The Sprinter DDA/RVA Compliance Refurbishment Thread

[Blindtraveler]

hi. Sorry if this is reinventing the wheel and if a similar thread exists could the mods kindly dispose of this one!

GA will soon see its class 156 Fleat rebuilt internally to meet Disabilitty regs and other opperaters units will be treated likewise. In many cases this is the largest Sprinter refurbishment since built and thought rather than many smaller threads relating to individual TOCs units a main thread following the progress of work to not just the 156s but 150s, any non Compliance 158s and to a far lesser extent the 153s/155s would make sense. Feel to correct me on anything im wrong about and just for the benifit of anyone, a detailed explaination of work to be undertaken from someone better informed than me would help.

 

[Failed Unit]

I understand the 153 will reach the end of its life.

Work includes
1. Wheelchair access toilet
2. Door width
3. Button specifications
4. PIS

At the moment on a 153 it is not possible for a wheelchair user to use the toilet. In fact a wheelchair can't get on the short-end

However, someone will correct me if I am wrong, if a 156 is modified the 153 can operate with it as the 156 will pass the access so passengers will not be excluded from the train. A sensiable compromise if it is true, as we have many routes which could use 3 cars.

Other rumours include recreate the 155, but I understand chassis sag (article in today's railway uk) will stop more expenditure on the leylands

 

[SprinterMan]

I understand the 153 will reach the end of its life.

Work includes
1. Wheelchair access toilet
2. Door width
3. Button specifications
4. PIS

At the moment on a 153 it is not possible for a wheelchair user to use the toilet. In fact a wheelchair can't get on the short-end

However, someone will correct me if I am wrong, if a 156 is modified the 153 can operate with it as the 156 will pass the access so passengers will not be excluded from the train. A sensiable compromise if it is true, as we have many routes which could use 3 cars.

Other rumours include recreate the 155, but I understand chassis sag (article in today's railway uk) will stop more expenditure on the leylands

This completely.
The 156s have were built to a much higher standard than the 153s, and so will be around for alot longer. The sag of the bodies of most 153s is very noticeable now, let alone in 10 years time. 153s may even start to go before 150s, which is a shame as 153s/155s are more pleasant to travel in than 150s.

 

[Yew]

, which is a shame as 153s/155s are more pleasant to travel in than 150s.

Im not so sure thats entirely down to the class of train though, Lots of 150's have been with toc's that skimp on refurbishments (Northern and london commuter lines) whereas 153's are newer and have been cared for a little better with TOC's such as EMT and FGW. Just look at FGW's refurbishment of one of the LM 150's they have got, it looks brand new.

 

[SprinterMan]

Im not so sure thats entirely down to the class of train though, Lots of 150's have been with toc's that skimp on refurbishments (Northern and london commuter lines) whereas 153's are newer and have been cared for a little better with TOC's such as EMT and FGW. Just look at FGW's refurbishment of one of the LM 150's they have got, it looks brand new.

I prefer thing with end doors and I think 153s ride alot better than 150s, having done the entire HoW line on one of each. Just my opinion though :P

 

[northwichcat]

However, someone will correct me if I am wrong, if a 156 is modified the 153 can operate with it as the 156 will pass the access so passengers will not be excluded from the train. A sensiable compromise if it is true, as we have many routes which could use 3 cars.

Other rumours include recreate the 155, but I understand chassis sag (article in today's railway uk) will stop more expenditure on the leylands

Porterbrook declared that it's non-ecomically viable to make the 153s properly accessible in their current form. Angel Trains have not said anything to contradict that.

Reforming 155s and making them complaint is a possible option.

Using with 156s is another option. However, that comes with a number of conditions:
1. If the 153 is used as a front/rear carriage then the drivers must sign 153s and 156s.
2. Whether the 153 is used as the front, rear or centre carriage the combined train can only be used on lines where 153s are cleared and with guards who sign 153s.
3. The 153 must not be detached and used on it's own, neither can the train be used in service with the 156 carriage with the wheelchair area removed.

 

[Failed Unit]

Would the 153 issue working with 156 in terms of crew knowledge be a problem? FGW is the only operator that has 153s that don't have 156s but they could use the 150s in combo. Certainly in Northern and EMT land the 153 and 156 diagrams already interchange.

 

[SprinterMan]

Would the 153 issue working with 156 in terms of crew knowledge be a problem? FGW is the only operator that has 153s that don't have 156s but they could use the 150s in combo. Certainly in Northern and EMT land the 153 and 156 diagrams already interchange.

ATW also have 153s but no 156s.

 

[Failed Unit]

ATW also have 153s but no 156s.

True - jcollins point is worse than I thought unless we have 153 and 150/2 combos as well

 

[Eng274]

As a stopgap capacity measure, could 153s could be slotted as a intermediate cars to form 3 car 156s? Or is that against the new DDA rules? Could the 153s be left in their current form, and the DMSL of a 156 be modified to meet the standard?

AFAIUI if 170s require no work (and have a wheelchair space+lav in one end vehicle, plus a smaller toilet in the other end) then this could work if 153s are allowed to keep the small toilet.

 

[Yew]

Could the 153s be left in their current form, and the DMSL of a 156 be modified to meet the standard?

I suppose so? I guess you mean running 2 car sets of a 153 and a 156 carriage, its possible It could be done, but I think that either your enxt suggestion on a permenant basis, or reforming 153's into 155's is more likely

As a stopgap capacity measure, could 153s could be slotted as a intermediate cars to form 3 car 156s? Or is that against the new DDA rules?

I think this is quite likely, one quite a few lines there many peak services that are formed from a 156 and a 153, and slotting the 153 in the middle in a permenant formation seems a good way to sort out DDA, as well as giving an extra toilet in a 156 as otherwise it would be a 3 car train, with the toilet at one end, a bit of a pain if you are in the opposite end. However I would be tempted to modify the 153's toilet as it would be closer to the middle of the train.

AFAIUI if 170s require no work (and have a wheelchair space+lav in one end vehicle, plus a smaller toilet in the other end) then this could work if 153s are allowed to keep the small toilet?

I think this is acceptable, some Modified MK4's have a big toilet at one end, and a normal one at the other end.

 

[sprinterguy]

I would prefer to see the 153s reformed up as 155s if they still have life in them much beyond 2020, rather than solutions involving 153 + 156 hybrids. I envisage that with Valley Lines elecrification and cascade of FGW 165s to the Bristol area that it would be possible to consolidate the 153 fleet with just two operators; EMT and Northern, possibly excluding the small number with Greater Anglia.

 

[Eng274]

I suppose so? I guess you mean running 2 car sets of a 153 and a 156 carriage, its possible It could be done, but I think that either your enxt suggestion on a permenant basis, or reforming 153's into 155's is more likely

It was meant to be part of the next suggestion; i.e leave the 153s be and modify the 156 toilet to comply. I meant to say 156 with a 153 in the middle but didn't put it across clearly..

I think this is quite likely, one quite a few lines there many peak services that are formed from a 156 and a 153, and slotting the 153 in the middle in a permenant formation seems a good way to sort out DDA, as well as giving an extra toilet in a 156 as otherwise it would be a 3 car train, with the toilet at one end, a bit of a pain if you are in the opposite end. However I would be tempted to modify the 153's toilet as it would be closer to the middle of the train.

This is what I meant the reason I'd leave the 153s as they are, is that if ROSCOs are not willing to invest in their modification if there are 'useful life' concerns, then it would be easy enough to chuck them away when they're done, and reform 2-car 156s. Which would of course still have the compliant toilet.

 

[cj_1985]

It was meant to be part of the next suggestion; i.e leave the 153s be and modify the 156 toilet to comply. I meant to say 156 with a 153 in the middle but didn't put it across clearly..



This is what I meant the reason I'd leave the 153s as they are, is that if ROSCOs are not willing to invest in their modification if there are 'useful life' concerns, then it would be easy enough to chuck them away when they're done, and reform 2-car 156s. Which would of course still have the compliant toilet.

AIUI the issue with class 153s ad being made RVA/DDA compliant is not down to the ROSCOs unwillingness to invest in the work...

IIRC from an article a few months ago in "Modern Railways", one of the problems is that the 153s are (in theory) used for routes with low passenger numbers... and with the DfT still pulling alot of strings regarding the number of seats to be provided per hour/per service, the fittment of a compliant toilet module would eat into the seating cappacity... and cause issues for the TOC being able to make best use of their fleet and still be able to meet the DfTs demands.

but, you also have to take into account that the 153s are ideally used solo, and the cost (vs benefit) to modify every 153 carraige with a compliant toilet could push the cost-vs-benefit towards the negative end of the scale.
where as the 150, 156, 158 units would still require similar work but probably only a single compliant toilet per unit... rather than one per carraige.
that was iirc one of the reasons that porterbrook were reported to be considering modifications ot the 153 fleet into 2 car (class 155 style) units, to help the case to make the 153s fully compliant

 

[WatcherZero]

Im undecided on whether its financially worthwhile to do for the 153's what they did for the Darth Vaders. They actually ended up doing a pretty big rebuild and obviously the units were pretty new so could earn it back.

 

[Failed Unit]

Im undecided on whether its financially worthwhile to do for the 153's what they did for the Darth Vaders. They actually ended up doing a pretty big rebuild and obviously the units were pretty new so could earn it back.

If you look at the EMT fleet many of the routes they are on really need 2 cars. If you upgrade the 153 you are really going suppress growth on those routes. 75 seats is not enough for Derby - Crewe and many routes in Lincolnshire now have doubled 153s or overcrowding.

 

[tbtc]

If you look at the EMT fleet many of the routes they are on really need 2 cars

There aren't many routes that a single 153 can comfortably work nowadays (they do run some busy routes, like the Scunthorpe - Doncaster - Sheffield - Lincoln circuit, but that's not to say it's always comfortable!)

By 1 January 2020, when the new regs come into place, hopefully there'll be a new build of DMUs to replace Pacers (which are roughly 100 seats on a two coach example with 2+2 seats), so these would hopefully be suitable for routes currently worked by single 153s/ single Pacers.

How many (regular/frequent daytime) routes are there where a one coach train can cope okay?

Cardiff Bay shuttle
Barton branch
Cumbernauld - Motherwell
Erm...

(so not worth building a new class of single coach DMUs)

 

[Aictos]

I would prefer to see the 153s reformed up as 155s if they still have life in them much beyond 2020, rather than solutions involving 153 + 156 hybrids. I envisage that with Valley Lines elecrification and cascade of FGW 165s to the Bristol area that it would be possible to consolidate the 153 fleet with just two operators; EMT and Northern, possibly excluding the small number with Greater Anglia.

Agreed, far better to reform the Class 153s back into Class 155s with the toilets replaced by one DDA toilet.

 

[Failed Unit]

How many (regular/frequent daytime) routes are there where a one coach train can cope okay?


Cumbernauld - Motherwell


(so not worth building a new class of single coach DMUs)

Anniesland - Glasgow. Luckily both of those routes have 158s already

But yes seriously it is hard to think of routes that the 153 is suitable for all day. In Lincolnshire at times you can only have 5 people on, but then quite easily 100 at other times of the day. In fact I am sure that the desire to improve routes in Lincolnshire is partly not there because the stock couldn't cope anyway.

 

[RobShipway]

There aren't many routes that a single 153 can comfortably work nowadays (they do run some busy routes, like the Scunthorpe - Doncaster - Sheffield - Lincoln circuit, but that's not to say it's always comfortable!)

By 1 January 2020, when the new regs come into place, hopefully there'll be a new build of DMUs to replace Pacers (which are roughly 100 seats on a two coach example with 2+2 seats), so these would hopefully be suitable for routes currently worked by single 153s/ single Pacers.

How many (regular/frequent daytime) routes are there where a one coach train can cope okay?

Cardiff Bay shuttle
Barton branch
Cumbernauld - Motherwell
Erm...

(so not worth building a new class of single coach DMUs)

Not sure if the disability act comes in before or after electrification projects such as the GWML, but if it is after then any trains taking over from the Class 165/166's will be electric, so those will take over the routes that I suspect are run by class 150/pacers/153 I suspect, or would art least replace the 150's which in turn would replace the pacers/153's such that the 153's could be converted back to be class 155's. Then the pacers could be scrapped with maybe one of each class going to the NRM?

 

[WCML]

What about London Midland 153s that are mainly coupled to 2 car 170s?

 

[Class172]

What about London Midland 153s that are mainly coupled to 2 car 170s?

Order some more 172s then cascade the 153s.

 

[anthony263]

Order some more 172s then cascade the 153s.

Which is something I wished they had done so that the remianing class 150's with London Midland could have been casaded elsewhere I am sure FGW or Northern would have been very happy to have them.

 

[sprinterguy]

Order some more 172s then cascade the 153s.

That would certainly make the most sense if the 153s aren't going to be much use in their current form in the future: Order the additional 172s that LM apparently had an option for. Though it'll probably end up being yet another opportunity missed...

 

[tbtc]

What about London Midland 153s that are mainly coupled to 2 car 170s?

Order some more 172s then cascade the 153s.

Which is something I wished they had done so that the remianing class 150's with London Midland could have been casaded elsewhere I am sure FGW or Northern would have been very happy to have them.

That would certainly make the most sense if the 153s aren't going to be much use in their current form in the future: Order the additional 172s that LM apparently had an option for. Though it'll probably end up being yet another opportunity missed...

If only - you could release a lot of dozen DMUs for elsewhere (depending on whether you were just trying to get rid of the 150/153s or also tackling the 170s?), maybe you'd have to swap things around, like 170s to FSR to release 158s to Northern/ ATW/ FGW) which would be a great kickstart to getting the worst Pacers scrapped.

If only...

 

[Blindtraveler]

in the rollingstock orders thread I have indeed suggested more 172s for LM allowing 170s to go to Scotrail and in turn allow 158s to go to Northern although the idea of ATW makes more sense given the number of 150s turning up on long distance workings.

 

[Z12XE]

Remove the toilets on the 153 completely.

No Toilet - No need for a DDA Compliant Toilet

 

[Failed Unit]

Remove the toilets on the 153 completely.

No Toilet - No need for a DDA Compliant Toilet

They work some long journeys on routes with stations with no toilets however. By 2020 if growth is continues at this rate (remember rural routes have suppressed demand) the 153 may be too small anyway.

 

[northwichcat]

Would the 153 issue working with 156 in terms of crew knowledge be a problem?

Northern's 153 crew knowledge is mainly in the former ATN area while the 156 crew knowledge is mainly in the former FNW area.

 

[Anvil1984]

The latter is an urban myth. All ex ATN depots sign 156s. Only a few staff have had them knocked off their card. The vast majorty sign 156s even though we are highly unlikely to see one (they are on mine and I haven't worked one since starting 3 years ago). More staff on ex ATN side sign 156s than those who sign 155s for example