DMUs with no confirmed long term homes

[MatthewRead]

Reliable up this end, don't know what the Bletchley drivers do to them down south

They've recently had a light refresh and aren't the worse trains in service.

Yes they are in good condition compared to the Southern units.

 

[Iskra]

Just had a 153 this morning on the commuter train between Huddersfield and Wakefield. Rammed to the gills and the seating is so cramped.
I normally complain when a 142 comes in, but i would rather have had it back.

That unit broke down later in the day too. Very rare to see a 153 on a midweek Hudd-Wakey service.

 

[DarloRich]

Reliable up this end, don't know what the Bletchley drivers do to them down south

They've recently had a light refresh and aren't the worse trains in service.

I've never felt there's been anything wrong with the LM 153s either, and the interiors are perfectly fine in my opinion (perhaps the seats are slightly too close to the tables but that's my only issue). They clearly have an aversion to the Marston Vale line.

I don't think it is the mechanicals, although being out based they are away from the depot so issues are harder to fix, despite the on site fitter who keeps having to kick them into life and does a great job.

What is the issue is the door positions, vestibules and the numbers of bikes loaded on. I know the train should only take 3 but could you in all conscience turn people away from a rural station with an hourly service for having to many bikes on?

The internals seems less nice than any of the other 153 using TOC and the toilets often stink. The cupboard end looks terrible for the driver and i have heard a few of the leak like sieves.

Whilst not the worst units going the 150 is a much better unit. Can we have two of those please?

 

[northwichcat]

Just had a 153 this morning on the commuter train between Huddersfield and Wakefield. Rammed to the gills and the seating is so cramped.
I normally complain when a 142 comes in, but i would rather have had it back.

The type of seating and how close they have been put together isn't a fault of the unit. With the Northern 156s the ex-FNW ones have good seating and a decent amount of leg room but the ex-ATN ones have below average seating (for a regional train) and poor leg room.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Whilst not the worst units going the 150 is a much better unit. Can we have two of those please?

I'm sure other Manchester area passengers would agree with me if I said we'll happily give you as many 150s from our area as you want, provided we get a the same number of Turbostars coming in the opposite direction.

 

[sprinterguy]

The type of seating and how close they have been put together isn't a fault of the unit. With the Northern 156s the ex-FNW ones have good seating and a decent amount of leg room but the ex-ATN ones have below average seating (for a regional train) and poor leg room.

That's a matter of opinion. I find the Richmond seating fitted to the ex-Northern Spirit 156s far superior to the Chapman seating fitted to the ex-North West (and Central) ones.

 

[northwichcat]

That's a matter of opinion. I find the Richmond seating fitted to the ex-Northern Spirit 156s far superior to the Chapman seating fitted to the ex-North West (and Central) ones.

The Richmond seats seemed to be designed for people of average height and if you're not average height they aren't very comfortable. The Chapman seats seem suitable for anyone from a 6 year old to Peter Crouch.

 

[DarloRich]

The type of seating and how close they have been put together isn't a fault of the unit. With the Northern 156s the ex-FNW ones have good seating and a decent amount of leg room but the ex-ATN ones have below average seating (for a regional train) and poor leg room.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I'm sure other Manchester area passengers would agree with me if I said we'll happily give you as many 150s from our area as you want, provided we get a the same number of Turbostars coming in the opposite direction.

best I can offer are 6 x 153's. We only want 3 x 150 in return. Look how generous I am. You get a vast increase in the number of trains available everyday, I will even throw in a repaint, mot, tank of fuel and 6 months tax.

 

[northwichcat]

best I can offer are 6 x 153's. We only want 3 x 150 in return. Look how generous I am. You get a vast increase in the number of trains available everyday, I will even throw in a repaint, mot, tank of fuel and 6 months tax.

No deal Mr. Second Hand Train Salesman. 153s are banned from going to Buxton and Wigan Wallgate and it would be a bit wasteful having single carriage trains running in 4 car formations, while most North West depots don't have 153s on their cards, so a lot of training would be needed.

If you hate 153s so much why not move to an area where they are banned from operating.

 

[DarloRich]

No deal Mr. Second Hand Train Salesman. 153s are banned from going to Buxton and Wigan Wallgate and it would be a bit wasteful having single carriage trains running in 4 car formations, while most North West depots don't have 153s on their cards, so a lot of training would be needed.

If you hate 153s so much why not move to an area where they are banned from operating.

just tie them on the back of a 156/155/158 - it'l be reet, no one will notice

I would happily move back north, if there was an equal job available. I could live in a mansion at home for the price of my terrace down here AND drink decent ale!

 

[D6975]

I am not sure either will fit at many of the stations on the Vale. The 170 family wont.

If a 170 is too long , then so is 2x153, because although 2x153 is slightly shorter, the doors are at the ends. The doors on a 170 are set a couple of metres farther away from the ends, so the distance first door-last door on 2x153 is greater than the distance first door-last door on a 170.

 

[PHILIPE]

If a 170 is too long , then so is 2x153, because although 2x153 is slightly shorter, the doors are at the ends. The doors on a 170 are set a couple of metres farther away from the ends, so the distance first door-last door on 2x153 is greater than the distance first door-last door on a 170.

When the 172s came on stream, mostly to replace LMs 150s, they were ruled out on the Marston Vale Line due to length. Reason really, 3x150/1s retained.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

When the 172s came on stream, mostly to replace LMs 150s, they were ruled out on the Marston Vale Line due to length. Reason really, 3x150/1s retained.

How difficult would it be to extend the platforms the c.6m needed to allow 172s/2x153s to run? Someone mentioned signals being right at the platform ends earlier, but presumably extending the other end wouldn't be a problem? As part of the removal of platform end ramps, Mirfield platform one was extended by about 3m by levelling out the ramp at the Huddersfield/Brighouse end. Doing this at both ends (assuming the problem signals are beyond the end of the ramps at least) and hey presto, an extra 6m of platform!

 

[Class172]

How difficult would it be to extend the platforms the c.6m needed to allow 172s/2x153s to run? Someone mentioned signals being right at the platform ends earlier, but presumably extending the other end wouldn't be a problem? As part of the removal of platform end ramps, Mirfield platform one was extended by about 3m by levelling out the ramp at the Huddersfield/Brighouse end. Doing this at both ends (assuming the problem signals are beyond the end of the ramps at least) and hey presto, an extra 6m of platform!

I don't know the line at all, but I think I remember seeing a lot of level crossings on the line when looking at a map. Perhaps the platforms are sandwiched between a signal and a level crossing, precluding such an easy extension?

 

[D365]

Perhaps the platforms are sandwiched between a signal and a level crossing, precluding such an easy extension?

Platform extensions are going to have to take place at some point, under the banner of the EWR project.

 

[fgwrich]

To be fair, the line will have to be upgraded within the next oncoming few years anyway as part of the East-West scheme. So, although you could work to improve the line for the now - you could also start the first phases of upgrading to East West standards and allow the 150/153s to be replaced with cascaded 172 or 170s standards.

There's another unit for this thread - The soon to be batches of Ex ScotRail 170s.

 

[Class172]

Platform extensions are going to have to take place at some point, under the banner of the EWR project.

I am aware that a more comprehensive program of improvements will be undertaken in the future as part of East-West Rail, I was only referring to the fact that a quick and easy short-term fix may not be possible.

 

[D365]

Is it actually confirmed that London Midland/Angel Trains are seeking to remove their 150s?

 

[DarloRich]

How difficult would it be to extend the platforms the c.6m needed to allow 172s/2x153s to run? Someone mentioned signals being right at the platform ends earlier, but presumably extending the other end wouldn't be a problem? As part of the removal of platform end ramps, Mirfield platform one was extended by about 3m by levelling out the ramp at the Huddersfield/Brighouse end. Doing this at both ends (assuming the problem signals are beyond the end of the ramps at least) and hey presto, an extra 6m of platform!

The signals are often right on the ends of the platforms while the other end often has a level crossing immediately of the platform.

Platform extensions are going to have to take place at some point, under the banner of the EWR project.

Only with the accompanying level crossing closures. That wont happen for new trains.

To be fair, the line will have to be upgraded within the next oncoming few years anyway as part of the East-West scheme. So, although you could work to improve the line for the now - you could also start the first phases of upgrading to East West standards and allow the 150/153s to be replaced with cascaded 172 or 170s standards.

there is a suggestion that only the stations to be served by the E-W trains will be extended/upgraded( Woburn/Ridgmont). If that is the case SDO fitted trains might work, although there will still have to be some signal location changes.

 

[Old Hill Bank]

Is it actually confirmed that London Midland/Angel Trains are seeking to remove their 150s?

Announced by LM at a stakeholder conference last year.

 

[northwichcat]

There's another unit for this thread - The soon to be batches of Ex ScotRail 170s.

Not any more. The rest of the Eversholt ones are going to Southern while Arriva have secured 16 Porterbrook ones for the Northern franchise. Transport Scotland have confirmed they've extended the lease for another 13 which were due to come off lease in 2018 until the end of the current Scotrail franchise and the rest were due to remain with Scotrail anyway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is it actually confirmed that London Midland/Angel Trains are seeking to remove their 150s?

RAIL has reported that Arriva have agreed leases which will see all the 150/1s in use with Northern by the December 2018 timetable change.

 

[alexl92]

Other thing with the 153s is the nasty tendency to get wheelflats when in multiple with other units.

Why does this specifically occur when running in multiple?!

Also, when are TPE binning the 185s?! I missed that one

 

[northwichcat]

Why does this specifically occur when running in multiple?!

Also, when are TPE binning the 185s?! I missed that one

TPE are getting new 5 car trains and will be keeping 29 of the 185s to operate alongside them, with 22 of the 185s being released, alongside the 350/4s. The majority of the new TPE trains will be able to operate on lines which aren't fully electrified, with rumours circulating it will include Hitachi AT300 bi-modes. The 29 x 185s they are keeping are getting refurbished, while there are requirements for TPE to operate additional services so I imagine they won't start releasing them as soon as the new stock starts arriving but the should be able to release 22 x 185s by the Dec 2019 deadline, subject to no severe delays with the new orders.

 

[edwin_m]

Why does this specifically occur when running in multiple?!

Guessing here, but brakes on 153s take longer to release than on other units, and when being driven from a cab in a different unit this may not be obvious to the driver.

 

[Emblematic]

TPE are getting new 5 car trains and will be keeping 29 of the 185s to operate alongside them, with 22 of the 185s being released, alongside the 350/4s. The majority of the new TPE trains will be able to operate on lines which aren't fully electrified, with rumours circulating it will include Hitachi AT300 bi-modes. The 29 x 185s they are keeping are getting refurbished, while there are requirements for TPE to operate additional services so I imagine they won't start releasing them as soon as the new stock starts arriving but the should be able to release 22 x 185s by the Dec 2019 deadline, subject to no severe delays with the new orders.

What's the relevance of Dec 2019 for the class 185s? I doubt TPE would be getting any AT300s before 2019, maybe later. GWR deliveries anticipated to continue until December 2018, and the Hull trains units were not expected until 2020. I don't know if the HT dates were constrained by capacity or other factors, and what effect the AnsaldoBreda takeover has on effect any timings, it could possibly bring things forward.

 

[northwichcat]

What's the relevance of Dec 2019 for the class 185s?

The 185s could be used to indirectly replace other DMUs meaning they don't need to be modified for post 2019 use. According to the franchise timetable the new TPE trains will be introduced between December 2017 and December 2019: http://assets.dft.gov.uk/northern-tpe-franchise/index.html

 

[Emblematic]

The 185s could be used to indirectly replace other DMUs meaning they don't need to be modified for post 2019 use. According to the franchise timetable the new TPE trains will be introduced between December 2017 and December 2019: http://assets.dft.gov.uk/northern-tpe-franchise/index.html

Ah, I'm with you now I suspect that, rather than allowing units to be retired, they might just provide some coverage to allow required disability mods to take place. Losing some of the pacers means we'll still need most of the remaining units in service.