153 - the end of the line?

[bramling]

Oh I'm sure they'll stay in service somehow far longer than they ever should have, just look at what happened to the Pacers. Britain has a habit of being stuck in the past when we should be looking to the future. Leave the old stuff for preserved lines, then the actual railway can meet modern standards for travel.

That’s fine, however we have overcrowding in places. I have no issue with older stock being retained to provide extra capacity where required. The issue of toilets is a non-issue providing the there is an accessible toilet elsewhere on the train, which would be the case of running attached to something else.

 

[MattRat]

That’s fine, however we have overcrowding in places. I have no issue with older stock being retained to provide extra capacity where required. The issue of toilets is a non-issue providing the there is an accessible toilet elsewhere on the train, which would be the case of running attached to something else.

Overcrowding isn't really fixed with only 1 extra car. Need 2 to 3 extra at least in most cases.

 

[bramling]

Overcrowding isn't really fixed with only 1 extra car. Need 2 to 3 extra at least in most cases.

The 2 or 3 extra cars don’t necessarily exist, whereas the 153s do, and of course it doesn’t have to be just one car added. 153s exist and are available right now.

There’s a saying “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”. I don’t get why some people would seem to prefer to crowd onto a new train, then have more space on an old one.

 

[MattRat]

The 2 or 3 extra cars don’t necessarily exist, whereas the 153s do, and of course it doesn’t have to be just one car added. 153s exist and are available right now.

There’s a saying “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”. I don’t get why some people would seem to prefer to crowd onto a new train, then have more space on an old one.

I want a new train and no overcrowding. Is that really too much to ask in the 21st century?

 

[bramling]

I want a new train and no overcrowding. Is that really too much to ask in the 21st century?

At this moment in time, the simple answer may well be yes.

 

[D365]

I want a new train and no overcrowding. Is that really too much to ask in the 21st century?

It is when diesels really should be being phased out.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

That’s fine, however we have overcrowding in places. I have no issue with older stock being retained to provide extra capacity where required. The issue of toilets is a non-issue providing the there is an accessible toilet elsewhere on the train, which would be the case of running attached to something else.

Agreed, hence the silliness of not transferring them to TfW as 153/9s to provide capacity on Rhymney Valley 150s, or to displace the 150s that continue to run on Coryton Cardiff Bay and Radyr via Fairswater despite them being booked single 153/9.

 

[Anonymous10]

Agreed, hence the silliness of not transferring them to TfW as 153/9s to provide capacity on Rhymney Valley 150s, or to displace the 150s that continue to run on Coryton Cardiff Bay and Radyr via Fairswater despite them being booked single 153/9.

also to be honest a 153 could be utilised on the Pembroke dock branch that gives enough capacity till march and gives another 150 or if 2 153s are found a 150 and 158

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Agreed, hence the silliness of not transferring them to TfW as 153/9s to provide capacity on Rhymney Valley 150s, or to displace the 150s that continue to run on Coryton Cardiff Bay and Radyr via Fairswater despite them being booked single 153/9.

Surprised the 153/9s are allowed to run solo, or even be allocated as such.

 

[43096]

A bit difficult when the treasury refuses to provide regular and consistent amounts of investment into electrification.

A bit difficult when the railway industry is incapable of electrifying for anything like a sensible cost.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Surprised the 153/9s are allowed to run solo, or even be allocated as such.

The Coryton branch is a twenty minute ride; if people can do London Reading/Dorking/Gravesend without toilets I’m sure they’ll manage on this.

 

[D365]

A bit difficult when the railway industry is incapable of electrifying for anything like a sensible cost.

Chicken and egg. Costs aren’t going to go down until this drip-feeding of investment stops.

 

[warwickshire]

I do believe the 153s should have stayed myself just for another year.
If this was 2022 December then more understanding as passenger numbers will be more predictable and more certain by then.
However at least 153 should have had some lite work done.
Or say be coupled on northern even with a permanent 156 say. Ie cannot be removed unless authorities is given.
Another main reason is the commonwealth games 2022.
May to October next year will be the one for leisure travel not only that good opportunity to get that market back up to 100 percent and above pre covid 19 levels.
Because some peak levels may not.
However even iff a 153 tags onto a 158 even better.
However 153s between may and October 2022 surely are very much needed SETTLE to Carlisle and huddersfield to Sheffield and clitheroes.
Also to help release 3 car 150s and 158s elsewhere to provide capacity for the hope valley line and other services as 2022 summer will be exceptional.
Because don't forget tourists and visitors will spend all or a lot off summer here because they will want to explore and see what these areas have on offer for days out as well as the games.
Whilst they are here time to enjoy what else there is to see.
And not have a overcrowding train.
And that applies for our leisure customers to.
Getting rid off 153s at least for 2022 is a total disaster and not thought out.

 

[Anonymous10]

Chicken and egg. Costs aren’t going to go down until this drip-feeding of investment stops.

ain't that the truth if we started electrifying lines the cost would come down as more would be being made anything done in small amounts costs more it's basic economics

 

[yorksrob]

Overcrowding isn't really fixed with only 1 extra car. Need 2 to 3 extra at least in most cases.

Maybe not, but it is alleviated.

The 2 or 3 extra cars don’t necessarily exist, whereas the 153s do, and of course it doesn’t have to be just one car added. 153s exist and are available right now.

There’s a saying “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”. I don’t get why some people would seem to prefer to crowd onto a new train, then have more space on an old one.

Absolutely spot on.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Or say be coupled on northern even with a permanent 156 say. Ie cannot be removed unless authorities is given.

But 153s aren’t PRM compliant so can’t be used without further derogation or modifications.

 

[AndrewE]

Can't they run coupled and gangway-connected to another unit which is PRM compliant? There are coaches in Pendolinos without a toilet at all.

 

[43096]

Getting rid off 153s at least for 2022 is a total disaster

It really isn't. The 153s have been on minimal/no use for months now and the world hasn't stopped turning on it axis. There's also now four extra 156s in the Northern fleet with another 11 to come, so the 153s are really, really not needed.

 

[43096]

Can't they run coupled and gangway-connected to another unit which is PRM compliant? There are coaches in Pendolinos without a toilet at all.

Only with a dispensation. We've done this to death on here: the rules state universal access toilet provision is on a per-unit basis, hence why Pendolinos and many other trains are compliant. A 153, as a single car unit, therefore has to have a UAT (and are subject to dispensation to keep them running). It should also be noted that PRM compliance is much more than toilet provision and the 153s are not compliant on that front either.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Can't they run coupled and gangway-connected to another unit which is PRM compliant? There are coaches in Pendolinos without a toilet at all.

PRM is far more than just about an accessible toilet. It’s covers a whole host of thing such as tactiles, door opening control positions, grab rails etc.

Whilst temporary derogations are possible to allow mitigations such as running coupled to a PRM unit the government is quite rightly keen that plans are in place to end these derogations, in Northern’s case additional compliant 156s have/will been provided to replace the 153s.

A big part of PRM is those unfortunate to be less able than ourselves, might not actually have easily identifiable ‘disabilities’ and so it’s very hard to spot these and direct them to the PRM accessible vehicle. In fact, to some people the ‘disability’ is actually not being able to interact well with others, so needing assistance to join the correct vehicle becomes a barrier to travel itself.

The railway (and bus industry) has worked hard to achieve the PRM requirements and become accessible for all and bluntly non compliant vehicles don’t have a place on the modern railway.

 

[matacaster]

Could wypte use them to initiate a service on kwvr perhaps just morning and evening peaks?

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Could wypte use them to initiate a service on kwvr perhaps just morning and evening peaks?

No because of the lack of compliance with PRM requirements which public transport in this country adheres to. We have chosen (and funded) that public transport in this country is accessible to all so vehicles such as these should not be used on public services.

 

[Meglodon 5]

Also, EMR has definitely not gotten rid of their 153s. I rods on one a few days ago. Its still in the crap dark blue livery though.

 

[swt_passenger]

Also, EMR has definitely not gotten rid of their 153s. I rods on one a few days ago. Its still in the crap dark blue livery though.

Their DfT dispensation for continued use ended on the 12th, how long ago were you on one?

 

[Meglodon 5]

Their DfT dispensation for continued use ended on the 12th, how long ago were you on one?

Like 3 weeks ago. Maybe 4. I did see one in Ely yesterday though.

 

[swt_passenger]

Like 3 weeks ago. Maybe 4. I did see one in Ely yesterday though.

They’ve been moving them to Ely and other sites for storage during last week. All the gen is in the thread about 153s in the rolling stock forum.

 

[D365]

Also, EMR has definitely not gotten rid of their 153s. I rods on one a few days ago. Its still in the crap dark blue livery though.

Like 3 weeks ago. Maybe 4. I did see one in Ely yesterday though.

Hardly ”a few days ago”!

 

[bramling]

No because of the lack of compliance with PRM requirements which public transport in this country adheres to. We have chosen (and funded) that public transport in this country is accessible to all so vehicles such as these should not be used on public services.

This is all very well and good, but the choice in practice is semi-PRM, or no vehicle at all, and that doesn’t benefit anyone. Indeed overcrowding is a bad situation for accessibility too, and it’s wrong to inflict this on everyone in the pursuit of an objective of “every vehicle being fully PRM” which is noble but has proved completely impossible to achieve in practice.

 

[HamworthyGoods]

This is all very well and good, but the choice in practice is semi-PRM, or no vehicle at all, and that doesn’t benefit anyone. Indeed overcrowding is a bad situation for accessibility too, and it’s wrong to inflict this on everyone in the pursuit of an objective of “every vehicle being fully PRM” which is noble but has proved completely impossible to achieve in practice.

I do see your point, but it’s a decision we’ve made in this country regarding accessibility from which there is no turning back, thus 153s in unmodified form simply have no future use!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I want a new train and no overcrowding. Is that really too much to ask in the 21st century?

Yes.