What are Northern's plans for their 10 Class 153s?

[johnnychips]

Either that or put another few 144s through the "evolution" process!

Don’t bother. Last time I was on 144012 there were cracks and stains in the ceiling, water was leaking through the windows, the toilet was out of order. (And the seats are rock hard )

 

[JonathanH]

There's also the formation with 150209 + 153 which only has a toilet in the 153

They are going to have to decide what to do with 150209 shortly. Is there any reason why it won't simply be fitted with a PRM toilet cubicle now that the 3-car 150 plan doesn't appear to be happening?

 

[156420]

150209 will have its own diagram - semi-permanently coupled to another 150, on the Southport-Alderley Edge diagrams starting/ending NH each day.

 

[Aedaxeon]

I have used the Castleford to Huddersfield service twice now and think that a 153 was ideal traction for the level of use. I understand the problems with them but would rather have one than a 150, the seats are better configured and there is no contest when comparing them with a Pacer. For a journey of about 30 minutes with a light load they are ideal.

Man Vic-Stalybridge shuttles booked a 153+158 from the TT change too!

Since the 153s are likely to be used as shuttles with journey times of just half an hour or so (or attached to other gangwayed 15xs for capacity), could they be PRMd by ripping out the toilet completely?

Merseyrail manages just fine without toilets and bus journeys are often longer than that and never have toilets.

 

[cm39275]

So what happens to the Barton line service in the new timetable which is currently a solo 153?

 

[fgwrich]

150209 will have its own diagram - semi-permanently coupled to another 150, on the Southport-Alderley Edge diagrams starting/ending NH each day.

Which, while sounding clever on paper, needs to find itself restricted to that and not end up sneaking into Northerns "Random Unit Generator". Still strikes me as odd though as to why no-one wants to fit a new PRM compliant lav into it though, it would bring the unit up to scratch and wouldn't leave you with an oddball - and it can easily be done as ScotRail / Wabtec show by fitting the new loo's into the previously non toilet fitted 320s.

Could a solution to Northern keeping a few 153s be the same as TfW are doing, by fitting another large toilet into their units?

 

[py_megapixel]

Which, while sounding clever on paper, needs to find itself restricted to that and not end up sneaking into Northerns "Random Unit Generator". Still strikes me as odd though as to why no-one wants to fit a new PRM compliant lav into it though, it would bring the unit up to scratch and

How has 209 ended up without a toilet anyway?

 

[PHILIPE]

How has 209 ended up without a toilet anyway?

Because it is formed with two 57 instead of a 57 and 52 carriages, 57209 and 57212. Their partners,52209 and 52212 with toilets were both written off some years ago following collisions so the odd 57 vehicles were formed with 2 other 2 Car Units to make into 3 Car units. They were with GWR latterly and numbered 1509xx but transferred to Northern last year and reformed into a 2 Car toiletless 2 Car unit.

 

[fgwrich]

How has 209 ended up without a toilet anyway?

In short, 150209 has been a hybrid unit since the late 80s / early 90s, when two rather sad and unfortunate incidents meant that the partnering 52XXX (the cars with the toilets fitted) both ended up being written off and scrapped. The two remaining toiletless cars were never really an issue until the breaking up of the Central Trains fleet, as they were both used to bolster up further 150/1s to create the Tyseley 150/0 Hybrid fleets. 209 ended up in storage with 150001 & 002 at Eastleigh, until an enterprising First Great Western took them on and subsequently split 209 up again, with both cars being used to former up 150921 & 150927, laterally 150925 & 150926.

 

[Ribbleman]

In short, 150209 has been a hybrid unit since the late 80s / early 90s, when two rather sad and unfortunate incidents meant that the partnering 52XXX (the cars with the toilets fitted) both ended up being written off and scrapped. The two remaining toiletless cars were never really an issue until the breaking up of the Central Trains fleet, as they were both used to bolster up further 150/1s to create the Tyseley 150/0 Hybrid fleets. 209 ended up in storage with 150001 & 002 at Eastleigh, until an enterprising First Great Western took them on and subsequently split 209 up again, with both cars being used to former up 150921 & 150927, laterally 150925 & 150926.

At some point 150209 will be going for refurbishment. Maybe a toilet will be fitted at that time. If it ends up temporarily on Southport services from January it could be released in March, assuming the 769s finally arrive for the Southport-Alderley Edge route.

 

[Ryry]

Read on another thread that the 153s will be working out of Heaton depot helping to strengthen services in the Tyne tees

Can anyone confirm this

 

[sprinterguy]

That'd be nice if true: There's some services that would benefit from an extra carriage worth of capacity and there's not been a 153 allocated to Heaton in over fifteen years.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Sorry for digging up a(nother) old thread, but does anyone know how the evening peak extra service on the Penistone line is operated since the timetable change? It was previously formed from an arrival from Brighouse but as that service is now a 153 I assume it no longer is.
TIA.

 

[3270]

Sorry for digging up a(nother) old thread, but does anyone know how the evening peak extra service on the Penistone line is operated since the timetable change? It was previously formed from an arrival from Brighouse but as that service is now a 153 I assume it no longer is.
TIA.

It comes from Holbeck empty as 5Y43 16:40 Holbeck to Huddersfield: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y59717/2019-12-27/detailed then forms the 1751 to Sheffield.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It comes from Holbeck empty as 5Y43 16:40 Holbeck to Huddersfield: https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/Y59717/2019-12-27/detailed then forms the 1751 to Sheffield.

Cheers. Presumably it reverses at Springwood Junction to get to 4b because platform 4a is occupied by the Bradford service at the time it gets to Huddersfield?

 

[Marton]

Cheers. Presumably it reverses at Springwood Junction to get to 4b because platform 4a is occupied by the Bradford service at the time it gets to Huddersfield?

. As is shown in the link

 

[61653 HTAFC]

. As is shown in the link

I meant the reasons for that move, which viewed in isolation seems odd.

Oddly, on that link the note about the Sheffield service the unit forms appears before the shunt to platform 4b. It's clearly just a data anomaly but if it wasn't, it'd be a rare move to do as a passenger!

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Last time I used the Bradford Huddersfield service it spent most of it's time stood still at Halifax, Brighouse and longest of all Bradley junction where I could watch my Manchester trans pennine go past. I believe it still has time allowed for the never built Elland Station. Far quicker by bus so a complete waste of time and resource.
May doo better if they could speed it up a bit and link it to the Sheffield service.
K

Elland gets built soon so the extra timing will eventually be removed once Elland is opened.

I do agree that the Sheffield to Huddersfield and the Huddersfield to Bradford services should merge to create a single Sheffield to Bradford via Huddersfield service of which there once was one, albeit unadvertised, as the only evidence was that whilst the unit used was the same. It'll roll into platform 4A at HUD and the crew would swap at Huddersfield before heading towards Leeds via Bradford.

I think this odd special working was removed at the infamous May 2018 timetable change.

In regards overall for Northern's 20 class 153's will be the same as the Pacer units: scrappage, converted to other use, preserved or the slim chance of being reformed back into a class 155.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Transport for Wales (the TOC) recently unveiled their PRM-ed 153, so it can be done... but at peak times they might be a bit too small even on those two Northern routes. Particularly if the TPE stopper is cancelled that hour!

Either that or put another few 144s through the "evolution" process!

I think its a bit late now for Porterbrook to create some more e144's, which I think should have been done back in 2016 with units 144014 - 023.

 

[Entertexthere]

Could they not potentially reform them into 5x class 155 units by plating over the no.2 cab and perhaps permanently coupling them (I'm aware that it would require more than that, I'm just summarising it)?

 

[Llama]

No. That would cause a load of problems and solve none.

 

[SteveyBee131]

So what happens to the Barton line service in the new timetable which is currently a solo 153?

This I'm longing to see too!

It's a tricky one, as it's actually crewed by TransPennine on Northern's behalf, and at some point is going over to East Midlands Railway.

Assuming it goes over at the next timetable change in May, until then, either all Cleethorpes crews are trained to work on a different DMU class for all of 4 and 1/2 months (unlikely) or 153s are operated with a derogation for same time (not ideal, but more likely).

If it takes longer to go over to EMR however, the retraining option is more likely.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

One of the reasons Northern is keeping them for the time being is that they need to use platform 5 at Huddersfield. A pair of 153s would be too long for that platform.

 

[johnnychips]

I think its a bit late now for Porterbrook to create some more e144's, which I think should have been done back in 2016 with units 144014 - 023.

The last time I used 144012 (the e-pacer) there were stains and runnels of water coming through the roof, water poured in through the gaps between the windows and the body and the accessible bog was out of order. You can’t polish a turd. (Did I mention the seats were ridiculously hard as well? )

 

[SteveyBee131]

... Transport for Wales (the TOC) recently unveiled their PRM-ed 153, so it can be done...

Either that or put another few 144s through the "evolution" process!

As I understand it, the leasing company kicked up a fuss saying it wasn't viable to PRM the 153s due to the inherent loss of seats. TfW was the only operator who convinced the leasing company that they could make it work, and so only their allocation of 153s have been put forward for PRM work.

All the other operators who use 153s seem to agree with the leasing company that a PRM-ed 153 wouldn't be viable, given that something would have happened by now.

As for PRM-ing Pacers, unfortunately people in high places are of the opinion a Pacer is a Pacer, even if it has all the necessary bells and whistles. Much as I and many others would love to see more of them!

 

[jonesy3001]

Been reported that more 153s are joining northern.
Unsure if this is the right thread, please delete if not.

 

[Adam0984]

Theres a government dispensation for 153s that covers the northern and EMR ones under northern business case but it's because the Barton line is using one of EMRs 153s for strengthening so because it's a northern service theyve had to add theirs to the list

 

[PHILIPE]

As I understand it, the leasing company kicked up a fuss saying it wasn't viable to PRM the 153s due to the inherent loss of seats. TfW was the only operator who convinced the leasing company that they could make it work, and so only their allocation of 153s have been put forward for PRM work.

All the other operators who use 153s seem to agree with the leasing company that a PRM-ed 153 wouldn't be viable, given that something would have happened by now.

As for PRM-ing Pacers, unfortunately people in high places are of the opinion a Pacer is a Pacer, even if it has all the necessary bells and whistles. Much as I and many others would love to see more of them!

TFW have had 9 x 153s from EMR and GA but these were a compensation from Porterbrook for the continuing non availability of 769s. As this is not regarded as a stop gap situation they will not receive PRM. unlike the other 13 allocated.

 

[M1544]

One of the reasons Northern is keeping them for the time being is that they need to use platform 5 at Huddersfield. A pair of 153s would be too long for that platform.

An update on this, platform 5 at Huddersfield has now been finally passed for class 150 use from today, so not sure how it will affect any future 153 diagrams in this area.

 

[py_megapixel]

An update on this, platform 5 at Huddersfield has now been finally passed for class 150 use from today, so not sure how it will affect any future 153 diagrams in this area.

I don't mean to sound rude, but how can a platform suddenly become passed for a new class of unit without any works? Surely if it was unsuitable for a 150 then it must still be unsuitable for a 150?