Is there a plan to convert some Class 153s back into 155s?

[James Kevill]

Moderator note: posts #1 - #4 originally in this thread

So has the 153302 been scrapped? I thought all of the 70 Class 153s will be rebuilt into 35 Class 155s as a original plan.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

So has the 153302 been scrapped? I thought all of the 70 Class 153s will be rebuilt into 35 Class 155s as a original plan.

This keeps being suggested, but whilst there is a shortage of DMUs there isn't a need for that many. Reforming them wouldn't be straightforward either, as half the cars would still need a new PRM toilet fitted, and removing the second cab would apparently cause more problems than it would solve. They'd only be good for another 5 or so years so it isn't worth the expenditure.

 

[Anonymous10]

So has the 153302 been scrapped? I thought all of the 70 Class 153s will be rebuilt into 35 Class 155s as a original plan.

never heard this one any links ??

 

[sd0733]

So has the 153302 been scrapped? I thought all of the 70 Class 153s will be rebuilt into 35 Class 155s as a original plan.

Certainly headed off to the Scrappy heavily stripped.
Im not aware that there was ever an official plan to reform them like that. There are a few refurb programs with Tfw PRM ones , the Tfw PRM lite /9s plus the bike carriers on scotrail, and i believe a few at Network Rail none of which turn them back into 155s.

 

[Aictos]

This keeps being suggested, but whilst there is a shortage of DMUs there isn't a need for that many. Reforming them wouldn't be straightforward either, as half the cars would still need a new PRM toilet fitted, and removing the second cab would apparently cause more problems than it would solve. They'd only be good for another 5 or so years so it isn't worth the expenditure.

Why would you need to scrap the small cab? Just marshal them with the original cabs on the outer end of the formation and jobs done, the small cab can be used by the guard.

 

[JonathanH]

I thought all of the 70 Class 153s will be rebuilt into 35 Class 155s as a original plan.

I don't think that was ever a plan - I think it was envisaged that if there was a plan for continued use, the loss of capacity and cost arising from the PRM modifications could only be justified by reforming the units in pairs - eg only installing a universal toilet in half the units.

To some extent this is happening on Transport for Wales - a PRM fitted unit is often paired with one where the toilet is locked out (ie like a 155) but cabs haven't been removed because there is no point.

One of the problems with 153s is the visible sag in some units so some would have been near end of life even if others were retained.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They've sagged for years.

I seem to recall TfW were talking about having some with PRM bogs and some with no bog but all other PRM work completed, with the intention that any formation would always have at least one with bog, but keeping both cabs for flexibility.

 

[skyhigh]

Moderator note: posts #1 - #4 originally in this thread

So has the 153302 been scrapped? I thought all of the 70 Class 153s will be rebuilt into 35 Class 155s as a original plan.

There is absolutely no plan to convert 153s back to 155s. 100% no chance a single pair of 153s will be converted back, let alone all of them.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Why would you need to scrap the small cab? Just marshal them with the original cabs on the outer end of the formation and jobs done, the small cab can be used by the guard.

You wouldn't (and it's all academic anyway as it isn't happening) but if you were to make these hypothetical 155s identical to the existing 7, you'd have to remove the small cabs to allow universal access to the toilet. That's why the toilet on the PRM TfW 153s was moved to the large cab end.

 

[pdeaves]

Why would you need to scrap the small cab? Just marshal them with the original cabs on the outer end of the formation and jobs done, the small cab can be used by the guard.

Just like this: https://www.flickr.com/photos/pdeaves/33344999293/ (both vehicles from the former 155318 marshalled as originally intended)

 

[43096]

You wouldn't (and it's all academic anyway as it isn't happening) but if you were to make these hypothetical 155s identical to the existing 7, you'd have to remove the small cabs to allow universal access to the toilet. That's why the toilet on the PRM TfW 153s was moved to the large cab end.

Why is the end relevant as any unit it is coupled to will also be PRM compliant. Are you sure it isn’t to do with space on the underframe for the controlled emission toilet tank?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Why is the end relevant as any unit it is coupled to will also be PRM compliant. Are you sure it isn’t to do with space on the underframe for the controlled emission toilet tank?

The small cab expands into the vestibule, meaning that doorway isn't as wide as it is on the unmodified 155s or at the other end of the 153s. But yes, the toilet tank might well be a factor too.

As has already been said multiple times, it's all academic anyway.

 

[yorksrob]

Fundamentally, it seems to be ok for non-compliant units to be used in multiple with compliant ones in South East England to combat overcrowding, but its not on Northern or Midland regional lines.

 

[JonathanH]

Fundamentally, it seems to be ok for non-compliant units to be used in multiple with compliant ones in South East England to combat overcrowding, but its not on Northern or Midland regional lines.

Only 466s and quite a few are being eliminated at present. It does seem like there is an impetus to get 153s off the railway for reasons other than them not being PRM compliant.

 

[sd0733]

It does seem like there is an impetus to get 153s off the railway for reasons other than them not being PRM compliant.

Seemingly only in England. Scotland is in the process of introducing the bike truck conversions and TfW have grown their fleet considerably and is still busy PRM and refurbishing them

 

[Aictos]

Just like this: https://www.flickr.com/photos/pdeaves/33344999293/ (both vehicles from the former 155318 marshalled as originally intended)

Yes just like that as the toilets can be placed in the middle anyway.

 

[yorksrob]

Only 466s and quite a few are being eliminated at present. It does seem like there is an impetus to get 153s off the railway for reasons other than them not being PRM compliant.

Seemingly only in England. Scotland is in the process of introducing the bike truck conversions and TfW have grown their fleet considerably and is still busy PRM and refurbishing them

Typical DfT indifference to overcrowding in England is the only thing I can imagine. The travails of EMR regional passengers should be a red flag.

If nothing else, they should have them as a float of carriages that can be deployed around the country as needed, like the "smiley" trains. Even more so, because we don't have thousands of spare diesel carriages.

 

[sd0733]

Typical DfT indifference to overcrowding in England is the only thing I can imagine. The travails of EMR regional passengers should be a red flag.

If nothing else, they should have them as a float of carriages that can be deployed around the country as needed, like the "smiley" trains. Even more so, because we don't have thousands of spare diesel carriages.

On a positive note it was completely picked apart of spares which should increase availability of the other servicable units rather than sitting waiting for parts.
The 15x fleet for such an old fleet must be fairly unique in not losing any vehicles until they are well into their 30s bar a couple of accident write offs. I believe this is the first one to get the chop for just being old

 

[Caaardiff]

If units are converted back to 155s, would that mean retraining as its effectively a different class of units? Also how does route clearance work?
TfWs routes are all route cleared for 153s, but have there ever been 155s on that network? Or would it all just get transfered easily?

 

[mmh]

Don't two 153s coupled together make a passable imitation of a 155? I'm not sure I understand why someone would want to go to the trouble of "un-converting" them and making them less flexible?

 

[yorksrob]

Don't two 153s coupled together make a passable imitation of a 155? I'm not sure I understand why someone would want to go to the trouble of "un-converting" them and making them less flexible?

I always wondered the same about HAP and CAP units.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If units are converted back to 155s, would that mean retraining as its effectively a different class of units? Also how does route clearance work?
TfWs routes are all route cleared for 153s, but have there ever been 155s on that network? Or would it all just get transfered easily?

Whilst it isn't happening in reality, there are a few differences between the 155s and 153s besides the obvious. AIUI on 153s certain things are in different locations, some of them safety related such as fire extinguishers. Guards and drivers would need a short conversion course to move from 153 to 155 or v-v. Though that assumes a return to their pre-conversion state, whereas if it were happening only things that need to move would move. Even the redundant cabs would probably stay in place unless there was a need to remove them.
For route clearance again it depends how much of the 153-specific bits would be removed: for example 155s used to work Cardiff to Portsmouth/Brighton but 153s are barred from Portsmouth due to the crew steps below the small cab. If a permanent 2-car unit was formed, it would presumably be possible to remove those steps and permit the units to work Portsmouth services... whether it would be worth it is another thing of course.