have said if they remove the toilet it can. What is better a train without a toilet or no train at all? Even now if the toilet fails on route in Lincolnshire (and probably everywhere else) the run without it. 455s still show up on london - reading with many passengers on it for over 1 hour. Forming into permanent 3 cars stops this. We may also have routes were toiletless trains are a acceptable. Ipswich - Felixstow, Cardiff - Cardiff Bay, Metrocentre - Sunderland are 2 that spring to mind. Anything with a duration of circa 30 minutes may be ok. (We could even double up 153s again).

We're talking about trains which currently run with toilets having them stripped out for no good reason, other than to meet an arbitrary deadline. If the choice is between a train without a toilet (which previously had one) and none at all, then someone has come up with the wrong question. Totally self defeating.

455's on Waterloo to Reading used to be a major bugbear of mine when I lived down that way.

 

[Failed Unit]

We're talking about trains which currently run with toilets having them stripped out for no good reason, other than to meet an arbitrary deadline. If the choice is between a train without a toilet (which previously had one) and none at all, then someone has come up with the wrong question. Totally self defeating.

455's on Waterloo to Reading used to be a major bugbear of mine when I lived down that way.

I agree, the toilet should stay. I am just saying if it goes the 153 can still be used solo. I personally think toilets should be on all trains. When I lived in the southeast after a few shandies you used to know which trains were toiletless and avoid them!

One thing that irritates me more about the legislation is the 153s toilet could never fit a wheelchair in. Other trains such as the 156, 158 and 365 are going to need expensive modification when they can do now!

 

[hassaanhc]

With the Heathrow Connect 360s assuming they would just need the 3rd rail shoes added and maybe some controls changed in the cab, could they automatically run on any route in the country where electric Desiros run or would they have to go through the whole route clearance process?

The Class 360/2 have larger door step plates than the 360/1 as well as the Class 350s and 450s, which may cause issues.

Class 360/2
vs
Class 360/1
Class 350
Class 450

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Class 360/2 have larger door step plates than the 360/1 as well as the Class 350s and 450s, which may cause issues.

Not really a difficult nor expensive modification. For example Merseyrail units have very large step plates which normally extend over the platform edge (meaning no gap to mind), while the same vehicles down South have much smaller ones.

 

[markydh]

As others have said if they remove the toilet it can. What is better a train without a toilet or no train at all? Even now if the toilet fails on route in Lincolnshire (and probably everywhere else) the run without it. 455s still show up on london - reading with many passengers on it for over 1 hour. Forming into permanent 3 cars stops this. We may also have routes were toiletless trains are a acceptable. Ipswich - Felixstow, Cardiff - Cardiff Bay, Metrocentre - Sunderland are 2 that spring to mind. Anything with a duration of circa 30 minutes may be ok. (We could even double up 153s again).

There are no Metrocentre - Sunderland trains. Weekday services operate as Middlebrough - Hexham and Newcastle - Carlisle with the MetroCentre terminators starting at Morpeth or Newcastle. The trains on all those services operate from a common Heaton-based pool of 142s and 156s.

 

[bramling]

I don't think that would be a good idea. At least if you have a 153 + another unit, you can drop a set off. Failed units as an example but also in the off peak the 153 could be left behind. Let's take Lincoln - Nottingham run the 156+153 in the peak. Leave the 153 in Lincoln and you have a stand-by unit and you are not burning fuel when you don't need to.

From the point of view of the extra space taken up by the disability modifications, it's not acceptable for seating capacity to be reduced on every train. Therefore current 1x153 services will likely need to be minimum 2 cars, so there is a lot of scope for reforming the 153s either into 2-car trains (with one vehicle modified), but realistically far better from a passenger point of view to create 3-car trains as this will guarantee no loss of capacity.

If we end up with 4-car trains on what are currently 3-car trains, the temptation will be there to make these formed of 2x 2-car units and detach one unit at times, leading to a reduction in capacity compared to today.

Whether the industry actually makes up for the loss of seating by lengthening services remains to be seen, but from the passenger's point of view any reduction in space at a time when passenger numbers are increasing is unacceptable. The worst outcome is same length trains as today but with space taken up by disabled toilets. On a 4-car train (e.g. class 365) the loss is not so noticeable, but on a class 150 it's not acceptable to have basically one sixth of the seating eaten up.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

From the point of view of the extra space taken up by the disability modifications, it's not acceptable for seating capacity to be reduced on every train. Therefore current 1x153 services will likely need to be minimum 2 cars, so there is a lot of scope for reforming the 153s either into 2-car trains (with one vehicle modified), but realistically far better from a passenger point of view to create 3-car trains as this will guarantee no loss of capacity.

If we end up with 4-car trains on what are currently 3-car trains, the temptation will be there to make these formed of 2x 2-car units and detach one unit at times, leading to a reduction in capacity compared to today.

Whether the industry actually makes up for the loss of seating by lengthening services remains to be seen, but from the passenger's point of view any reduction in space at a time when passenger numbers are increasing is unacceptable. The worst outcome is same length trains as today but with space taken up by disabled toilets. On a 4-car train (e.g. class 365) the loss is not so noticeable, but on a class 150 it's not acceptable to have basically one sixth of the seating eaten up.

With regard to your last paragraph, the former NWT 150s had wheelchair accessible toilets installed some time ago, with the seating nearby being a mixture of longitudinal and tip-up seats. As I understand it these units are not yet fully compliant with the post-2020 regulations but the non-compliance relates to door controls and PIS more than the toilet and seating itself. I'm pretty sure the loss of capacity compared with the former Centro units is less than 1/6th.

 

[pemma]

With regard to your last paragraph, the former NWT 150s had wheelchair accessible toilets installed some time ago, with the seating nearby being a mixture of longitudinal and tip-up seats. As I understand it these units are not yet fully compliant with the post-2020 regulations but the non-compliance relates to door controls and PIS more than the toilet and seating itself. I'm pretty sure the loss of capacity compared with the former Centro units is less than 1/6th.

The toilets don't meet the latest regulations. For a start they still dump waste on to the tracks.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The toilets don't meet the latest regulations. For a start they still dump waste on to the tracks.

Where the waste goes has no bearing on the space above floor required.

 

[pemma]

Where the waste goes has no bearing on the space above floor required.

Post-December 2019 regulations state that train toilets must not dump waste on the tracks.

I don't think the door on the FNW 150 toilet design complies even if there is enough space within the toilet.

 

[West Ruislip]

Porterbrook has told me this morning that it's all "internet wibble" regarding converting class 153s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Post-December 2019 regulations state that train toilets must not dump waste on the tracks.

I know that. My point was that whether the toilet pan and waste disposal needs replacing has no bearing on the rest of the toilet nor the space it requires.

I don't think the door on the FNW 150 toilet design complies even if there is enough space within the toilet.

Possibly not. But that is a different issue.