2 car 153 unit, 153399

[lukefarley]

Pairs of 153s are allowed down the Gunnislake branch, & the Looe branch, as well as single 150s.

Pairs of class 153s are definitely banned from the Gunnislake branch - because the snowploughs foul each other on the tight curves.
If you look carefully at 153399, you'll notice that the snowplough on the inner end of 153369 has been removed, whilst it's coupled to the 150 vehicle.

This would explain why this 153/150 combo is permitted on the branch, while pairs of 153s are not

 

[TEW]

The 150 does not have snow ploughs on the non cab end either, so no problem. Thanks for the explanation.

 

[gnolife]

I think you might have a point but be confused. I've got a feeling another problem found with the 158s and other disk braked stock was that the disks do have a tendancy to build a layer of ice when in snow, which can then effect braking performance. The solution was to apply the brakes regularly in falling snow (every 3 to 5mins with a speed reduction of at least 10mph IIRC) which keeps the disks clear and warm and also allows the driver to know if braking power is being lost before it gets out of hand. Disk braked trains also have to travel 10mph below line speed during falling snow.

so what happens on a 5 MPH line speed section? does the driver sit in the rear cab and have the train in reverse?

 

[DavidBusDriver]

In conditions of falling snow, or snow being disturbed by the passage of trains, disc-braked Multiple Units are to run at 10mph below linespeed, no restriction required where the linespeed is under 50mph, and are required to make a Step 3/Full Service brake application every 3-5 minutes.

So if I was on a stretch of 90mph line, in falling snow etc, would have to run at 80mph, now does someone want to tell me what speed they would do if the linespeed was 55mph ?

 

[jopsuk]

would common sense apply and they'd do 50mph?

 

[A-driver]

When the line speed is 55 they do 50.

 

[Turbostar]

Apologies for the misunderstanding with regards to the 153's on the Gunnislake branch, managed to get hold of an NR document that shows what's allowed where on the Western Region, & makes interesting reading.

 

[150222]

153's aren't cleared beyond Southampton.

is that ARE NOT currently cleared or CANNOT be cleared?

 

[MCR247]

Cannot IIRC the steps foul platforms?

 

[Drsatan]

Cannot IIRC the steps foul platforms?

That's AFAIK true which is why they cannot use Portsmouth Harbour station.

I recall reading in RAIL last year that FGW was going to apply to NR for permission to operate 153s beyond Southampton Central but I don't know what the outcome was.

 

[150222]

That's AFAIK true which is why they cannot use Portsmouth Harbour station.

I recall reading in RAIL last year that FGW was going to apply to NR for permission to operate 153s beyond Southampton Central but I don't know what the outcome was.

Did 155's not use PMH before being split.

 

[fgwrich]

Did 155's not use PMH before being split.

Yep - to which they were then replaced with Scottish bound 156s for a while...Though i believe the clearance issues are now with the Small End steps?!

Just borrow 153333 or 153380 and put that down to Portsmouth...Thats one way to check if theres any issues!

 

[trainspotter]

153 399 was at Worcester Shrub Hill this afternoon! It terminated at Worcester as it should have gone on th Great Malvern

 

[fgwrich]

153 399 was at Worcester Shrub Hill this afternoon! It terminated at Worcester as it should have gone on th Great Malvern

Ah, seems to have disapeared around a triangle since last weekend! Just got back into Exeter St Davids at about 5:30 ish last saturday, when it was about to head off to Penzance, with the Dogbox leading! Certainly gets around abit!

 

[Turbostar]

Just to let everyone know, as reported elsewhere on the forum, 153399 apparently has been returned to normal formations now, car 57221 from 150221 has supposedly been reunited with it's sister car 52221, not sure if the 153 has been renumbered back to 153369 as yet.

 

[louis97]

just seen 153369 at Plymouth, can confirm it has been renumbered now.

 

[12CSVT]

I read in the latest Railways Illustrated that FGW have now got a 153+158 hybrid unit (52771+57771+57368).

 

[MCR247]

I read in the latest Railways Illustrated that FGW have now got a 153+158 hybrid unit (52771+57771+57368).

I could just be missing something, but what makes this a hybrid opposed to just a 158 and 153 working together?

 

[12CSVT]

I could just be missing something, but what makes this a hybrid opposed to just a 158 and 153 working together?

The 158 is 2 cars of a 3 car set (158957), 57368 being a replacement for 57748.

 

[fgwrich]

The 158 is 2 cars of a 3 car set (158957), 57368 being a replacement for 57748.

Seconded by the fact that 153368 was singley parked up in Plymouth this afternoon, with Truro on the blinds...

 

[MCR247]

The 158 is 2 cars of a 3 car set (158957), 57368 being a replacement for 57748.

I gathered that, but it isn't really a hybrid is it...?

 

[Adam_Harrison]

I gathered that, but it isn't really a hybrid is it...?

A hybrid is something combining two different things, such as a 153 carriage and a 150 carriage working together would form a Hybrid.

 

[MCR247]

But a 153 and a 158 isn't really a hybrid unit? Its a 158 and a 153. I 158 153 hybrid would be 52771 + 57368 or something.

 

[TEW]

Having a 153 replacing a 158 carriage in a 158 is pretty useless anyway. It restricts it to 75mph for a start, and it can't go to Portsmouth, where all but one 3-car 158 diagrams go.

 

[swt_passenger]

The 158 is 2 cars of a 3 car set (158957), 57368 being a replacement for 57748.

It depends. FGW's 158957 is not a proper 3 car unit, it is a two car unit with a third car added from a 'split' 2 car 158.

If the 153 is coupled normally to a 158 cab - then I think it should be considered as a routine multiple working of two compatible units.

But if the 153 were not coupled to a cab end then it could be considered as a replacement for half of that two car unit, IYSWIM, and therefore that part would be considered a 158/153 hybrid.

The decision rests on what the two car 158 consists of - if both its cabs are facing outward, this is not a hybrid.

 

[T163R]

A hybrid is something combining two different things, such as a 153 carriage and a 150 carriage working together would form a Hybrid.

Or such as a diesel engine combined with an electric motor.

 

[MCR247]

It depends. FGW's 158957 is not a proper 3 car unit, it is a two car unit with a third car added from a 'split' 2 car 158.

If the 153 is coupled normally to a 158 cab - then I think it should be considered as a routine multiple working of two compatible units.

But if the 153 were not coupled to a cab end then it could be considered as a replacement for half of that two car unit, IYSWIM, and therefore that part would be considered a 158/153 hybrid.

The decision rests on what the two car 158 consists of - if both its cabs are facing outward, this is not a hybrid.

That was my thinking, although I didn't get it across very well [at all!]

 

[richw]

If the 153 was in the middle it would be a definite hybrid, on the outside i'd say not a hybrid.

 

[MCR247]

Unless the two 158 cabs are facing the same direction

 

[Schnellzug]

I'm getting thoroughly confused now. Anyway, from what I've seen, it doesn't seem all that uncommon for the two-car unit parts of three-car sets (I'm doing it myself now) to run as standard two-car units.