Northern Rail to hand back 153's

[northwichcat]

I've seen discussions on this before including other Forums. It's not so simple as one would think apparently purring them back together. Re-wiring for one thing plus others and would be too expensive to undertake. You can couple 2 x 153 s together as a 2 Car so leaving as singles would provide greater flexibility

If they are single units each unit has to meet the post-2019 requirements. So the CIS would need to be able to operate both when the units are joined up and separated, each unit would need a designated wheelchair bay etc. While you could have one accessible toilet in some trains and no toilet in other trains to save money that would mean the advantage of flexibility is lost.

 

[northwichcat]

If pairs of 153s were coupled together permanently (small cab-small cab), one of the bogs in the pair got replaced with one that meets the disabled regs and both small cabs were removed what would the net gain/loss of seats be?

Existing toilets would have to be modified if they remain even if a large wheelchair accessible toilet is installed. Only retention toilets will be allowed from 2020 and buttons to open/close/lock doors must meet the same requirements as door controls for the external doors.

 

[yorksrob]

Existing toilets would have to be modified if they remain even if a large wheelchair accessible toilet is installed. Only retention toilets will be allowed from 2020 and buttons to open/close/lock doors must meet the same requirements as door controls for the external doors.

Fitting toilet tanks is easy enough. I still think it would be better to couple them with 150's which will have modified toilets.

 

[northwichcat]

Fitting toilet tanks is easy enough. I still think it would be better to couple them with 150's which will have modified toilets.

It would have to be a permanent change such as one where 150/2s have a 153 tagged on to them or 150/1s have a 153 inserted in the middle and get given a new class number (e.g. class 152) unless the 153 is made fully accessible e.g. no toilet or toilet meeting full latest accessibility standards.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The incoming stock will be:

I think you forgot the extra 319s.
Another 12 is it, with 5 going back at some point?

 

[northwichcat]

I think you forgot the extra 319s.
Another 12 is it, with 5 going back at some point?

I meant to include those but I think officially they're now Northern units even though they are not all at Allerton ready for use.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Existing toilets would have to be modified if they remain even if a large wheelchair accessible toilet is installed.... ....and buttons to open/close/lock doors must meet the same requirements as door controls for the external doors.

Does this mean that all the existing non-disabled toilets in things like the 375s, 377s, 390s etc will be ripped out and we will therefore get fewer toilets per unit than even the present inadequate provision?

 

[Roast Veg]

No, existing toilets only have to meet button and retention spec if they are to be kept, but there must be at least 1 fully accessible toilet on the unit.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

No, existing toilets only have to meet button and retention spec if they are to be kept, but there must be at least 1 fully accessible toilet on the unit.

That's good - but I imagine it will mean the loss of the remaining proper locks on those smaller toilets? ( The main reason I prefer to use them instead of the accessible ones! )

 

[D365]

That's good - but I imagine it will mean the loss of the remaining proper locks on those smaller toilets? ( The main reason I prefer to use them instead of the accessible ones! )

Have you had trouble with electronic locks?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Have you had trouble with electronic locks?

Not personally; I just prefer to feel the clunk of manual lock so I know for sure it has locked rather than just rely on the light on a button working properly.

My daughter, on the other hand, did manage to get herself stuck inside an accessible on a 377 between Victoria and Epsom a few years ago and she had to use the alarm to summon the driver to get her out of it.

 

[northwichcat]

Not personally; I just prefer to feel the clunk of manual lock so I know for sure it has locked rather than just rely on the light on a button working properly.

My daughter, on the other hand, did manage to get herself stuck inside an accessible on a 377 between Victoria and Epsom a few years ago and she had to use the alarm to summon the driver to get her out of it.

Someone once got stuck in a Pacer toilet with a manual lock and it required the fire brigade to turn up to get them out!

The second toilet on Desiros have a manual lock but with a sliding door and a large coloured handle, rather than a small metal handle.

 

[HLE]

Just remove the toilet.

Add a couple of rows of extra seats.

Sorted.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just remove the toilet.

Add a couple of rows of extra seats.

Sorted.

If they're only for strengthening use, that would probably be a reasonable solution.

But the things are allegedly falling to bits, so tin cans and razor blades may be better still.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If pairs of 153s were coupled together permanently (small cab-small cab), one of the bogs in the pair got replaced with one that meets the disabled regs and both small cabs were removed what would the net gain/loss of seats be?

You'd definitely lose some seats to the accessible toilet- I imagine removing the other toilet would be a better option, to mitigate that loss of seats.

 

[Roast Veg]

How many would you gain with the cabs removed? A row or two in each carriage?

 

[Bletchleyite]

How many would you gain with the cabs removed? A row or two in each carriage?

Just the cabs? None at all, really. The cabs are built into vestibule space. You would however be able to make the number 2 end vestibule a proper size.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If they did end up being kept as single car units and were moved to shorter routes or inserted permanently into the middle of 155 units and the bogs were removed, how many seats would be gained?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If they did end up being kept as single car units and were moved to shorter routes or inserted permanently into the middle of 155 units and the bogs were removed, how many seats would be gained?

I reckon removing the bogs would allow 2 rows of 2 seats each to be added, so a total of 4 seats. But that assumes the bog area isn't structural, it's sort-of in a separate section with a luggage rack.

 

[TCross]

Would this mean the Class 155's would go too ?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Would this mean the Class 155's would go too ?

The current plan has the 7 155s being retained, though that possibly might change based on the poor condition of the first unit sent for overhaul.

 

[HLE]

If they're only for strengthening use, that would probably be a reasonable solution.

But the things are allegedly falling to bits, so tin cans and razor blades may be better still.

Ah don't believe all you read. They're not that bad, just get worked intensively on services such as BLY-BED. 60mph line speed with stops every 2-3 minutes, its not suprising they conk out on occasions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ah don't believe all you read. They're not that bad, just get worked intensively on services such as BLY-BED. 60mph line speed with stops every 2-3 minutes, its not suprising they conk out on occasions.

Is that not what they were designed for?

One thing is for sure though - LM's 153 interiors are kept nice, unlike another white and blue TOC (formerly purple) from further north...

 

[Bevan Price]

Good riddance I say to the trains designed by a dwarf. Let's hope the similar rust bucket 155's prove uneconomic to refresh.
I can't see the economics of spending much money on any 30+ year old trains let alone these.
The Leyland national bus body which the 142, 153 and 155 was based had a design life of 15-18 years.
K

Historically the typical design life of front line coaching stock was around 25 to 30 years. By those standards, 142s should have already gone, and the 150 / 153 / 155s should be expected to go by 2020.

Only the lack of money has required life extensions to unprecedented levels. Unless there is major refurbishment, including new engines, I suspect that maintenance costs will rise significantly during the next 10 years.

 

[superkev]

I seem to remember reading accountants base costs on a 30year life for dmu's and 45 years for emu's. Presumably the aluminium bodied units like the 158 last longer than steel ones.
To me the 158 would benifit from some major mid life extension with a replacement state of the art more powerful engine/ transmission and air conditioning.
All the remaining rust for scrap preservation..
K

 

[Jonny]

Handing back the Class 153s was always part of the plan. If/when additional sprinter-type units are required, there's 22 of the TPE Class 185s and the current GA DMU fleet going spare. I can't see many of the Class 153s being modified at all.

As long as the 185s aren't required to keep up with DMU/etc.-specific speeds (although I presume they have the same concessions as Loco+LHCS to use generic higher speeds?).

 

[LowLevel]

Ah don't believe all you read. They're not that bad, just get worked intensively on services such as BLY-BED. 60mph line speed with stops every 2-3 minutes, its not suprising they conk out on occasions.

Structurally they're apparently not in great nick with some concern about them being 'bent'. Certainly on several of ours you can get your hand through the gap at the side of the door at the top when it's shut.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Structurally they're apparently not in great nick with some concern about them being 'bent'. Certainly on several of ours you can get your hand through the gap at the side of the door at the top when it's shut.

If you look along the side of one there is an obvious bowing effect, though that's been the case for years and I'm not sure it's got any worse. A bit like 170s have always had a slightly disconcerting bounce in the middle on poor track that does feel like body flex (may not actually be that though).

 

[D6975]

I live in Bristol and I remember the 155s being delivered for use on the Pompeys. Even when brand new, the bodies were distinctly bent, the middle of the carriage being very noticeably lower than the ends.

 

[DarloRich]

Either use them as an extra vehicle in an already modified unit that meets the new regs, offer them to preservationists or scrap. Plenty of new stock on order. Just order some more.

Exactly - surely the answer is just to wang them into a 2 car unit to create a three car and forget all the extra messing about?