What is transport for Wales doing

[FlyingPotato]

Why is transport for Wales doing this, is it legal?
I don't think the 153s have ♿ toliets and I thought almost all journey's need them.
I'm just confused about who's idea this was

 

[Gaelan]

(Image is a screenshot of RealTimeTrains, showing 1W19, the 12:49 TfW Cardiff Central to Manchester Piccadilly, worked by the one-carriage 153327.)

 

[FrodshamJnct]

Why is transport for Wales doing this, is it legal?
I don't think the 153s have ♿ toliets and I thought almost all journey's need them.
I'm just confused about who's idea this was

153/3s do have PRM toilets, 153/9s don't.

 

[NorwichRailFan]

That is going to be one cramped and crowded train.

 

[skyhigh]

I don't think the 153s have ♿ toliets and I thought almost all journey's need them.

You don't need a toilet. It's perfectly legal to run a train with no toilets. All TfW 153s meet the requirements to run legally.

 

[NorwichRailFan]

You don't need a toilet. It's perfectly legal to run a train with no toilets. All TfW 153s meet the requirements to run legally.

Yeh, I was on a Greater Anglia train the other day that ran from Sheringham to Norwich with both Toilets out. I'm just glad it wasn't a longer jouney.

 

[SuperLuke2334]

This service is showing as 1 coach, but I have eyeballed it as 2. The people that do the allocations sometimes don't put the /9 unit in for whatever reason. It will never run as a single due to the capacity needed for the Manchester runs. Hope this clarifies it.

 

[AdamWW]

This service is showing as 1 coach, but I have eyeballed it as 2. The people that do the allocations sometimes don't put the /9 unit in for whatever reason. It will never run as a single due to the capacity needed for the Manchester runs. Hope this clarifies it.

They certainly do frequently run 153/9's singly though, even if not on that route.

Perfectly legal so far as I know as the toilets are locked out of use. According to the signs they are "Out of order".

However, it would be nice if they didn't also have signs telling people to use the toilet in another carriage.
Presumably when they put the signs on they didn't intend to use 153/9's singly.
But they do.

 

[SuperLuke2334]

They certainly do frequently run 153/9's singly though, even if not on that route.

Perfectly legal so far as I know as the toilets are locked out of use. According to the signs they are "Out of order".

However, it would be nice if they didn't also have signs telling people to use the toilet in another carriage.
Presumably when they put the signs on they didn't intend to use 153/9's singly.
But they do.

I was specifically talking about the Manchester and busier routes though.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Perfectly legal so far as I know as the toilets are locked out of use. According to the signs they are "Out of order".

I can't be the only person to think this is silly?
The whole point of the PRM regulations is to give those who need accessible facilities the access to them they should have.
The point isn't removing existing facilities for everyone else.
Surely having some non accessible toilets is better than having no toilets at all!
(Granted probably off topic though).

 

[AdamWW]

I was specifically talking about the Manchester and busier routes though.

I know but given that the original question was whether runnning a single 153/9 was legal, this seemed pertinent.
I wasn't attempting to contradict you.

I can't be the only person to think this is silly?
The whole point of the PRM regulations is to give those who need accessible facilities the access to them they should have.
The point isn't removing existing facilities for everyone else.
Surely having some non accessible toilets is better than having no toilets at all!
(Granted probably off topic though).

Well I think they still dump onto the track, which is another good reason not to have them in use.

I once used a "bus station" in the US (coach station to us) where the (non accessible) toilet had a sign saying effectively that they'd had permission to keep it that way, on the grounds that they weren't prepared to upgrade it so the alternative would be to just close it down.

 

[Mark Carter]

I spoke to a conductor recently. The policy is that the 153/9 units can work in tandem with another compliant unit so if with a 153/3 the situation is the same as a 150, 2 coaches, 1 disabled toilet. !53/9 are allowed on their own as long as the journey does not exceed 19 minutes

 

[AdamWW]

I spoke to a conductor recently. The policy is that the 153/9 units can work in tandem with another compliant unit so if with a 153/3 the situation is the same as a 150, 2 coaches, 1 disabled toilet. !53/9 are allowed on their own as long as the journey does not exceed 19 minutes

Hmmm.

They appear to be the usual traction now on the City/Coryton line.

Most people will be travelling to/from Central or Queen Street and thus making journeys shorter than that.

But I'm sure there will be some people making journeys through Cardiff that are more than 19 minutes long.

And it seems that removing toilets from services that have had them for decades isn't something worth publicising to passengers.

Edited to add: In fact they are presumably used for school journeys through Cardiff, because when there was a period when the two lines were split with the Coryton trains travelling to/from the Bay, one service each way still ran all the way through at school times.

 

[WelshBluebird]

But I'm sure there will be some people making journeys through Cardiff that are more than 19 minutes long.

And it seems that removing toilets from services that have had them for decades isn't something worth publicising to passengers.

Maybe they are just preparing people for the tram trains that will remove toilets from services that have had them for decades for journeys of an hour and more!

 

[LickeyIncliner]

This service is showing as 1 coach, but I have eyeballed it as 2. The people that do the allocations sometimes don't put the /9 unit in for whatever reason. It will never run as a single due to the capacity needed for the Manchester runs. Hope this clarifies it.

Assuming that the OP was referring to yesterday's train, RTT is showing it as operated with 153 327 and 153 972. Earlier this week I saw a couple of trains announced on platform displays as being a single coach when actually operated with two. That's not the only glitch in the info about these trains - RTT is regularly showing "Restaurant for First Class passengers"; and last week the LNER app sent me a notification telling me that my departure from Manchester would be at platform 10 (correct) with unreserved first class seats in coach M (wildly incorrect...)

 

[Kite159]

I spoke to a conductor recently. The policy is that the 153/9 units can work in tandem with another compliant unit so if with a 153/3 the situation is the same as a 150, 2 coaches, 1 disabled toilet. !53/9 are allowed on their own as long as the journey does not exceed 19 minutes

How does that work with Crewe to Chester shuttles which can be a single 153/9, ie last Friday it was 153968 working solo on a 22 minute journey.

Realtime Trains | 1K13 1554 Chester to Crewe | 21/04/2023

Real-time train running information for 1K13 1554 departure from Chester to Crewe on 21/04/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

@LickeyIncliner was that on a service which was meant to be a loco hauled set with the 153s replacing the 67+ Mk4s?

 

[LickeyIncliner]

]@LickeyIncliner[/USER] was that on a service which was meant to be a loco hauled set with the 153s replacing the 67+ Mk4s?

@Kite159 Good point. The service described as having a First Class Restaurant is defined in the small print of RTT as "Pathed as Diesel locomotive, trailing load 245 tonnes at 110mph", so presumably it should be 67 + Mk4s. But the one for which LNER said there were First Class seats in coach M is described as "Starts as Class 158/168/170/175 DMU, changes en route" - which is rather weird in itself: how can a pure diesel multiple-unit change to something else en route?

 

[Revilo]

I can't be the only person to think this is silly?
The whole point of the PRM regulations is to give those who need accessible facilities the access to them they should have.
The point isn't removing existing facilities for everyone else.
Surely having some non accessible toilets is better than having no toilets at all!
(Granted probably off topic though).

I entirely agree with you. Its better to have some toilets especially for those of limited mobility who are mobile enough to use them. It’s letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

[GWVillager]

@Kite159 Good point. The service described as having a First Class Restaurant is defined in the small print of RTT as "Pathed as Diesel locomotive, trailing load 245 tonnes at 110mph", so presumably it should be 67 + Mk4s. But the one for which LNER said there were First Class seats in coach M is described as "Starts as Class 158/168/170/175 DMU, changes en route" - which is rather weird in itself: how can a pure diesel multiple-unit change to something else en route?

TfW’s RTT information is riddled with inaccuracies, I wouldn’t give it too much thought. I thought the ones that weren’t Mk4s were described simply as “Diesel Multiple Units” though.

 

[Tevion539]

You don't need a toilet. It's perfectly legal to run a train with no toilets. All TfW 153s meet the requirements to run legally.

TfW operate a policy at the very least which says we need a toilet on any service over 60 minutes.

Although to add a service can the stop for toilet breaks where possible if a toilet is out of service.

 

[_toommm_]

TfW’s RTT information is riddled with inaccuracies, I wouldn’t give it too much thought. I thought the ones that weren’t Mk4s were described simply as “Diesel Multiple Units” though.

That’s only what it’s timed for, and isn’t indicative of what is planned to be on the service, nor what is actually operating that day. There are some ‘unusual’ timing loads put in by operators, such as Avanti North Wales services being timed as a diesel locomotive south of Crewe. The restaurant in the TfW case is meant to be on there, but due to ongoing issues with the 67s, it’s often substituted for DMUs.

 

[sd0733]

That’s only what it’s timed for, and isn’t indicative of what is planned to be on the service, nor what is actually operating that day. There are some ‘unusual’ timing loads put in by operators, such as Avanti North Wales services being timed as a diesel locomotive south of Crewe. The restaurant in the TfW case is meant to be on there, but due to ongoing issues with the 67s, it’s often substituted for DMUs.

There's allsorts that's been put in as first and restaurant available when it's never has been and never was planned for in this Timetable. Does also lead to all sorts of ticketing issues with 1st class sold etc so its not an RTT issue.
Hopefully in May what's out there is closer to reality when more Mk4 diagrams are operating than the current effectively 1 on the Manchesters.

The /9s can and are used solo on journeys upto 60mins, generally as a last resort that long. Crewe-Chester and Crewe-Shrewsbury both common ones at the moment. It's not the fact it's a small toilet that it's locked out, it's because they haven't got tanks as when it was done it was deemed not possible to put a tank at that end, hence the PRM sets have the toilet at the opposite end. Since then it seems an engineering solution has been found as the "Active travel" 153s will have the small toilet reactivated with a tank fitted and be semi-permanently coupled to a PRM set.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

How does that work with Crewe to Chester shuttles which can be a single 153/9, ie last Friday it was 153968 working solo on a 22 minute journey.

153910 worked singly on the 1821 Crewe-Chester last Tuesday 25/4.

 

[CHESHIRECAT]

Wilmslow platform displays still show Restaurant for First Class customers on Avanti services to Manchester and Euston! and also for the theoretical Mark 4 services operated by TFW