• 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!

The Sprinter DDA/RVA Compliance Refurbishment Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Remove the toilets on the 153 completely.

No Toilet - No need for a DDA Compliant Toilet

Who said the toilet is the only issue with the 153s? There's a lot more about DDA than allowing wheelchair users on trains and in to toilets.

Your local operator at the time NXEA proposed in response to an electrification RUS that electrification of the non-electrified Southern lines could mean they get the 171s to replace 153s and Northern get their 153s. If they are fine in single formation then why did NXEA propose replacing them with longer units?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
I understand the 153 will reach the end of its life.

Work includes
1. Wheelchair access toilet
2. Door width
3. Button specifications
4. PIS

At the moment on a 153 it is not possible for a wheelchair user to use the toilet. In fact a wheelchair can't get on the short-end

Remove the toilets on the 153 completely.

No Toilet - No need for a DDA Compliant Toilet

Who said the toilet is the only issue with the 153s? There's a lot more about DDA than allowing wheelchair users on trains and in to toilets

There's more to DDA than ensuring that toilets are "universal", sure, but the PIS/ buttons etc are pretty straightforward. Finding space for a "universal" toilet on a single coach unit (and therefore sacrificing around a sixth of the seating capacity) is the critical bit.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
There's more to DDA than ensuring that toilets are "universal", sure, but the PIS/ buttons etc are pretty straightforward.

I was thinking if something like the door widths on 153/5/6s need improving then that would need 2 doors changing on each unit. 2 doors on a 153 is half the number of doors, but a quarter of the doors on a 155 or 156.

Even something like a new destination display for the front and back would be twice as much per carriage for 70 x 153s opposed to 35 x 156s.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,063
Location
Macclesfield
Your local operator at the time NXEA proposed in response to an electrification RUS that electrification of the non-electrified Southern lines could mean they get the 171s to replace 153s and Northern get their 153s. If they are fine in single formation then why did NXEA propose replacing them with longer units?
That's interesting. That's exactly what I have proposed in recent times as part of a grand plan to allow the 153s to be reformed back into 155s. Good to know that someone "on high" is/was thinking the same thing.
 

Failed Unit

Established Member
Joined
26 Jan 2009
Messages
8,881
Location
Central Belt
If the 153/6 hybrids happen What about routes where 153 and 155 are banned would we lose the 156's aswell if they where reformed?

Prime Example Wigan Wallgate which has a ban on 153 and 155 but regularly has 156's

Why are 155s banned? I know 153s are banned from the Buxton line, because the only have on engine and the gradients could cause problems. Saying that not sure if the are banned if worked in multiple with a 156 or pair of 153.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
I think there is slightly less clearance between the step on a 153 and the platform than with a 156 but if that is the case then I imagine adjustments could be made under the refurbishment program.
 

Bevan Price

Established Member
Joined
22 Apr 2010
Messages
7,341
There could be differences between "banned" and "not cleared" for a route. The latter situation might arise because nobody has bothered to pay for the necessary clearance procedures for a class which does not need to use that route. As there is no imminent prospect of (for example) Class 170 being used on services to Southport or Buxton, so nobody will bother to check if they are suitable for use on those routes.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
I think there is slightly less clearance between the step on a 153 and the platform than with a 156 but if that is the case then I imagine adjustments could be made under the refurbishment program.

Wallgates platforms on a curve which probably exacerbates the issue a bit and stops them just shaving off some of the platform edge.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
There could be differences between "banned" and "not cleared" for a route.

Agreed.

153s aren't cleared through Wigan Wallgate and on Hazel Grove to Buxton.

142s aren't cleared for Blackburn-Clitheroe, Hazel Grove-Preston and Macclesfield-Stoke.

Clearance has not been applied for Pacers to run Sheffield-Nottingham.

Likewise, for Chester-Manchester via Altrincham, Voyagers are cleared for Piccadilly to Edgley Junction and Northwich to Chester but between Edgley Junction and Northwich there has never been any need for a Voyager to run in service.
 

Z12XE

Member
Joined
30 Sep 2005
Messages
876
I think there is slightly less clearance between the step on a 153 and the platform than with a 156 but if that is the case then I imagine adjustments could be made under the refurbishment program.


AIUI the problem with 153 clearance is the access ladder on the Number 2 end, with it being so close to the coach end.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
To be honest they should just rebuild Wallgates platforms, the platform gap is huge both vertically and horizontally, they were aligned when there were freight passing lines sharing the cutting and tunnels but since they were lifted a decade ago and theres now signal and power equipment on the former alignment a straightening could be done.
 

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
153's are also prohibited Southampton - Portsmouth, again I believe the problem is with the extra crew ladder on the No 2 (small) end, which is different to the original kit and at the 'proper' cab end. I've also heard that there are potential issues with a roof-mounted water tank which can cause excessive body sway and cause the coach to hit station canopies, but that could be cobblers!?

With regard to the DDA mods, I would tend to agree that the best option may well be to simply use the 153s as a centre coach inserted into 150/156 sets to boost capacity, particularly if there are other structural issues which will limit their future lifespan. This would drastically reduce the overall compliance project cost whilst still allowing the vehicles to have a useful function, though obviously extra stock would be required to replace them as individual units within TOCs' fleets. In theory this would mean no major work would be needed, other than simply removing or plating over the cabs, windscrees, exterior lights and destination gear, creating essentially a powered centre car. FGW operated a 153 coupled to half of a 150/2 unit on a semi-permanent basis for some months, so there should be no major issues with inserting a 153 into the centre of an existing unit. We also see spare 150/2 vehicles being used as centre cars in 150/1 sets, rather than being reformed into seperate units, so the precedent has been set in many ways. The problems of route prohibition and crew traction knowledge are all rather trivial in the grand scheme of things and could be easily addressed.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,266
Location
Greater Manchester
Agreed.

153s aren't cleared through Wigan Wallgate and on Hazel Grove to Buxton.

142s aren't cleared for Blackburn-Clitheroe, Hazel Grove-Preston and Macclesfield-Stoke.

Clearance has not been applied for Pacers to run Sheffield-Nottingham.

Likewise, for Chester-Manchester via Altrincham, Voyagers are cleared for Piccadilly to Edgley Junction and Northwich to Chester but between Edgley Junction and Northwich there has never been any need for a Voyager to run in service.

I think this must have changed - I often see the 1630 Hazel Grove-Preston and nowadays (since Northern lost the 180's) it usually consists of a 142/150 combination.

I guess this supports your point that "not cleared" need not be a showstopper if an operational need arises.
 

ukrob

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2009
Messages
1,810
I have no idea why someone would say they are not cleared Hazel Grove - Preston.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top