5x Class 153 conversion to bike and baggage vans for Scotrail

[LOL The Irony]

That’s a cracking idea, we can take the 37/4’s that are knackered from their recent sojorn to Cumbria back to where they below in push-pull mode with 442’s!

SHHHHHH! You might give the DfT ideas!

 

[brel york]

I quite like the sounds of a childrens play area. Keeps them occupied and out of the rest of the train so everyone can get some peace. Shouldn't be too difficult to knock together a jungle gym from a couple of old BRUTES and some mail-sacks.

Brutes lol

Who would fund this

 

[47802]

There are arguably public policy benefits (health and environment) to promoting cycling (etc) - I speak as a (very) ex-cyclist BTW - which could justify an increase in subsidy.

The cabs issue could be resolved by diagramming so that only one MLV ran in a train, as (currently) Oban has double the number of trains compared with Mallaig.

You can argue that, but at the end of the day its not in the franchise agreement, and its likely to cost money (increase in Subsidy) which could arguably be better spent on something else.

 

[brel york]

What about hooking the bikes up to the auxiliary batteries then not only are the toc getting some benefits but the cyclist gets to sit with his bike , you could even make it so the more power they produce it comes off the cost of their ticket , could also provide power for the bistro and disco section of the Coach

 

[NotATrainspott]

Oh yeh why go further and have a full blown Coffee Shop, a Bar, a Bistro and a Children Play Area!

Personally I think its fine as long as those who might use this baggage train pay the full cost of it and its not subsidised by the rest of us through taxes or the ticket price.

https://www.myswitzerland.com/en-gb/the-family-coach.html

Exploring the moon as an astronaut, diving into a jungle wilderness or experiencing the world of dinosaurs – there is no boredom during a train ride in Switzerland. All InterCity double-deck trains are equipped with a jungle style family coach marked “FA”. Mid-upper deck, these offer a playground with fanciful jungle motives for children to play and frolic around as much as they please. Additionally, exciting board games such as “Jungle Hunt” and “Snake Game” have been installed on the upper decks of family coaches. The playing pieces for those board games can be obtained from SBB restaurant/bistro .

 

[43096]

April 1st has come early, how about new units to to replace the 158’s that are now 30 years old, that include the necessary accommodation and facilities?

Because there is no way you can fund large amounts of bike accommodation on new stock. Using a 153 (which would otherwise go in the bin) is a much cheaper and more effective way of doing it.

You could retain some seats, but probably need to strip the toilet out to reduce the cost (would have to be a PRM toilet otherwise).

In effect you'd be creating a DMU equivalent of the Southern's old Class 419 MLVs.

 

[Carntyne]

Who would fund this

It'd be Transport Scotland presumably.

 

[tbtc]

Oh yeh why go further and have a full blown Coffee Shop, a Bar, a Bistro and a Children Play Area!

Personally I think its fine as long as those who might use this baggage train pay the full cost of it and its not subsidised by the rest of us through taxes or the ticket price.

At least it's more feasible than the idea of bespoke tourist trains for a handful of diagrams a day and all of the crayon-based suggestions that we had when the last ScotRail franchise was being decided.

There are arguably public policy benefits (health and environment) to promoting cycling (etc)

True, but there are environmental costs too - does a 153 do a couple of miles per gallon of diesel? How would that compare to the environmental cost of a dozen modern cars doing the equivalent journey (with bikes on the roof racks)?

I don't know the answers, but there are environmental costs on the railway side of the equation - especially as the coach has to be transported both ways - even if a majority of cyclists only use the train in one direction (and then cycle back).

I don't understand why the 153s can't be given a derogation for PRM TSI if they are only allowed to work with compliant units. The cheaper mods could be made to them and platform information and train announcements could advise disabled passengers to use other the carriages. The bike idea might work but the units shouldn't be redundant in the first place.

Agreed - plenty of lines in the UK could do with an extra carriage of Sprinter to increase capacity (without necessarily doubling up from two coaches to four).

If they could be permanently coupled to 150/155/156s and get round the compliance issues then I'd rather that we increased capacity on such lines like this.

This is almost as good as the Class 442s..

That’s a cracking idea, we can take the 37/4’s that are knackered from their recent sojorn to Cumbria back to where they below in push-pull mode with 442’s!

Come on you two - you know that Forum rules mean we have to find a way of using redundant 373s on such schemes nowadays!

 

[themiller]

How would that compare to the environmental cost of a dozen modern cars doing the equivalent journey (with bikes on the roof racks)?

[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't the bikes on the roof racks get tangled up in the overhead wires?

 

[brel york]

Well what about car flats with canvas roofs to keep the bikes dry , only need a bsi coupler fitting and off we go , maybe a van for walking sticks could be useful

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Who would fund this?

These two?

Joking aside, the Pacer's won't be around for long. Might as well buy some extra time with the class 153 skateboards since the chance is there.

 

[whhistle]

^ This forum needs a "like" button!

 

[Cowley]

^ This forum needs a "like" button!

The trouble is that you’d then have to have a “Dislike” button which some members would hit around three thousand times a day.

 

[dk1]

Who would fund this

My thoughts exactly. Let's look at the revenue stream it's likely to generate. Cycles, children's play area & catering storage. Hmmm

 

[DarloRich]

It isnt the worst idea floated on these boards....................

(Once there are no passenger uses for the units obviously)

 

[brel york]

Who would pay for the hire of the vehicle when it’s not getting used during the bleak winter months up there

 

[NorthernSpirit]

The trouble is that you’d then have to have a “Dislike” button which some members would hit around three thousand times a day.

Of which they'd only do simply because I'm alternative centre, but anyway...

The 153's do have the ability to be converted into a small fleet of Guard Vans, it wouldn't be too difficult to rip out the seats (which if needs by can be reused), the bog can be torn out and the current rack that's opposite the toilet can also be torn out. Then a load of bus grab poles can be welded together to create a large enough frame which can then hold 20 pushbikes side by side facing the windows and around 15 unfolded pushchairs. The numbers are off the top of my head but I am also allowing space for walking in.

 

[brel york]

No one wants to pay for this work regardless of how much people want it

How do you get away with “a load of bus grab poles welded together “ this would have to be designed and stress loads worked out , what happens to it in a crash etc

 

[bastien]

I like it, but... There's a slippery slope from 'special carriage for bikes and luggage' straight to 'what a lot of passengers we can fit in now there's no seats'.

 

[furnessvale]

The trouble is that you’d then have to have a “Dislike” button which some members would hit around three thousand times a day.

Another forum I am on limits you to two hits of the button a day, so you learn to be selective.

 

[bastien]

Who would pay for the hire of the vehicle when it’s not getting used during the bleak winter months up there

The seatless 153 would run all year, the 156 would go elsewhere for Christmas market crowd busting duties during the winter

 

[ScotTrains]

Perhaps the HST services could get a redundant and converted MK3 sleeper coach for bikes and luggage.

 

[Cowley]

Another forum I am on limits you to two hits of the button a day, so you learn to be selective.

Where’s the ‘Like’ button..?

 

[mushroomchow]

Great idea - let's do away with the flexibility of a 153 and render it useless for any other franchise that wants it in the future.

I understand the reasoning behind the suggestion, but practically every other stock option on the table is preferable to a 153 from what I can gather.

There's more logic in developing out-of-ticket trains for this purpose and splitting them if necessary - there's going to be scope for Pacer, sprinter-model EMUs and 150 withdrawals long before the same happens to the 153s for example, and any complaints about the ride quality or RVAR of the former are going to be far less forthcoming from bags and bicycles! Mk. 3 conversions are probably a step too far compatability wise, but another route I'd consider preferable to losing the operational scope of part of what is arguably the most flexible fleet of units in the country.

Until there's another single-coach railcar on order for the UK market, I wouldn't be supportive of anything that withdraws existing units.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But who needs a single-unit railcar in 2018? There are barely any lines on which one will be adequate if a compliant toilet is fitted, while if you're not going to run them around on their own you can get the same set of lengths (anything from 2 upwards) from 2 and 3-car units with less space wasted on cabs.

If something else isn't done with them like this idea, they'll get scrapped soonish I reckon.

 

[brel york]

Who needs a guards van lol , how many people per day don’t travel because of their bike not getting a space

 

[sprinterguy]

Great idea - let's do away with the flexibility of a 153 and render it useless for any other franchise that wants it in the future.

I understand the reasoning behind the suggestion, but practically every other stock option on the table is preferable to a 153 from what I can gather.

There's more logic in developing out-of-ticket trains for this purpose and splitting them if necessary - there's going to be scope for Pacer, sprinter-model EMUs and 150 withdrawals long before the same happens to the 153s for example, and any complaints about the ride quality or RVAR of the former are going to be far less forthcoming from bags and bicycles! Mk. 3 conversions are probably a step too far compatability wise, but another route I'd consider preferable to losing the operational scope of part of what is arguably the most flexible fleet of units in the country.

There'd hardly need to be a particularly large fleet for West Highland and Far North cycle use. And it's the flexibility of the class 153 units that makes them so useful for this purpose (Less so the narrow doors at vehicle ends if looking at a (comparatively) "cheap and cheerful" conversion): Self-propelled vehicles with a cab at each end, that are compatible and mechanically similar to the existing stock on the routes and require little additional training for drivers.

Most of the TOCs that currently employ them don't seem to see much further use for them in their current form. I'd certainly be surprised if 150s start to see withdrawals before the 153s.

 

[mushroomchow]

But who needs a single-unit railcar in 2018? There are barely any lines on which one will be adequate if a compliant toilet is fitted, while if you're not going to run them around on their own you can get the same set of lengths (anything from 2 upwards) from 2 and 3-car units with less space wasted on cabs.

If something else isn't done with them like this idea, they'll get scrapped soonish I reckon.

There'd hardly need to be a particularly large fleet for West Highland and Far North cycle use. And it's the flexibility of the class 153 units that makes them so useful for this purpose (Less so the narrow doors at vehicle ends if looking at a (comparatively) "cheap and cheerful" conversion): Self-propelled vehicles with a cab at each end, that are compatible and mechanically similar to the existing stock on the routes and require little additional training for drivers.

Most of the TOCs that currently employ them don't seem to see much further use for them in their current form. I'd certainly be surprised if 150s start to see withdrawals before the 153s.

I'm thinking more of the flexibility of single car units as opposed to having to press an extra 2-car unit into service for a capacity issue that may be remedied with a single extra car. I suppose I'll sound a hypocrite here given I was saying the opposite in the class 800 thread last week, but from the view of a TOC, they may be wasting capacity and raising operating costs being hamstrung by having to add 2 cars instead of one, especially if that busy period means a 2-car unit is needed elsewhere on another service. In addition, there are plenty of rural routes where one car is plenty off-peak but a service needs to be maintained, for which the 153s are the best current candidate.

You don't even need a cab at both ends of the unit - plenty of TOCs have tacked single cars of the likes of 156s, 158s and various first generation DMUs onto "complete" units in the recent past. Considering their placement on these trains would be semi-permanent for the summer season, there'd be little need for chopping and changing - just couple them up with the cab end facing outwards and you're good to go for the season. That would significantly reduce the conversion costs of any single carriage compared to trying to make them match a 153's 2-cab design.

They won't go on forever, but I can still see a number of TOCs being unhappy with any number of 153s being gutted and turned into glorified mail vans while clawing around for passenger capacity and operational flexibility of their own, especially with a number of other options with similar design architecture also becoming available and more likely to go for scrap - pacers and 313s in particular fit the billing, with neither necessarily needing to be powered to serve a luggage van function and likely needing minimal alteration to be compatible with the sprinter family units used on their intended routes.

 

[HSTEd]

Making a sprinter haul a trailer is going to kill it's performance - even if it woudl still be better than a Mark 1 DMU.

 

[MarkyT]

Regardless of the particular stock selected for the conversion, I wonder if such a general purpose powered non-passenger unit added to existing trains could also carry premium freight, parcels, even (god forbid) mail around the far reaches of the Scotrail network without consuming any additional paths. On the Intercity parts of the Scotrail network, the van compartments of HST power cars might be used for carrying similar high value, as they have been doing in the West of England in recent years.