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!
ScotRail is struggling to find ways to make full use of the five Class 153 units which have been converted to carry 20 bicycles each. Deployment anywhere outsid
I understood the plan was only ever for use on the West Highland - possibly even just Oban of mermory serves; certainly the 153s are too slow for the Far North.
They did initially propose to use them on both the WHL & Far North lines, but it seems they've found themselves stuck to the Oban's. It's a shame they haven't been able to spread their wings up to Fort William - The mountain biking centre of Scotland, yet. As for getting them to and from Inverness, Surely there's still a few services between Glasgow and Inverness that aren't in the hands of HSTs, i.e 158s and 170s - They manage to get the Corkerhill units up there somehow!
Perhaps, which regards to using them on the Far North, there simply isn't enough of them? If 2 are out on the WHL to Oban and back, 1 is a spare, that leaves 2 for the FNL - i.e no spares.
ScotRail recently re-examined using a Class 153 on the FNL, but again found that there were major constraints, including the practical difficulties of periodically moving Inverness- based Class 153 units to and from Glasgow for maintenance.
Was this assessment not undertaken before investing in these units? Seems like it would be an obvious thing to do?
I presume they can't run to Fort William unless you remove Oban Services or the extra 156 due to platform lengths. Again, wasn't this obvious? Were they relying a recast of the WHL timetable which hasn't materialised?
They did initially propose to use them on both the WHL & Far North lines, but it seems they've found themselves stuck to the Oban's. It's a shame they haven't been able to spread their wings up to Fort William - The mountain biking centre of Scotland, yet. As for getting them to and from Inverness, Surely there's still a few services between Glasgow and Inverness that aren't in the hands of HSTs, i.e 158s and 170s - They manage to get the Corkerhill units up there somehow!
Perhaps, which regards to using them on the Far North, there simply isn't enough of them? If 2 are out on the WHL to Oban and back, 1 is a spare, that leaves 2 for the FNL - i.e no spares.
Yes but 153s are only 75mph max whereas 158 are 90mph and 170s are 100mph.
156s are the same max speed but there aren't any over the HML I don't think.
Not sure what the timings are like on the Highland main line and whether a 75mph sprinter might cause any damage to timekeeping.
Certainly given various freight paths that are often unused, you could move a 75mph sprinter between Inverness and Glasgow occasionally. But a regular move would be pretty tricky since 156s pretty much never go up and down the HML. Wind the clock back 7 or 8 years you'd get the odd 156+158 consist that sneaks into service and largely keeps to time*, these are however essentially extinct now. Furthermore, while there are some ECS moves, all the way from Queen Street to Inverness is unusual.
*80mph seemingly was the unofficial top speed in these combinations. - Possibly this would aid hypothetical 153 moves...
There was supposed to be a recast of the WHL timetable in 2020 with all Oban and Fort William services operating separately allowing the 153s to operate on the busiest services like the 8.57 Oban to Glasgow or the 8.21/12.24 Glasgow to Oban/Ft William. COVID stopped that but the depots at Oban and Fort William are now staffed to allow such a service and it's still on the cards. Unfortunately, despite all the noise from the cycling lobby about lack of capacity, the 153s are hardly used. I've never seen more than 4 bikes in the height of summer and the 153 reliability is shocking. They just go wrong constantly without warning, leak alot and water gets into the electrics, lose coolant, throw random door faults and various other things. They're crap. However Fort William crews are due to be trained on them in the coming months.
but the depots at Oban and Fort William are now staffed to allow such a service and it's still on the cards. Unfortunately, despite all the noise from the cycling lobby about lack of capacity, the 153s are hardly used. I've never seen more than 4 bikes in the height of summer
Good to hear it's still hopefully going to go ahead. I wonder if the poor usage is down to lack of advertising? A friend of mine who is a keen cyclist here wasn't aware of them at all.
...the 153 reliability is shocking. They just go wrong constantly without warning, leak alot and water gets into the electrics, lose coolant, throw random door faults and various other things. They're crap. However Fort William crews are due to be trained on them in the coming months.
This always interests me - wherever a fleet is redeployed, there seems to be a growing trend of the new operator simply being unable to maintain them for atleast the first couple of years. This seems to be a particularly curious case as Scotrail already operates a very similar sprinter fleet, so I'd have atleast expected Corkerhill to have some idea. What's gone wrong in this case? Why are the 153s, that across the rest of the nation have been thoroughly unspectacular in terms of reliability/unreliability, become such a problem North of the border?
A slightly deeper problem, I might suggest, could also be the seeming lack of cross-industry collaboration and support with redeployed fleets. It would seem sensible for Scotrail Fleet dept to have someone from Eastcroft/Neville Hill/Canton/Exeter etc on speed dial, as you'd have thought the collective knowledge and experience base, for 30 year old units, should be sufficient that they can't throw up any unexpected surprises?
This always interests me - wherever a fleet is redeployed, there seems to be a growing trend of the new operator simply being unable to maintain them for atleast the first couple of years. This seems to be a particularly curious case as Scotrail already operates a very similar sprinter fleet, so I'd have atleast expected Corkerhill to have some idea. What's gone wrong in this case? Why are the 153s, that across the rest of the nation have been thoroughly unspectacular in terms of reliability/unreliability, become such a problem North of the border?
A slightly deeper problem, I might suggest, could also be the seeming lack of cross-industry collaboration and support with redeployed fleets. It would seem sensible for Scotrail Fleet dept to have someone from Eastcroft/Neville Hill/Canton/Exeter etc on speed dial, as you'd have thought the collective knowledge and experience base, for 30 year old units, should be sufficient that they can't throw up any unexpected surprises?
I do wonder if, part of the problem for the 153s, was their short period with Northern. I don't recall them being ultra reliable at GW, But Exeter certainly knew the inns and outs of the units (I mean, they aren't the vaunted saviour of the South West, the 150/2) but I think Northern's was always the least reliable of the 153 fleet. I briefly had 380 on it's short Northern Holiday and the thing was certainly being thrashed.
The biggest issue from what I see is water ingress. They run perfectly for ages then suddenly do something random. The pipework for the cooling / heating systems is also in poor condition. The cabs are also incredibly squashed for a 3 and a half hour journey and don't get me started on the pitiful can heating.
I find it difficult to imagine there is much demand for cycle spaces on the 05.21 from Oban and perhaps after arrival in Oban at 19.42, instead of stabling overnight for the 05.21, it could come straight back to Glasgow on the 20.39 which might suit some on day trips or longer breaks - potential maintenance advantage also in no longer having it out stabled in Oban.
Whilst acknowledging the potential issues of swapping sets in and out of Inverness, the Kyle line could have some potential, without the speed 'penalty' which make the far North unworkable - 75 max between Inverness and Dingwall and much lower onward to Kyle. Perhaps one train each way south of Inverness could be retimed for 75max. on a Saturday or Sunday to enable planned weekly set swaps for maintenance, with any short notice swaps by Control Arrangement. To avoid also training Perth such trains could be booked for Inverness and Queen St crews (assuming the cl153 link at Queen St also signs Perth and Inverness have a link signing both Kyle and Perth).
I find it difficult to imagine there is much demand for cycle spaces on the 05.21 from Oban and perhaps after arrival in Oban at 19.42, instead of stabling overnight for the 05.21, it could come straight back to Glasgow on the 20.39 which might suit some on day trips or longer breaks - potential maintenance advantage also in no longer having it out stabled in Oban.
Whilst acknowledging the potential issues of swapping sets in and out of Inverness, the Kyle line could have some potential, without the speed 'penalty' which make the far North unworkable - 75 max between Inverness and Dingwall and much lower onward to Kyle. Perhaps one train each way south of Inverness could be retimed for 75max. on a Saturday or Sunday to enable planned weekly set swaps for maintenance, with any short notice swaps by Control Arrangement. To avoid also training Perth such trains could be booked for Inverness and Queen St crews (assuming the cl153 link at Queen St also signs Perth and Inverness have a link signing both Kyle and Perth).
On this point, what are the max speeds possible on the Far North? I can’t imagine there would be as much demand for cyclists on the Kyle line, but perhaps adding one of these on to the Wick & Thurso bound services with the cyclists heading to and from John o’ Groats? Although you would need another driver, the Thurso shuttle could even be worked by the 153 or 158 depending on which end of the set they are.
I hope ScotRail can make something of a success of these, but I really feel they need to get the timetabling right (and perhaps either better promotion or drop the additional fare bit).
I find it difficult to imagine there is much demand for cycle spaces on the 05.21 from Oban and perhaps after arrival in Oban at 19.42, instead of stabling overnight for the 05.21, it could come straight back to Glasgow on the 20.39 which might suit some on day trips or longer breaks - potential maintenance advantage also in no longer having it out stabled in Oban.
Whilst acknowledging the potential issues of swapping sets in and out of Inverness, the Kyle line could have some potential, without the speed 'penalty' which make the far North unworkable - 75 max between Inverness and Dingwall and much lower onward to Kyle. Perhaps one train each way south of Inverness could be retimed for 75max. on a Saturday or Sunday to enable planned weekly set swaps for maintenance, with any short notice swaps by Control Arrangement. To avoid also training Perth such trains could be booked for Inverness and Queen St crews (assuming the cl153 link at Queen St also signs Perth and Inverness have a link signing both Kyle and Perth).
The 20 39 Oban to Glasgow generally runs empty between Taynuilt and Glasgow so can't see adding another coach doing any good. The first 153 should go to Fort William for training duties on Sunday 22nd January.
The 20 39 Oban to Glasgow generally runs empty between Taynuilt and Glasgow so can't see adding another coach doing any good. The first 153 should go to Fort William for training duties on Sunday 22nd January.
With hindsight i should have worked out the 20.39 would probably be lightly loaded. The only time I saw the 14.41 it had just 3 passengers on at Helensburgh Upper, maybe benefits of the enhanced Oban timetable are mainly at the western end of the line although 10.36 and 16.34 from Queen St should be attractive timings.
Encouraging to know Fort William are to be trained, and presumably Mallaig too (in the old days they came to the Fort for training and probably still do). There must be a plan in place for use there. A portioned train might run as 3 +3?
On the Oban line the 153 trains heading south are not useful. 05:21 is far too early and the 14:41 too late as you cannot use it to get back to London, for example, so you end up spending on a hotel in Glasgow. Given these return options it's not surpising that the northbound trains are low use as most people will want a return trip. (For my wife and I, the Hightland Explorers are the only West Highland trains which can take our tandem, vital as she has a visual impairment, but she's not up for an 05:21 return.) So sorting out the timetable is key. Fort William ought to generate lots of business as others have said.
The Far North ought to be a gold mine for cyclists. I follow lots of cycle news and people planning to ride Lands End to John O'Groats constantly ask about how to get back to inverness. There are companies running bike taxis at huge prices because the trains have nowhere near enough room to meet summer demand. Or people cycle on to Orkney and get the ferry to Aberdeen to be able to get a train back from there. So Scotrail are missing out on Wick/Thurso to Aberdeen ticket sales. So getting a 153 on the 1234 off Wick ought to be a key tourism target. What difference to running times does 75mph instead of 90mph actually mean for the whole journey on this line? As the 1234 is not for a day trip to Invesness maybe it could be slower in comparison to other services? Also I recall there is a plan for a major timetable rejig on the Far North so maybe it needs factoring in? (Or simply we need a 158 with more cycle spaces, but thats a different thread?)
On the Oban line the 153 trains heading south are not useful. 05:21 is far too early and the 14:41 too late as you cannot use it to get back to London, for example, so you end up spending on a hotel in Glasgow.
If you buy some old, crap trains and then deploy them at times to suit the railway rather than the intended audience, it's hardly a surprise to hear they are barely used.
As the 153s are rated for a max speed of 75 mph, would it not be possible to upgrade the drive on the units to allow thm to work up to the higher speeds
I would equally say someone travelling back from Oban to London with an ordinary bike might find the costs of the Sleeper beyond their budget, ditto an extra hotel night. What is needed is a departure from Oban around 9-10:00am, peak optional travel departure time. The current 08:57 is too early and the 12:11 is too late. It needs a timetable change.
Was this assessment not undertaken before investing in these units? Seems like it would be an obvious thing to do?
I presume they can't run to Fort William unless you remove Oban Services or the extra 156 due to platform lengths. Again, wasn't this obvious? Were they relying a recast of the WHL timetable which hasn't materialised?
If you buy some old, crap trains and then deploy them at times to suit the railway rather than the intended audience, it's hardly a surprise to hear they are barely used.
They aren’t on HST levels of disaster but their lack of deployment suggests they’re on the same track…. Not helped by the completely useless diagramming of one to the 0520 ex Oban.
Long story short, yes, they were brought in with the intention of them being used in a WHL recast. After bedding in on Oban services they were to form part of Mallaig/Fort William to Queen Street workings as well.
Currently all FTW/MLG workings attach/detach at Crianlarich. These units can’t attach at Crianlarich currently because it would create a 5 car formation, for which there is no agreed dispatch procedure, or a 7 car which would be too long. They also can’t be driven from the small cab on the main line because the drivers refuse to do so, so this end must always be attached to another unit.
As others have mentioned, use on the far north lines is hindered by line speeds between Inverness and the Central Belt when transferring units. They *could* be used north of Inverness depending on how these workings are timed - they’re entirely worked by class 158s, unsure whether the timings are for these units though. Or if linespeeds even go above 75. You could get away with the Kyle line as between Dingwall and Kyle I don’t think it’ll go much above 50, it’s a pretty slow railway.
Like most things with ScotRail, a civil servant working at Transport Scotland decided this looked good on paper and deigned that it happen, with minimal thought to the practicalities involved.
I would equally say someone travelling back from Oban to London with an ordinary bike might find the costs of the Sleeper beyond their budget, ditto an extra hotel night. What is needed is a departure from Oban around 9-10:00am, peak optional travel departure time. The current 08:57 is too early and the 12:11 is too late. It needs a timetable change.
Yes this is a fair point, but it’s done this way so that the set departing at 0857 can arrive in Glasgow Queen Street in time to form part of the 1221 back north. Otherwise it wouldn’t make it down in time.
Likewise the departure at 1441 is to ensure the unit is back down in Glasgow for workings there, rather than the Saturday departure of 1611 (which would basically be an extension of the weekday school train) which is far more useful. This where a tightly diagrammed railway gets you.
Unless Scotrail starts charging for bikes cyclists will never be a gold mine. A full 153 carrying 20 bikes only equates to 20 passenger fares but takes up a massive amount of space. Fuel, leasing, maintenance etc of a class 153 will never be covered by the handful of passengers who pay a fare.
Noticed that 153305 and 380 are shuttling between Fort William and Tulloch today. Presume they are for driver training? Hopefully means they'll be brought there in time for the summer season.
Noticed that 153305 and 380 are shuttling between Fort William and Tulloch today. Presume they are for driver training? Hopefully means they'll be brought there in time for the summer season.
I would equally say someone travelling back from Oban to London with an ordinary bike might find the costs of the Sleeper beyond their budget, ditto an extra hotel night. What is needed is a departure from Oban around 9-10:00am, peak optional travel departure time. The current 08:57 is too early and the 12:11 is too late. It needs a timetable change.
I'd agree with that. The times just don't work for me, and there are just so many places where a 153 Bike-Train would work well. The Far North would be a great fit for them, I would absolutely bump up some touring of Scotland if such a thing was an option.
I have way too many things I want to do, which makes it hard to prioritise! This is going to be an expensive year for my world exploring, otherwise I suspect by now I'd have planned and booked some Scottish cycling!
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
www.transportxtra.com
