If there are spare 158/9s, would it not be a lot more sensible just to strengthen services with them intact. Though Scotrail won't have any 158s spare until the BEMUs arrive, and if any become available from England in the interim there's probably more need for them around Edinburgh, so it would be post 2030 when they are going to be 40+ years old.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
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..
- Thread starter AHBD
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I've asked it upthread but nobody has answered - are these services ever busy? The impression I have is that they are not.
pokemonsuper9
Established Member
Yes, some up to 90mph near Altnabreac, maybe about 10 miles at 80 or 90mph.
AHBD
Member
If strengthened with extra 158s surely some seats could be removed to make more bike and luggage space and still be ahead.
Or if too much capacity, Would running sets as 3 cars with an unused inner cab* be possible without multiple working equipment mods?
*suggested earlier
Transilien
Member
Maybe around Inverness at peak times, but not any further than Garve or Tain
WideRanger
Member
- Joined
- 15 Jun 2016
- Messages
- 394
So to save, at most, 90 seconds, then.
Bishops
Member
you could easily get more if you had it so that cycles had to 'stand' with their front wheels raised and then the bike secured with straps.
And maybe not have to lose that many seats as the cyclist wouldn't probably mind sitting for their journey too
Anything to open up cycling up there is a great idea and something i would look into in the future if this was the case
AHBD
Member
Nooooooooooooooooo
Cyclists (especially Touring Cyclists etc) dont want to manipulate bikes vertically, possibly on a moving train, especially with luggage to remove( 1st?)
. And some may not be able to: IEP style storage is pretty awkward.
The IEP vertical cupboards are not liked and a pain to use. Bicycle spaces should be based on both wheels on the ground any thing else is awkward ( and IEP cupboards look a good way of getting injuries from awkwardly manipulating said bike ).
Perhaps seats could be added/removed according to seasonal demand so that cycle spaces also follow seasonal demand.
Are they any more difficult than loading a bike onto a car roof rack? Particularly for those doing Thurso to Inverness rather than 1 stop jumps. If space is at a premium everyone needs to shove up, well spaced hangers are a good way of getting more bikes in a limited space. Folding bikes only on commuter services is equally a sensible compromise.
Falcon1200
Established Member
Although high cycle demand would often be at the same times as high passenger demand?!
I regularly take my bike on Scotrail's Class 156 sets, and agree hanging it up as prescribed is awkward, albeit possible, but keeping bikes level takes up more space and reduces the number that can be accommodated; I also take my bike on Scotrail's EMUs where although a bike space is provided, any more than one or two bikes is not feasible.
Any spare 158s would be much more valuable to operators as units than spare parts. There was significant interest in the TfW 158s that were due to become available (before the lease was extended).
only if replacement parts are available - and reports seem to indicate that isn't the case
The most obvious difference is that you rarely have to insert a bicycle onto a roof rack between two others belonging to strangers while the car is in motion. Apart from that…
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
158s are the last of the old style mechanical kit. Parts can always be fabricated. Obviously at a cost, but that rarely seems to bother the railway.
It's modern electronics-controlled units where that's going to become a major issue. I think the 165 is the first of that generation despite being mechanically similar to a 158 in terms of the driveline.
GRALISTAIR
Established Member
And that would definitely be the cost effective option.
AHBD
Member
So add another carriage or 2 if splitting 158s as suggested earlier is unfeasable.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
And you may well will feel under time pressure in a train, people may want past when you are in the middle of said awkward manipulation etc...
There's no big parts issue with any 15x. If parts are needed they can be fabricated from the original drawings, or new modified parts can be sourced to replace obsolete ones (e.g. new PIR sensors for the vestibule doors, new step well light units, LED body side lights to replace the incandescent ones).
The current issue seems to be fatigue in the aluminium bodyshell - one Northern 158 is currently stopped for repairs that have never been carried out before, so it's taking time to develop a process. But the fact this is being done shows that there's no end in sight for the class.
D365
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 13,155
Other than your typical 'digital train' mods (PIS, CCTV, wi-fi) there's nothing on the control schematics to suggest that the Class 165/166 are more computerised than Class 158. Neither type has a train management system, for one.
Whenever I hear the words "fatigue" and "aluminium" I think there's a disaster waiting to happen.
I'll be very surprised if they manage to "develop a process" especially for vehicles this old
Falcon1200
Established Member
A seemingly obvious solution, so have to wonder why has it not been adopted already?
AHBD
Member
It might need more 158s to become available?......
Falcon1200
Established Member
And make the Far North Line even more of an economic basket case than it already is.
AHBD
Member
It would provide a service to touring cyclists, who pay fares.
Wouldn't it be simpler to withdraw the trains and replace them with coaches, and convert the line into a long distance cycle route? Bikes could then be fitted into the underfloor luggage space in the coach. I keep seeing comments that the coaches are quicker than the trains so why not switch?
Last edited:
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,262
Not that many cyclists, with not that much money in additional fares.
HighlandStorm
Member
The coaches are quicker to Wick, they go there first after all. It’s pretty much equal to Thurso, which is part of the reason the trains go there first.
Far from closures or reductions, I’d like to see the Inner Moray Firth portion of the FNL get the infrastructure investments needed to get to Borders Railway sort of frequencies.
For the line as a whole - if we expect all tax payers in GB to contribute to the railway, we should not be removing the railway from big areas of the mainland. If you start down such a path, where does it end?
GlitterUnicorn
Member
The economics of the Far North line are challenging no matter how you put it.
Adding an additional carriage for LEJOG cyclists just seems a bit silly - it’d benefit a tiny number of cyclists who have plenty of good alternative options, with a massive fuel penalty. That money might be better spent adding more cycling carriages to trains to the Clyde coast - which frequently carry a dozen bikes on summer weekends.
If we’re in the mood to spend money, why not give Wick a handful of 153s and its own tiny depot? You could run a shuttle service to avoid the detour via Thurso, and also maybe some local services.
Or, do something radical like freeing up capacity for railway preservationists to use? You could turn the line into some kind of massive preserved railway, substituting some of the regular Thurso and Wick trains for steam trains over the summer, while still providing a full passenger service.
Adding an additional carriage for LEJOG cyclists just seems a bit silly - it’d benefit a tiny number of cyclists who have plenty of good alternative options, with a massive fuel penalty. That money might be better spent adding more cycling carriages to trains to the Clyde coast - which frequently carry a dozen bikes on summer weekends.
If we’re in the mood to spend money, why not give Wick a handful of 153s and its own tiny depot? You could run a shuttle service to avoid the detour via Thurso, and also maybe some local services.
Or, do something radical like freeing up capacity for railway preservationists to use? You could turn the line into some kind of massive preserved railway, substituting some of the regular Thurso and Wick trains for steam trains over the summer, while still providing a full passenger service.
AHBD
Member
Not even for one extra carriage? Or just removable seating in 2 cars.
When Nir bought their shiny new (Spanish made?) CAF dmus they ordered 3 car sets and I think I remember it being reported them saying running 3 car didnt cost much than a 2 car, but was more flexible.
Lejog cycle books mention the need to book massively in advance if you want to use the train....., so remaining cyclists use other means due to no option. The train seems the best way to get to /from inverness, I dont see a car as a good option and the long coach journey is still a lesser option to a train (its just too long to be on a coach)..
I dont object to paying a cycle fare: I think the 1977? Introduction of free cycle carriage has harmed the ability to bring a bike on a train...
Last edited:
GlitterUnicorn
Member
It’s a nice idea, but LEJOG just isn’t that big of a market, and there are alternatives. You’d need far more cyclists than you could ever hope to attract to cover the costs.
Introducing cycle fares would be hugely unpopular and a terrible idea all round.
Bishops
Member
I didnt mention any thing about the cupboards and as a cyclist myself ive got no real problem with standing my cycle upwards if it means more bikes can fit on rather than what we currently have on northern where any more than 2 bikes and they dont have anything to secure the bikes too ( if anything is there in the first place)