For the Far North line could a single car from a 158/9 be turned into a 90mph detachable Highland Explorer active travel (cycles etc) car..

Can it be done? Yes. There’s precedent of course because the 153s were converted from 155s

Can it be done cost effectively? Depends how you measure cost effectiveness

Is this a solution searching for a problem or are there currently loads of issues with lack of bike capacity?

SuspectUsual said:

Can it be done? Yes. There’s precedent of course because the 153s were converted from 155s

Can it be done cost effectively? Depends how you measure cost effectiveness

Is this a solution searching for a problem or are there currently loads of issues with lack of bike capacity?

Click to expand...

Theres not much bike capacity on the Far North line (and lots of Jogle / Lejog cyclists ).

Are those cyclists really a demographic?

Anything non-structural is probably possible, but whether it'd be worth doing is another question.

More cycle space is probably something to consider for the replacement stock when that comes along, which would also apply to the West Highland routes.

AHBD said:

Theres not much bike capacity on the Far North line (and lots of Jogle / Lejog cyclists ).

Click to expand...

In general there aren’t any spare DMUs anywhere. If any 158s do get freed up by new units then they would most likely get used for passenger services that are short or to replace even older classes. Otherwise they’re likely due for the scrap heap.
The 153s were introduced to Scotrail when they were just over 30. The 158s are between 34 and 37, much closer to the end of their life.

Technically quite feasible. I think that at least 1 GWR 158 is already basically a 2+1 so there's precedence in a way.

AHBD said:

Theres not much bike capacity on the Far North line (and lots of Jogle / Lejog cyclists ).

Click to expand...

If more bike capacity is needed it'd just be easier to take a couple of bays of seating out to create more spaces. Those trains are hardly busy.

I would have thought that any "spare" 158/9 coaches are going to be needed as spare parts donors to keep the rest of the fleets running.

Also remember the difference in construction between a 155 and a 158 body.
The 155 were sectional built machines where it was easy to replace one section with another. (Remember their bus panel origins).
The 158 are constructed using longitudinal aluminium extrusions. Cutting / inserting sections, adding new doors economically would really not be cost effective or even safe. The aluminium structure would be badly weakened without very heavy engineering which wouldn't be cost effective given the expected life of the bodyshells

2

Acathater said:

I would have thought that any "spare" 158/9 coaches are going to be needed as spare parts donors to keep the rest of the fleets running.

Also remember the difference in construction between a 155 and a 158 body.
The 155 were sectional built machines where it was easy to replace one section with another. (Remember their bus panel origins).
The 158 are constructed using longitudinal aluminium extrusions. economically would really not be cost effective or even safe. The aluminium structure would be badly weakened without very heavy engineering which wouldn't be cost effective given the expected life of the bodyshells

Click to expand...

If no extra cab is added to a single 158/159 carriage, then what "Cutting / inserting sections, adding new doors " would there be?

But an extra cab is being added. The existing doors would have to be moved to make room

Acathater said:

But an extra cab is being added. The existing doors would have to be moved to make room

Click to expand...

By whom? No project to convert a 158/9 exists: so, as I was suggesting, one carriage (with no extra cab added) but with internal layout updated for active travel, could be stuck in the middle of a n car set to give a n+2 car set? Or you could just modify one car of a standard 2 car set and leave the other's internal layout as is, or even have two active travel carriages if needed?

Even if you operated a detachable Class 158 vehicle, the only restriction that not having a second cab would impose is that that end of that vehicle can never lead the formation, at least at line speed.

That doesn't sound like a restriction that would be impossible to overcome.

EDIT: Is a propelling move allowed on a multiple unit for shunting purposes?

It's an interesting thought. There's a lot of great cycling to be had up that way. I suspect many just see it as too far to travel (bar those doing LEJOG) but if you packaged the increased capacity up with some decent marketing and publicity, it probably could increase usage.

I agree though that maybe not a whole carriage is necessary.

HSTEd said:

Even if you operated a detachable Class 158 vehicle, the only restriction that not having a second cab would impose is that that end of that vehicle can never lead the formation, at least at line speed.

That doesn't sound like a restriction that would be impossible to overcome.

EDIT: Is a propelling move allowed on a multiple unit for shunting purposes?

Click to expand...

If you insert the extra carriage in the middle of a stock 158, is the middle active travel cab not redundant any way except during maintenance? The standard 158s cabs would remain in either direction.

I understood your initial post to be a request for independent single units which could run individually

Acathater said:

I understood your initial post to be a request for independent single units which could run individually

Click to expand...

I dont think Scotrail active travel units are used singly, they are tacked onto/into a standard 75mph sprinter, which is I why I later suggested not needing the 2nd cab added to the 90mph 158s.

AHBD said:

Theres not much bike capacity on the Far North line (and lots of Jogle / Lejog cyclists ).

Click to expand...

I think you'll find that by far the majority of lejog riders are supported either by organisations or family. If their not supported continuously they are met at their destination and go home in a minibus/coach/camper/SUV not on public transport.

marshlinker said:

I think you'll find that by far the majority of lejog riders are supported either by organisations or family. If their not supported continuously they are met at their destination and go home in a minibus/coach/camper/SUV not on public transport.

Click to expand...

Well going by train generally requires booking far in advance for the small amount of spaces so its not surprising other options are taken. Cycle Forums seem to have plenty doing lejog independently.

Can bikes go on road coaches in that corner of the world?

AHBD said:

If you insert the extra carriage in the middle of a stock 158, is the middle active travel cab not redundant any way except during maintenance? The standard 158s cabs would remain in either direction.

Click to expand...

Yes, but then I wouldn't consider it "detachable", as stated in the opening of the thread.

I interpreted that to mean it would be regularly removed from the units based on demand and such.

brad465 said:

Can bikes go on road coaches in that corner of the world?

Click to expand...

I know they can go on ember but for a 4+ hour journey, a train would seem nicer if possible.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Aug 2026 ==

HSTEd said:

Yes, but then I wouldn't consider it "detachable", as stated in the opening of the thread.

I interpreted that to mean it would be regularly removed from the units based on demand and such.

Click to expand...

I thought they were always timetabled and the days of attaching extra carriages as needed were gone...
So i thought attaching is more like attaching unpowered carriages in a yard or reassembling an mu after maintenance on individual carriages etc.


But as you said, one cab means tbe Active travel carriage can be added to the appropriate end (but perhaps only in a maintenance yard?). Or could the longer standard 158 multiple unit train, with a cab at either end be propelled into the (non-cab end of the) static extra active travel single carriage.?

HSTEd said:

Yes, but then I wouldn't consider it "detachable", as stated in the opening of the thread.

I interpreted that to mean it would be regularly removed from the units based on demand and such.

Click to expand...

Is the Far North train ever full? If not, and I suspect not, losing 8-12 seats on existing 2 car sets would allow 6 bike spaces to be added which would be plenty. Think a space like the Class 156 "van area".

The reason you couldn't do that on the West Highland is that trains are often full (and the van areas full of bikes and bags).

Yes, propelling moves are allowed when reconfiguring a DMU in a depot shunt.

SuspectUsual said:

Is this a solution searching for a problem or are there currently loads of issues with lack of bike capacity?

Click to expand...

I believe there is a (long-standing) problem with much of the Railway here.
If you measure current activity, you may conclude that bike transport is not a significant issue; it may well not be.

The underlying question, though, is why that is the case.

Here's a perspective. In the past, one could arrive at a train station with a bicycle intending to bring it onboard with you, without any prior formality and be all but assured you could do so. Today, it's far from as assured. The (two, maybe) spaces may already be occupied by a couple who arrived or boarded before you did. To what extent is the present actual usage affected by that lack of reasonable certainty?

Some years ago, I commuted (so, yes, not the same scenario as discussed here, but to illustrate) from home 1.5 miles from a station to work 1.5 miles from another. My finishing time was wholly unpredictable. I had no issue with cycling at each end with my bike onboard. Typically along with 10-15 others per train in peak hours (hence 10-15 fewer cars on the road per train). If I was early or late for any reason at either end - no problem.

The modern railway does not facilitate that behaviour. Hence, were I faced with the same journey today I'd not contemplate an accompanied bike. That circular argument "proves" lack of demand; it's circular because the lack of capacity drove loss of demand.

That's commuting. Consider leisure - more likely in the situation discussed here: that type of activity may well be (unpredictable) weather related. "It's a nice day, let's do a bike ride. Lets go to [X], ride in that area and return....". Same situation arises. Turn up at the station at short notice and pot luck if you get on. Worse, do your thing, turn up at the station to come home and ... no room. With that distinct possibility in mind, I, for one, simply would not consider taking the train for such an event. Hence, I don't form part of any measurable demand.

Given that one of the many self-conflicting aspirations of the government is what is termed "active travel" I'd suggest the railway needs to account for such peak latent demand as there is. Waking up to a perfect day, I'd far rather cycle to my local station, take my bike onboard, and do a leisure ride from my destination, returning the same way - when I'm done, when I'm ready - so, without any advance arrangement. I can't reliably choose to do that. So the bikes go on the car and.....no demand from me. It's probably a case of "build it and they will come..."

brad465 said:

Can bikes go on road coaches in that corner of the world?

Click to expand...

Yes, you can take them on Ember and Citylink buses without additional cost although they have to sit on their side in the luggage area (I think Ember may allow them in the wheelchair area but that's not been free when I've been travelling). I found it frustrating booking the bike on the train as availability was poor and they initially didn't show if there were bike spaces when looking at a list of times which they fixed but the current site seems to have removed them.

Even aside from the cost I find the Ember buses a really pleasant way to travel as the buses are new and the electric drive is very smooth and quiet unlike the constant engine noise you get with a 158.

Given that one of the many self-conflicting aspirations of the government is what is termed "active travel" I'd suggest the railway needs to account for such peak latent demand as there is. Waking up to a perfect day, I'd far rather cycle to my local station, take my bike onboard, and do a leisure ride from my destination, returning the same way - when I'm done, when I'm ready - so, without any advance arrangement. I can't reliably choose to do that. So the bikes go on the car and.....no demand from me. It's probably a case of "build it and they will come..."

Click to expand...

It is a frustrating aspect for me and one of the main reasons I still use the car for longer distances because I can just chuck the bike in the back and go. I find getting the bike on the train within Scotland can be challenging and trying to get it further into England with multiple train companies was too much work especially as it usually meant little flexibility.

This is reminding me of the time I went on a guided walking holiday at Inchnadamph and used train and bicycle to get to Inchnadamph hotel. Coming back to Inverness to catch the sleeper, I got as far as Ardgay, the train I intended to catch turned up, sorry, no bike space left, so I had to cycle the rest of the way to Inverness.

Several years ago, ScotRail ran an express bicycle road van between Inverness and Thurso/Wick (and v.v.) during the summer peak season.

I used it once (I think it was 2006) to return my bike from Thurso to Inverness after a cycle from Lairg to Durness and along the north coast.

Of course, your bike arrived at the destination before your train did.

Perhaps it might be an idea to bring back such a service.

If this was desirable, instead of converting a precious 158, couldn't an active travel 153 be used? I suspect that there wouldn't be a significant impact on journey times.

WideRanger said:

If this was desirable, instead of converting a precious 158, couldn't an active travel 153 be used? I suspect that there wouldn't be a significant impact on journey times.

Click to expand...

Apparently not, as this thread was created due to that suggestion being rejected :

75mph 153 + 90mph 158 = No

AHBD said:

Apparently not, as this thread was created due to that suggestion being rejected :

75mph 153 + 90mph 158 = No

Click to expand...

Though is there any/much 75+ on the far north line? (Kyle line too, for that matter).