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

[61653 HTAFC]

More of a MkIV/MkIII hybrid are they not? MkIV had a lot in common with them I believe, still could you cut panels out of a MkIV structure without affecting it?

Not really a hybrid. They were built by Metro-Cammell who also built the Mk4s, and I think used similar construction techniques in certain areas. They do appear at first glance to be related to the BRE Mk3 family, but aren't- being built by different organisations in different cities.

 

[LOL The Irony]

More of a MkIV/MkIII hybrid are they not?

That's a 158.

 

[GrimShady]

That's a 158.

Another poster on here, that worked for Metro-Camell, reckons 158 has nothing in common with MkIV and was a design that never went beyond 158.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Another poster on here, that worked for Metro-Camell, reckons 158 has nothing in common with MkIV and was a design that never went beyond 158.

The 158 was a MkIII MkIV hybrid. Yes the MkIV and 156 were built very close together and they probably share construction methods but officially the 156 was it's own thing.

 

[dubscottie]

The 158 was a MkIII MkIV hybrid. Yes the MkIV and 156 were built very close together and they probably share construction methods but officially the 156 was it's own thing.

The 158 has zero in common with a Mk3 or 4. Mk3/4 are steel bodies made using tophat sections with a steel skin welded over it.

A 158 is made using aluminium extrusions as are most modern trains.

 

[Aictos]

A radical idea but just leave the 153s as they are and just put them in the middle of the 156 unit, extra seats at a stoke!

 

[Bletchleyite]

A radical idea but just leave the 153s as they are and just put them in the middle of the 156 unit, extra seats at a stoke!

...for midgets.

 

[Aictos]

...for midgets.

Nothing wrong with the seating on the 153s so no idea why you think they're ideal for midgets as that's offensive!

 

[themiller]

Nothing wrong with the seating on the 153s so no idea why you think they're ideal for midgets as that's offensive!

Lack of legroom. I’m only 6’ tall with a 32” inside leg but, in the airline seating, I have difficulty getting my knees in the recess in the seat in front. This could be solved by removing a row or two. Not everyone can sit in the correct anatomical position for the whole journey.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Nothing wrong with the seating on the 153s so no idea why you think they're ideal for midgets as that's offensive!

There is adequate legroom in a Class 153 for someone with stunted growth, but not for an average adult. The insult was towards the Class 153, not towards the only class of people who can enjoy a journey in one in comfort!

(Well, sort of, they'd fall foul of the other piece of poor design in the Class 153 - the windows being too high up)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Lack of legroom. I’m only 6’ tall with a 32” inside leg but, in the airline seating, I have difficulty getting my knees in the recess in the seat in front. This could be solved by removing a row or two. Not everyone can sit in the correct anatomical position for the whole journey.

Not everyone can fit in even if they do sit bolt upright! And knees together is not necessarily a "correct anatomical position" in any case, legs parallel would be, which is why these recesses are a rather silly piece of design - a thick central pillar with more space at the sides like provided on the Class 175 seat would be better.

 

[jopsuk]

A radical idea but just leave the 153s as they are and just put them in the middle of the 156 unit, extra seats at a stoke!

But that's not what's being specified for the application

 

[Rob F]

Nothing wrong with the seating on the 153s so no idea why you think they're ideal for midgets as that's offensive!

Only if you choose to be offended.

 

[Aictos]

But that's not what's being specified for the application

I am aware of what is being required but if they want a quick fix to increase the number of seats then leaving the 153 as it is with minimum mods would be far better.

As to legroom, I don't see a issue if you want awful legroom try XC's 170s now they are awful!

Only if you choose to be offended.

Not by choice remember these days you do have to think of others more then yourself and something that might not offend you can offend someone else.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is definitely more legroom in an XC 170 than a 153.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I am aware of what is being required but if they want a quick fix to increase the number of seats then leaving the 153 as it is with minimum mods would be far better.

As to legroom, I don't see a issue if you want awful legroom try XC's 170s now they are awful!



Not by choice remember these days you do have to think of others more then yourself and something that might not offend you can offend someone else.

If you read the title of this thread, it is clear that simply boosting seating capacity is not the reasoning for this proposal. To add space for luggage and bikes, a 153 in its present form would be as much use as breasts on a fish.

As for being offended (or not), if someone says something which offends you you may criticise them for it, and make a judgement about their character as a result. But if you stop them saying it, you'd never be in a position to make that judgement. Being offended IS a choice though. Sticks and stones and all that.

 

[Aictos]

There is definitely more legroom in an XC 170 than a 153.

You must be joking, they are simply awful but that's what you get by running 2 Car DMUs on what ought to be a 4 car EMU route.

 

[Qwerty133]

You must be joking, they are simply awful but that's what you get by running 2 Car DMUs on what ought to be a 4 car EMU route.

The difference is significant. I'd go as far as saying some airline seats on the XC 170s have almost as much legroom as the distance between the seats either side of a table on an EMT 153.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

The only problem with a Class 153 coupled to a 158 in Scotland would be maximum 75mph running - I believe 158's are allocated to the Far North Line which are 90mph. I guess 75mph is the maximum speed on this line in which case, no problem!

In my latest 'Modern Railways' magazine I bought from WHSmiths today, it says something like part of a 153 will have lounge-style seating. Not in those words but I think that's what's also happening with the Scotrail 153's.

 

[hexagon789]

The only problem with a Class 153 coupled to a 158 in Scotland would be maximum 75mph running - I believe 158's are allocated to the Far North Line which are 90mph. I guess 75mph is the maximum speed on this line in which case, no problem!

Actually there is +75mph running on the Far North including some 90mph.

The West Highland is 70mph max though.

 

[InOban]

I have it on good authority that they will carry 20 bicycles and have 26 seats. The two for next year will operate on the 'Oban only' services. Since some of these regularly carry more than 26 standing passengers, and that includes services such as the 12.11 from Oban which won't carry the extra vehicle, next summer will continue to be overloaded.

 

[Aictos]

I have it on good authority that they will carry 20 bicycles and have 26 seats. The two for next year will operate on the 'Oban only' services. Since some of these regularly carry more than 26 standing passengers, and that includes services such as the 12.11 from Oban which carry the extra vehicle, next summer will continue to be overloaded.

Do they really need that many cycle spaces?

How many busy do they get with cycles then?

How many cycle spaces do they need as minimum compared to ideal? With the rest of the vehicle offering seating say 60/40 split in favour of seating?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is the seating and bicycle layout to be? 20 bicycles, 10 each side of the aisle on vertical hooks, wouldn't take up more than half the vehicle. Quite a lot less, indeed - you'd easily get that within about 6 metres of length.

 

[hexagon789]

I have it on good authority that they will carry 20 bicycles and have 26 seats. The two for next year will operate on the 'Oban only' services. Since some of these regularly carry more than 26 standing passengers, and that includes services such as the 12.11 from Oban which carry the extra vehicle, next summer will continue to be overloaded.

Not an awful lot of seats, 26 must be a lot less than half a vehicle.

 

[LOL The Irony]

What is the seating and bicycle layout to be? 20 bicycles, 10 each side of the aisle on vertical hooks, wouldn't take up more than half the vehicle. Quite a lot less, indeed - you'd easily get that within about 6 metres of length.

IIRC they're also getting luggage space.

 

[hexagon789]

IIRC they're also getting luggage space.

Yes, luggage, cycles, seats. Still seems like a lot of spare space for luggage somehow.

 

[mcmad]

And in this day and age are people really going to be happy leaving luggage unattended?

 

[AndrewE]

And in this day and age are people really going to be happy leaving luggage unattended?

I think it's a different world in the Highlands.
I have made journeys - in England - when I have been only too happy to sit on a brake-van floor (rather than be left behind) and if people think there are too many bike spaces, then if there aren't bikes in them they can always pile the rucksacks up there, or sit on the floor (unless some jobsworth has banned that nowadays!)

 

[hexagon789]

I think it's a different world in the Highlands.
I have made journeys - in England - when I have been only too happy to sit on a brake-van floor (rather than be left behind) and if people think there are too many bike spaces, then if there aren't bikes in them they can always pile the rucksacks up there, or sit on the floor (unless some jobsworth has banned that nowadays!)

Still get plenty of people using 156 bike-racks as 'additional seating', never seen a Guard say anything against it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think it's a different world in the Highlands.

It is - for instance Fort Bill and Kyle both still have (relatively new) traditional left luggage lockers - not many of those left in the UK!