FGW 153s back to 156s

[D2022]

Just had some news from the inside that FGW have plans to put the 153 units back to pairs of 156s! Surely not this late in the franchise? Or is this planned for if they keep the franchise for the next run? Also heard they intend following Chiltern on the power door side to allow the HST sets to be DOO.

 

[150001]

Do you mean that the 156s would be sought after and replace 153s or the 153s are to be reformed to 155s? It would excellent either way as the 153 small cab is incredibly unpopular, along with the poor performance of one engine.

 

[D2022]

Do you mean that the 156s would be sought after and replace 153s or the 153s are to be reformed to 155s? It would excellent either way as the 153 small cab is incredibly unpopular, along with the poor performance of one engine.

Well, all the staff I've spoken to thus far are under the impression they will actually be converted to 156s! Not 155s...as they came from. I mean...how would you even do that? Seriously, I'm massively confused, [/i]

 

[anthony263]

I would have thought they would be converted back into class 155's since that would be easier wouldn't it?

I think it is likely the same will happen to the rest of the class 153's in the next few years unless some are scrapped.

That said it would offer more seats than a single class 153 on some routes such as the heart of wales line but thats getting a bit off track.

 

[150001]

It would be just a little hard to try and get a 153 converted into a 156. I reckon they mean 155s which are similar; maybe with a 156 interior.

 

[christopher]

And in other news, First are to convert some HST's into Pendos for the FWC franchise!

 

[richw]

Gotta be back into 155s. A 153 is just a 155 split in two.
FGW use all their 153s in tandem with something else now, so makes sense to convert back to 155s.

 

[150001]

I think drivers would be pleased about that! No more small cab, AWS issues, noise from exhaust or the poor engine performance.

 

[PHILIPE]

Gotta be back into 155s. A 153 is just a 155 split in two.
FGW use all their 153s in tandem with something else now, so makes sense to convert back to 155s.

FGW still use 153s singly not so much in the Summer but in the Winter - Looe and Newquay Branches come immediayely to mind.
Also 16 08 Exeter to Plymouth and 17 45 return throughout the year.

 

[richw]

FGW still use 153s singly not so much in the Summer but in the Winter - Looe and Newquay Branches come immediayely to mind.
Also 16 08 Exeter to Plymouth and 17 45 return throughout the year.

I'd imagine that if this story is true, they will retain however many they use singley, as that with the ones that are normally doubled, or mated with a 150 put together.

 

[MCR247]

This probably has some truth but has probably been interpreted incorrectly

This isn't FGW just thinking 153s aren't really used singly Tao why not.


The ROSCO (NOT FGW) will need to be looking at what they are going to do to make their stock accessible. This means a life extension refurb. The biggest issue is a universal toilet. To fit this to a 153 could possibly pretty much make it not worthwhile having the 153 so it has been rumoured that they are looking at having 153s permanently paired (like a 155) so only 1 toilet is needed and less seats are lost.

 

[Oswyntail]

....FGW use all their 153s in tandem with something else now, so makes sense to convert back to 155s.

Surely it is more flexible to retain the single car units, even if they are almost always used non-singly.

 

[D2022]

And in other news, First are to convert some HST's into Pendos for the FWC franchise!

Noooooo don't give them ideas lol

 

[WelshBluebird]

FGW use all their 153s in tandem with something else now, so makes sense to convert back to 155s.

Not so sure I agree with that.
The single 153s seem to be very useful when you need a little bit more capacity. They are quite often added to 150's and 158's in the morning peaks, where adding a two car unit would be overkill.

 

[David Goddard]

Surely it is more flexible to retain the single car units, even if they are almost always used non-singly.

Thats the simplest solution. Dont need to remove the extra cabs- theres no point. Just pair them up and operate as such. Should a problem arise with one vehicle you still have a single car that can be used on its own or reformed with another car.

 

[150001]

It would be worth while to about four as single units to maintain flexibility. Really the UK could do with a larger, stronger version of the Class 139.

 

[anthony263]

It would be worth while to about four as single units to maintain flexibility. Really the UK could do with a larger, stronger version of the Class 139.

How about Bombardier just build a single carriage version of the class 172 with gangways at each end.

 

[MCR247]

Not worth it by the time you have a universal toilet. That's why it is believed 153s won't make it past 2020 in their single car form.

When (if) they are joined together, they will need to stay together as only one will have a universal toilet

 

[tbtc]

Surely it is more flexible to retain the single car units, even if they are almost always used non-singly.

Thats the simplest solution. Dont need to remove the extra cabs- theres no point. Just pair them up and operate as such. Should a problem arise with one vehicle you still have a single car that can be used on its own or reformed with another car.

As MCR247 says you'd need a "universal" toilet (if they are to run after the end of 2019). That is maybe going to cost a dozen seats worth of space (compared to, say, four seats for a non-DDA toilet). That would be a big "cost" for a single coach unit.

 

[Oswyntail]

As MCR247 says you'd need a "universal" toilet (if they are to run after the end of 2019). That is maybe going to cost a dozen seats worth of space (compared to, say, four seats for a non-DDA toilet). That would be a big "cost" for a single coach unit.

Do they need the extra big loo if they are used simply to strengthen a 2-car to a 3-car?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Do they need the extra big loo if they are used simply to strengthen a 2-car to a 3-car?

Ermm its a bit of a grey area no one is sure. But if they could, they would never be allowed to run on their own so it would be a bit of a wasted investment.

 

[tbtc]

Do they need the extra big loo if they are used simply to strengthen a 2-car to a 3-car?

My understanding (FWIW) is that it's perfectly okay to have toiletless coaches and perfectly okay to have toiletless trains - however if there is a toilet on the train then there needs to be at least one DDA one (so you could have an unrefurbished 153 permanently coupled to a 150/156, just not use the 153 on its own).

Or, another way to look at it, you could have two 153s coupled together okay as long as one has a DDA toilet. But if one was separate then it'd have to either have a DDA toilet or have *no* toilet.

(yeah, I realise how daft it is that no toilet is better than a "non-DDA" toilet under the rules)

 

[aylesbury]

Agree about the size of the cabs ,looked at one when I was at Par earlier this year ,very small FGW must have a roster of small drivers! Rode to Newquay and back quite a comfortable ride and good enviroment .If they pair them permanently they will lose the singles they need.Will East Midlands do the same?

 

[PHILIPE]

When I was working as a diagrammer in the late 90s, I once had a call from a Driver Manager if a diagram could be changed from a 153 to a 150 because one of his drivers involved found great difficulty entering and leaving the small cab due to what might have been a fondness for food.

 

[swt_passenger]

The ROSCO (NOT FGW) will need to be looking at what they are going to do to make their stock accessible. This means a life extension refurb. The biggest issue is a universal toilet. To fit this to a 153 could possibly pretty much make it not worthwhile having the 153 so it has been rumoured that they are looking at having 153s permanently paired (like a 155) so only 1 toilet is needed and less seats are lost.

That's about it from what I remember reading. One of the rail mags mentioned about 6 months ago that the owning ROSCO had worked out that the only sensible (and cost effective) way of keeping the 153s in service would be to to reform them back into 155s.

It doesn't sound like this is strictly an FGW 'good idea'...

 

[WillPS]

My understanding (FWIW) is that it's perfectly okay to have toiletless coaches and perfectly okay to have toiletless trains - however if there is a toilet on the train then there needs to be at least one DDA one (so you could have an unrefurbished 153 permanently coupled to a 150/156, just not use the 153 on its own).

Or, another way to look at it, you could have two 153s coupled together okay as long as one has a DDA toilet. But if one was separate then it'd have to either have a DDA toilet or have *no* toilet.

(yeah, I realise how daft it is that no toilet is better than a "non-DDA" toilet under the rules)

In which case, does there need to be a corridor connection? This would mean they'd have to work with another (DDA-refurbished) Sprinter, since the corridor connection doesn't work with the 172s.

 

[mainframe444]

Do you mean that the 156s would be sought after and replace 153s or the 153s are to be reformed to 155s? It would excellent either way as the 153 small cab is incredibly unpopular, along with the poor performance of one engine.

Am I missing something here? How does a pair of 153s perform better than a single unit??
Twice the engine output, but twice the weight means the same performance, surely??

MF

 

[louis97]

FGW use all their 153s in tandem with something else now, so makes sense to convert back to 155s.

Surely you should know that FGW run them with 150s to form 3-car units on the mainline in Cornwall in the high summer timetable, are you not aware that all unit services on the mainline within Cornwall are 3 cars (150+153) during the high summer period, bar one journey each direction.

So surely it makes no sense converting them to 2-car units again given the huge flexibility the single carriage 153 provides, it basically provides the possibility to strengthen two 2-car services to 3 car, rather than one 2-car service to 4 car. Also what about when a 3-car 158 is running as a 2-car and a 153 is attached, this would not happen if the units were put back together to make a 2-car.

 

[mbonwick]

Am I missing something here? How does a pair of 153s perform better than a single unit??
Twice the engine output, but twice the weight means the same performance, surely??

MF

Aerodynamics. Twice the power and twice the weight, yes - but the trailing unit/carriage only has about 1/3rd of the air resistance of that at the front.

 

[Pen Mill]

FGW still use 153s singly not so much in the Summer but in the Winter - Looe and Newquay Branches come immediayely to mind.
Also 16 08 Exeter to Plymouth and 17 45 return throughout the year.

They were used on Gunnislake too , I don't know about currently.

The benefit of 153s is that you can couple them for peaks then split & rest them saving wear and tear for off peaks.
You can often see a couple stabled on Exeter depot during the day.