Jump to content
 

Recommended Posts

  • RMweb Premium

Hi folks,

 

I did look to see if someone else had already posted this but didn't find anything.

 

According to BBC Scotland a number of class 153s are to be converted to 'active carriages' for use on the West Highland.  More details, here:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53041045

 

I have limited experience of these, mostly through East Midlands Trains, so I would be interested to hear others thoughts on them.

 

Thanks for reading.

 

Regards,

 

Alex.

Edited by Alex TM
Correcting typos.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Nobody will be driving them as I understand it.  The proposal is to put them in the middle of the class 156 units to make a three car set.  Basically, thery're lengthening these units and bringing back the guards van! :o

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
27 minutes ago, 313201 said:

If I understand correctly,  does that mean that the 153s will be stripped of all driving equipment from their cabs aswell as the engine or will the engine be retained so that the trains are powered by all 3 coaches as is the case with 3 coach 158/159 units


They will be powered.  I've no idea if the driving equipment is to be removed.  It just won't be used.  I gather that the "new" cab that was added to these units is cramped and unpopular with drivers.  So they're no longer planing to use it.
HTH.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Phatbob said:


They will be powered.  I've no idea if the driving equipment is to be removed.  It just won't be used.  I gather that the "new" cab that was added to these units is cramped and unpopular with drivers.  So they're no longer planing to use it.
HTH.

 

 

Oddly enough a lot of our drivers prefer the small cab, there's more leg room due to the shape of the desk underside. The big end was fairly cramped in that area until Stagecoach modified them, the ex GWR ones are unmodified.

 I much prefer the big cab, proper desk on the secondmans side, room to make a brew! Often the heaters leave something to be desired so probably wouldn't be popular in Scottish winters.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The plan for these 153 units is to have flexible space for 20 bicycles or winter sports equipment and a small seating area with some large luggage racks. The cabs will be retained but are not planned to be used much as the 153 should be marshalled between a pair of 156 units. All part of a recast of the WHL diagrams and timetable.
 

Brian.

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that these units will both be powered and driven, albeit perhaps not that much.  Prior to Covid-19 restrictions, West Highland services left Glasgow Queen Street as a pair of Class 156 Units, and I understood that the Class 153 will be fitted between these two two car sets for the journey north to Crianlarich.  However, at Crianlarich the train is split in two, with one Class 156 unit proceeding to Oban and the other to Fort William and Mallaig.  I think that the Class 153 units are to continue on the Fort William service, but that would mean that between Crianlarich and Fort William the Class 153 will be leading in one direction and trailing in the other, since I can't see them re-marshalling the train at Fort William.

  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, great central said:

 

Oddly enough a lot of our drivers prefer the small cab, there's more leg room due to the shape of the desk underside. The big end was fairly cramped in that area until Stagecoach modified them, the ex GWR ones are unmodified.

 I much prefer the big cab, proper desk on the secondmans side, room to make a brew! Often the heaters leave something to be desired so probably wouldn't be popular in Scottish winters.

 

Some drivers I knew preferred to drive standing up at the small end!  From the Guard's point of view, not very easy to cash up in the small end.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, 31A said:

 

Some drivers I knew preferred to drive standing up at the small end!  From the Guard's point of view, not very easy to cash up in the small end.

One driver I knew (not particularly tall) said he could only drive standing up at the small end (dog box as he called it).

As a regular passenger in class 153s on the Arriva/Wessex/Great Western network I find the 153s inferior to 150/158 sets, with hard seats. and a poorer view out. However the idea of using them to strengthen other sets does seem a good idea.

 

cheers

   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

That design is stunning, definitely one that’ll be finding a home on my layout. The article speaks of the design for the first 153, so I’m wondering if that means each one will receive a different livery?  I kind of hope it does, although I’m not sure I need 5 153s. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I may be in a minority here,  but I liked the 153s,  there was a certain cosyness about them, and they certainly did their bit to make some of the branches work better.  

They also actually fitted the platforms on the Looe line, so "inadvertent passenger loss" was one less thing to worry about!

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Dungrange said:

My understanding is that these units will both be powered and driven, albeit perhaps not that much.  Prior to Covid-19 restrictions, West Highland services left Glasgow Queen Street as a pair of Class 156 Units, and I understood that the Class 153 will be fitted between these two two car sets for the journey north to Crianlarich.  However, at Crianlarich the train is split in two, with one Class 156 unit proceeding to Oban and the other to Fort William and Mallaig.  I think that the Class 153 units are to continue on the Fort William service, but that would mean that between Crianlarich and Fort William the Class 153 will be leading in one direction and trailing in the other, since I can't see them re-marshalling the train at Fort William.

What you’ve overlooked is the recast of the WHL timetable, the 153 was not planned to be used in trains joining and splitting at Crianlarich. The recast aim was to mainly operate the Oban trains and Fort Bill trains separately to overcome severe overcrowding of Oban trains and a lack of sports equipment space on Fort Bills.

 

Brian.

  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, turbos said:

What you’ve overlooked is the recast of the WHL timetable, the 153 was not planned to be used in trains joining and splitting at Crianlarich. The recast aim was to mainly operate the Oban trains and Fort Bill trains separately to overcome severe overcrowding of Oban trains and a lack of sports equipment space on Fort Bills.

 

Brian.

Does that mean that there will be an increased number of trains on the Glasgow to Crianlarich section, or does the recast plan to keep the same number of trains on the southern section but simply drop the practise of splitting at Crianlarich, with alternate trains operating to Oban and Fort William?  If it's the latter, then there will obviously be more capacity on four car units heading to Oban, but there would be fewer trains per day on the Crianlarich to Oban section.  The same would obviously apply to the Fort William / Mallaig services.  Can you point me in the direction of the details of the proposed timetable recast?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dungrange said:

Does that mean that there will be an increased number of trains on the Glasgow to Crianlarich section, or does the recast plan to keep the same number of trains on the southern section but simply drop the practise of splitting at Crianlarich, with alternate trains operating to Oban and Fort William?  If it's the latter, then there will obviously be more capacity on four car units heading to Oban, but there would be fewer trains per day on the Crianlarich to Oban section.  The same would obviously apply to the Fort William / Mallaig services.  Can you point me in the direction of the details of the proposed timetable recast?

More trains on the Glasgow to Crianlarich section, 4 coach trains to Oban and 5 coach trains to Fort Bill in the Summer peak. It had become a serious problem at Oban with overloaded trains and passengers regularly being left behind and no capacity for strengthening, bikes and luggage (backpacks in particular for west highland way walkers) were an issue on the Fort Bill trains. Adding a 7th vehicle to Glasgow - WHL trains would've caused operational problems. Whether the southern section of the WHL has the resilience to deal with an increase in trains is another matter.

 

Brian.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wild Boar Fell said:

My understanding was the 153 would be inside the 156, this would prevent the need to fit RETB equipment to the 153 (and therefore be cheaper). The plan may have changed however.

 

By 'inside the 156' do you mean splitting a two car unit with the Class 153 as a centre car in a re-marshalled three car set?  If that was the case, would that not prohibit movement from one end of a Class 156 unit to the other?

 

If @turbos  is correct and the plan is to abandon splitting and recombining services at Crianlarich and operate five car sets from Glasgow to Fort William, then the Glasgow to Fort William services would presumably be formed as 2-Car Class 156; Class 153; 2-Car Class 156, which would indeed mean that the Class 153 would never be driven and therefore wouldn't need RETB equipment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Dungrange said:

 

By 'inside the 156' do you mean splitting a two car unit with the Class 153 as a centre car in a re-marshalled three car set?  If that was the case, would that not prohibit movement from one end of a Class 156 unit to the other?

 

If @turbos  is correct and the plan is to abandon splitting and recombining services at Crianlarich and operate five car sets from Glasgow to Fort William, then the Glasgow to Fort William services would presumably be formed as 2-Car Class 156; Class 153; 2-Car Class 156, which would indeed mean that the Class 153 would never be driven and therefore wouldn't need RETB equipment.

 

That was my understanding at the time, the 153 would act almost like a MOS on other units. Prohibited movement, do you mean access between vehicles, or the ability to drive? The gangways should allow access through the whole train. 

I can't remember if 156s have BSIs on the intermediate coupler or not (have had very few dealings with 156s), but would imagine a semi-permanent arrangement of jumpers wouldn't be totally out of the question. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wild Boar Fell said:

Prohibited movement, do you mean access between vehicles, or the ability to drive? The gangways should allow access through the whole train. 

 

I had assumed that this would stop access through the train, but I note that the entry on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_153) states "All have gangway connections at either end to allow passengers and staff to walk between units working in multiple", which I didn't know, so I guess fitting the Class 153 in the middle of a 2 Car set isn't an issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, turbos said:

More trains on the Glasgow to Crianlarich section, 4 coach trains to Oban and 5 coach trains to Fort Bill in the Summer peak. It had become a serious problem at Oban with overloaded trains and passengers regularly being left behind and no capacity for strengthening, bikes and luggage (backpacks in particular for west highland way walkers) were an issue on the Fort Bill trains. Adding a 7th vehicle to Glasgow - WHL trains would've caused operational problems. Whether the southern section of the WHL has the resilience to deal with an increase in trains is another matter.

 

Brian.

Separate trains for Fort William and Oban were the norm before loco haulage was dropped in favour of multiple units, and Helensburgh to Crianlarich is well provided with passing loops.

 

Jim 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
21 minutes ago, Dungrange said:

 

I had assumed that this would stop access through the train, but I note that the entry on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_153) states "All have gangway connections at either end to allow passengers and staff to walk between units working in multiple", which I didn't know, so I guess fitting the Class 153 in the middle of a 2 Car set isn't an issue.

 

Are you thinking of a different type of unit altogether? Class 153s have very visible gangway connections (shown on the BBC illustration cited above) on each end the same as most second generation DMUs (155s 156s and 158s and some 150s)

 

Maybe I'm wrong but I find it hard to believe that they will go to the trouble of splitting a 156, putting a 153 in the middle, and then of that 156 is needed elsewhere or not available, splitting it, moving the 153 to the middle of a different set... It would make a lot more sense and be a lot simpler to have the 153 between the two 156s, which keeps the luggage/cycle area in the centre of the train no matter what units are used in what order and still avoids the need to fit RETB if that is the case. It also retains the ability for the 156s to be used as 'normal', and allows units to be swapped around as and when needed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ofcourse what was originally planned with these 153 units and how they are initially and eventually used is all ‘up in the air’ due to the continuing lockdown in Scotland, the only thing that is certain is they will be used on the WHL.

 

Brian.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...