The 153's could easily be incorporated into other units such as 150's to avoid disability alterations, however I suspect that no one wants to cough up the leasing/track access charges.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
Northern Unit Refurbishments and depot allocations.
- Thread starter darloscott
- Start date
The 153's could easily be incorporated into other units such as 150's to avoid disability alterations, however I suspect that no one wants to cough up the leasing/track access charges.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
palmersears
Established Member
- Joined
- 20 Sep 2011
- Messages
- 1,487
I would imagine it'll probably be much like the rwst of the 150s; PRM mods and new livery now, and then seating at a later date.
I too like the livery, bit the internal refurbishment at this stage is just cheap and cheerful. Certainly not anything that'll last more than a couple of years before looking utterly downtrodden again.
superkev
Established Member
Your not alone. I too quite like the new livery and my white car doesn't show grim half as much as my last black one.
're 150 124 has it got the major bit done I.e. the bathroom/ toilet and retention tanks.
K
All 158s are currently allocated to Neville Hill, some will however transfer to Heaton.
Halish Railway
Established Member
I don't get the whole issue with the 153's and PRM mods. Is it the Toilet thing? If so how come the Toilet-less Class 345's are allowed. Also is there anywhere that says what unit is allocated to which Depot?
Toilets don't have to be offered, as per the 345s, 710s, 378s, 455s, etc. However, if a toilet is to be offered, there must be at least one accessible toilet on the train. Obviously on a single 153 that means that the toilet would have to be a compliant one, which would considerably reduce the capacity of the train, unless they are only used as peak time strengthening vehicles, but that is unlikely as it would mean them sitting idle for large parts of the day. As far as I know, the biggest issue with them is more the fact that they are suffering from quite severe body issues in addition to not being PRM compliant.
abrail includes details as to what unit is allocated where, but I cannot vouch for it's accuracy
TFL don't do Toilets but being around London more of the stations are likely to have Toilets plus the services tends to be frequent if you miss a train to go to the loo. Personally I don't see why a Dogbox without a Toilet couldn't be used on shorter runs, but really the best place for Dogboxes and 155 for that matter is the scrapper like Railbuses. Of course Northern DMU's do tend to get spread far and wide so having a Toilet less train limited to shorter routes might be a bit of an Operational Inconvenience!
Halish Railway
Established Member
Do all 153's have toilets as they are just split 155's that had one toilet per unit.
I would hardly say they were just split they were significantly modified to be similar internally and all have a non PRM compliant Toilet
Part of the issue with putting accessible toilets in the 153s is that the existing toilet is at the small cab end which narrows vestibule by the external door.
So an accessible toilet would have to be at the opposite end of the vehicle, which means much more work as equipment underneath the cars would also need swapping round in addition to the replacement of the existing loo and the loss of seats on a single car train. So really it’s not economic to do in a 1 car train.
That problem doesn’t affect the 155s as they have their original inner ends without any protruding cab.
Really I think the 143 and 144s would be far easier and faster to make compliant like porterbrook has done with 144012. Sadly they were ruled out of the Northern franchise but could be used elsewhere. I think the144e is actually a good refit and looks modern.
So an accessible toilet would have to be at the opposite end of the vehicle, which means much more work as equipment underneath the cars would also need swapping round in addition to the replacement of the existing loo and the loss of seats on a single car train. So really it’s not economic to do in a 1 car train.
That problem doesn’t affect the 155s as they have their original inner ends without any protruding cab.
Really I think the 143 and 144s would be far easier and faster to make compliant like porterbrook has done with 144012. Sadly they were ruled out of the Northern franchise but could be used elsewhere. I think the144e is actually a good refit and looks modern.
Good Grief why Sadly they need to go end of, in any case its not really relevant to Northern Refurbishments
Last edited:
ash39
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 1,525
He has a point though. The interior of 144012 is better than a 150/153/155. Everyone was glad to see the back of the pacers when Northern promised 'as new' refurbs on the Sprinter fleet. The problem is the refurbs have been nowhere near as neat or comprehensive as the one on 144012.
LOL The Irony
Established Member
Remember that Arriva kept the same MD from Serco-Abellio. Anyone who wasn't railway savvy would have probably thought that Serco-Abellio rebranded. Until they realised that's what people thought so they added "by arriva".
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The main issue is that it'll leave it with about 2/3 of a coach of seating if that. OK, the 121s had about that amount, but there are very few lines where that is suitable all day. If they survive, therefore, the best thing is to reform them back into 155s with a bog in one vehicle only.
It does, but it's still a Pacer and it'll still ride like a cart.
I would still have thought that the 144s would be useful as capacity boosters tagged onto other trains if refurbed to the 144e spec. Fair enough the 142s should and are being withdrawn as they are well past it and show it.
But the smaller fleet of 144s in refurbed form I think would have been ok to continue for another 5/10 years. Most routes would still see the end of pacers as the 142 fleet is far bigger than the 144s.
Time will tell if the 143/4 is used by any other franchise after they depart Northern.
Look the Northern franchise agreement says the Pacers will go. Arriva have planned for that along with a certain level of capacity increase agreed with the Dft, if the capacity increase isn't enough there is an option in the franchise for additional units which according to spec are likely to be along the lines of additional 195's or additional cascaded 170's so lets just leave it at that as far Pacers are concerned with Northern. If want to discuss Northern Rolling stock and capacity issues there is currently another thread for that.
Yes, they do.
I think it was good to specify the change, but really it's the 142's that need to go, rather than the 144's
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
They all need to go really. They are from another age. But in terms of how long they've got left in reliability terms, the 142s are falling to bits and the 144s not.
Halish Railway
Established Member
We know that the 333's are going to have seats taken out in the DMOS', but are they going to have there seats rearranged like the C2C Metro 357's in a prodominantly Airline Style Configuration? Also there are many Airline style seats on the 333's that have different amounts of legroom, despite them not being Priority Seats.
Being from 'another age' isn't necessarily a bad thing for a train. Infact, it's usually a good thing I find.
I think the 333's have one of the better layouts for a modern train, with a good balance of facing, airline and standing room.
northwichcat
Veteran Member
If they were permanently reformed in to 2 car sets then one accessible toilet for 2 carriages would be fine. If they are kept as single carriage they need an accessible retention toilet or no toilet. You may or may not be aware that Northern will be creating some hybrid 3 car 150s - these will only contain one (accessible) toilet for 3 carriages - it's rumoured Angel Trains will be removing the redundant cabs as is unlikely they will ever run as 2 car sets again given their age and that Northern will use them as 3 car sets until at least 2025.
northwichcat
Veteran Member
The ePacer is a very low capacity train and a 5/6 ePacer formation isn't a cost effective solution. Although, I do think the already created ePacer will be ideal for the Cardiff Bay Shuttle, which will also help the next W&B franchise get an accessible fleet ASAP.
From a maintenance point of view it's fairly clear that keeping 144s is a waste of time and money. They are so non-standard and they are not very reliable.
Are they that unreliable ? They're my regular commute and they seem to turn up more often than not.
The fact that they work at all, sometimes, does not a reliable train make! In terms of cost and value for money it's pretty clear why you cannot get much out of a pacer. Plus, they're so unsuitable. Even your relatively minor commuter service demands more in terms of power for acceleration and climbing hills than a pacer is able to offer.
I don't know. The 3 carriage 144's aren't really unsuited to my route, and if they're expensive for the TOC, not my problem, so long as they turn up !
If we're being practical, wasting money is your problem - it's your money either through taxes or your fares paid.
As a taxpayer and a farepayer what I want is good value for money, and a pacer clearly cannot provide that. It would appear that their owners are in agreement on that point too.
As a taxpayer and a farepayer what I want is good value for money, and a pacer clearly cannot provide that. It would appear that their owners are in agreement on that point too.