Class 153 refurbishment

[VIA185]

Is there a Class 153 expert on RMweb? I've some questions. I've seen that at least one Class 153 has been withdrawn. Are the remaining cars all with Transport for Wales? 

I assume that cars numbered 153 3xx are in original condition and those numbered 153 9xx are refurbished? Am I correct in thinking that the refurbished cars have lost two window bays at the 'large cab' end to accommodate the disabled accessible toilet? Is the 'blank' where the windows are plated over, on one side only?

Rode in a two-car lash-up which seemed to be one original and one refurbished, a couple of weeks ago but didn't realise the significance and missed the opportunity to take photographs. (CJL)

[russ p]

Hi Chris 

Not sure about numbering but there are quite a few east Midlands ones stored at Ely potters sidings. 

There are also a few 156s too.  Bloody Annoying when tou go past on an absolutely packed east Midlands 15

As I understand the 153 situation is that ones with the original toilet can't work on their own 

Hope this helps

[Steamport Southport]

1 hour ago, russ p said:

Hi Chris 

Not sure about numbering but there are quite a few east Midlands ones stored at Ely potters sidings. 

There are also a few 156s too.  Bloody Annoying when tou go past on an absolutely packed east Midlands 15

As I understand the 153 situation is that ones with the original toilet can't work on their own 

Hope this helps

 

It was a similar system on Northern when the Pacers were on the way out. They were paired with a Sprinter with the Pacers toilets locked out of use.

 

You just had to be aware of which one had the toilet if you needed to go.

 

 

Jason

[Wickham Green too]

According to the Platform 5 Combo "Class 153/9. Transport for Wales units that are not fully PRM compliant .... should operate with a PRM compliant unit. Toilets locked out of use."

[charliepetty]

They still run around Cardiff as a single unit with the toilet locked out of use. Thus no one can use them, now thats a bit daft I think.

[JDW]

2 hours ago, Wickham Green too said:

According to the Platform 5 Combo "Class 153/9. Transport for Wales units that are not fully PRM compliant .... should operate with a PRM compliant unit. Toilets locked out of use."

 

As illustrated by this recent image from Martin Loader on his Hondawanderer website: 

http://www.hondawanderer.com/153303_153922_Pandy_2023.htm

 

[Wickham Green too]

Hmmmm ...... this was 153.322 running with 153.372 [ CORRECTION  ; 153.922 running with 153.972 ] : -

 

 Pompey Harbour 26/6/88 ( neither currently PRM compliant ! ) ...... coupled to 155.302 ( both cars currently compliant ).

Edited May 14, 2023 by Wickham Green too

[black and decker boy]

Scotrail has 5 converted to bike units for West Highland line 

 

Network Rail has a number fitted out as test / survey units, 

 

TfW have quite a few in both PRM and non-PRM formats.

 

the bulk are stored out of use. A few have been scrapped and 1 ‘preserved’ but as a gutted shell without engine or bogies IIRC. It’s to be used as a cafe I think.

[VIA185]

I wonder what PC idiot thought locking the toilets out of use was a good idea? Speaking as someone who is able-bodied but with a prostate issue, I wonder why I should be penalised by not being allowed access to a toilet I'm perfectly capable of using and sometimes need urgently. Just needs a notice on the door saying "Persons of Reduced Mobility, please use toilet in the other carriage." (CJL)

[phil-b259]

2 minutes ago, VIA185 said:

I wonder what PC idiot thought locking the toilets out of use was a good idea? Speaking as someone who is able-bodied but with a prostate issue, I wonder why I should be penalised by not being allowed access to a toilet I'm perfectly capable of using and sometimes need urgently. Just needs a notice on the door saying "Persons of Reduced Mobility, please use toilet in the other carriage." (CJL)

 

Because its Disrcrimatory if you have access to a toilet but a wheelchair passenger, who may also have a prostrate issue is denied such a facility (either because it doesn't exist or because the 'one in the other carriage' is faulty) should just lump it.

 

The idea of the law is to ensure ALL people have EQUAL access to toilet facilities - and you should also acknowledge if nobody has access to said toilet facilities then that puts more pressure on operators to provide them due to critical mass. 

 

The only reason the 153s are still in use is because of delays in commissioning new rolling stock - and as their toilets are technically illegal by law they are locked out of use.

 

 

 

 

[Wheatley]

The now PRM-compliant 3 car 158s and 170s have a PRM toilet at one end and a non-PRM one at the other.

 

I suspect it is an unintended consequence of the fact that PRM certification applies to units, not vehicles. The unit is non-compliant because of the toilet so taking the toilet away (or permanently locking it) solves the problem because PRM only requires that services be provided equally, not that they be provided full stop. A service which is not provided at all cannot be unequal.

 

Because a 153 can operate as a discrete unit (even if in practice it never does) it has to either be certified as PRM compliant or not, the certification cannot be conditional and it  would therefore be illegal to provide a non-compliant toilet on that unit. 

Edited May 9, 2023 by Wheatley
Fat fingers

[VIA185]

1 hour ago, phil-b259 said:

I had no wish to imply that I wanted PRM passengers to be denied access to a toilet. I just hope I don't find I'm wetting myself because I'm locked out of a perfectly serviceable toilet in order to be fair to someone else. 

 

 

[black and decker boy]

Do the non PRM 153s have CET tanks fitted?

 

NR have restrictions on direct discharge from toilets (hence charter train coaches being fitted now).

 

 

[Oldddudders]

2 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Because its Disrcrimatory if you have access to a toilet but a wheelchair passenger, who may also have a prostrate issue is denied such a facility (either because it doesn't exist or because the 'one in the other carriage' is faulty) should just lump it.

 

The idea of the law is to ensure ALL people have EQUAL access to toilet facilities - and you should also acknowledge if nobody has access to said toilet facilities then that puts more pressure on operators to provide them due to critical mass. 

 

The only reason the 153s are still in use is because of delays in commissioning new rolling stock - and as their toilets are technically illegal by law they are locked out of use.

So, because a tiny minority of people are disabled, everyone else has to suffer. Not my idea of democracy, nor of the common good. By the way, prostrate means lying on your front.

 

This law, like many others, is indeed an ass.  

[hexagon789]

1 hour ago, black and decker boy said:

Do the non PRM 153s have CET tanks fitted?

 

NR have restrictions on direct discharge from toilets (hence charter train coaches being fitted now).

 

 

No, the upgrade was a full accessible toilet module and CET tanks. So doubly 'illegal' you could say.

 

Even if you unlocked one of the non-compliant toilet compartments in the other 153s, you wouldn't be able to 'use' the facilities.

 

Many of them have had the fittings removed.

Edited May 9, 2023 by hexagon789

[wombatofludham]

2 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

So, because a tiny minority of people are disabled, everyone else has to suffer. Not my idea of democracy, nor of the common good. By the way, prostrate means lying on your front.

 

This law, like many others, is indeed an ass.  

I'm sorry but you are pointing your guns in the wrong direction.  The railway stock leasing companies were given plenty of time to modify their stock, but chose in most cases to ignore the date by wholesale stock replacement.  Fine, but the delays in getting that stock into service has led to older stock being retained, and as there had already been a series of deadline extensions in other areas, clearly the regulatory authorities said enough is enough.  It doesn't matter if there is only one disabled person in the world or hundreds (and people with disabilities in many cases will have no alternative but to use public transport because of their disabilities) the point is the railways sat on their hands, dithered and hoped it would go away. As was widely covered in the railway press.

Given I was involved in using and devising specification requirements for the very first DDA requirements for Midland Metro back in 1994, this isn't something that has jumped out of the woodwork.  Unfortunately there was a somewhat snotty attitude to disability accessibility, almost "well, we're providing level boarding, what the hell else do they want?" which I'm afraid came back to bite the industry on the bum when the Department for Transport's disability team slapped them with a raft of requirements and an unwillingness to keep extending deadlines.  The industry only have themselves to blame.  Of course the DfT are somewhat muddled in that one arm is trying to move entirely to DOO but the other arm still needs on board people who can whip out a ramp at unstaffed stations and low platforms.  But, it is the industry who has chosen to follow the legal loophole of locking a loo out of service so as to avoid inadvertant discrimination.

There is nothing stopping the non-compliant unit being semi permanently paired with a compliant unit and retaining both lavatories in service, or attached to a compliant unit with through gangways, like a 156 or 158, so long as the designated space for the wheelchair user is located in the section of the train where the accessible toilet is.  Always assuming of course the PA and PIS are compliant.

TfW only use the single non compliant 153 on the Cardiff Bay shuttle, which for many years was a 121/122, with no toilet, and the wheelchair access only to the guard's van.  I think the days of treating the disabled as parcels are long gone.  In the not too distant future they will be replaced by tram trains, which also lack toilets.  So it's a non issue really.

[VIA185]

There was a non-compliant 153 (153 922 if I recall correctly) operating on the Central Wales line last week, coupled to a compliant example. I didn't need to use the toilet. My daughter has a phobia about the door on disabled toilets opening itself when she is 'in residence.' She was OK with the 153 because the door opened towards the vestibule, not towards the other passengers! (CJL)

[Wickham Green too]

9 hours ago, wombatofludham said:

... But, it is the industry who has chosen to follow the legal loophole of locking a loo out of service so as to avoid inadvertent discrimination. ...

Even locking a loo out of service doesn't mean people won't gain access - as the preservation world found out not that long ago. ☹️

[jjb1970]

I think it's a wider issue in England (I won't comment on other parts of the UK), public toilets seem harder to find, more bars and cafes seem to be putting locks on their toilets to prevent non-customers using them and while some shops have toilets you can use it doesn't help out of retail opening hours. And it's not uncommon for the few remaining public toilets to be u/s. I find London terrible, if you know where you are and aren't far from a terminal station you can make a line for one of those but otherwise it can be terrible. Then people complain about people looking for back alleys and secluded spots to de-ballast.

[black and decker boy]

13 hours ago, wombatofludham said:

I'm sorry but you are pointing your guns in the wrong direction.  The railway stock leasing companies were given plenty of time to modify their stock, but chose in most cases to ignore the date by wholesale stock replacement.  Fine, but the delays in getting that stock into service has led to older stock being retained, and as there had already been a series of deadline extensions in other areas, clearly the regulatory authorities said enough is enough.  It doesn't matter if there is only one disabled person in the world or hundreds (and people with disabilities in many cases will have no alternative but to use public transport because of their disabilities) the point is the railways sat on their hands, dithered and hoped it would go away. As was widely covered in the railway press.

Given I was involved in using and devising specification requirements for the very first DDA requirements for Midland Metro back in 1994, this isn't something that has jumped out of the woodwork.  Unfortunately there was a somewhat snotty attitude to disability accessibility, almost "well, we're providing level boarding, what the hell else do they want?" which I'm afraid came back to bite the industry on the bum when the Department for Transport's disability team slapped them with a raft of requirements and an unwillingness to keep extending deadlines.  The industry only have themselves to blame.  Of course the DfT are somewhat muddled in that one arm is trying to move entirely to DOO but the other arm still needs on board people who can whip out a ramp at unstaffed stations and low platforms.  But, it is the industry who has chosen to follow the legal loophole of locking a loo out of service so as to avoid inadvertant discrimination.

There is nothing stopping the non-compliant unit being semi permanently paired with a compliant unit and retaining both lavatories in service, or attached to a compliant unit with through gangways, like a 156 or 158, so long as the designated space for the wheelchair user is located in the section of the train where the accessible toilet is.  Always assuming of course the PA and PIS are compliant.

TfW only use the single non compliant 153 on the Cardiff Bay shuttle, which for many years was a 121/122, with no toilet, and the wheelchair access only to the guard's van.  I think the days of treating the disabled as parcels are long gone.  In the not too distant future they will be replaced by tram trains, which also lack toilets.  So it's a non issue really.

Reports on other enthusiasts forums that the non-PRM 153/9s get about quite a bit and due to the ongoing stock shortage, often running alone. 
 

Crewe to Chester being quoted as an example.

[hexagon789]

1 hour ago, black and decker boy said:

Reports on other enthusiasts forums that the non-PRM 153/9s get about quite a bit and due to the ongoing stock shortage, often running alone. 
 

Crewe to Chester being quoted as an example.

I understand that they are permitted alone on journeys of 29 mins or less by TfW. Longer runs only by control agreement.

[Reorte]

17 hours ago, Oldddudders said:

So, because a tiny minority of people are disabled, everyone else has to suffer. Not my idea of democracy, nor of the common good. By the way, prostrate means lying on your front.

 

This law, like many others, is indeed an ass.  

 

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[charliepetty]

21 hours ago, wombatofludham said:

I'm sorry but you are pointing your guns in the wrong direction.  The railway stock leasing companies were given plenty of time to modify their stock, but chose in most cases to ignore the date by wholesale stock replacement.  Fine, but the delays in getting that stock into service has led to older stock being retained, and as there had already been a series of deadline extensions in other areas, clearly the regulatory authorities said enough is enough.  It doesn't matter if there is only one disabled person in the world or hundreds (and people with disabilities in many cases will have no alternative but to use public transport because of their disabilities) the point is the railways sat on their hands, dithered and hoped it would go away. As was widely covered in the railway press.

Given I was involved in using and devising specification requirements for the very first DDA requirements for Midland Metro back in 1994, this isn't something that has jumped out of the woodwork.  Unfortunately there was a somewhat snotty attitude to disability accessibility, almost "well, we're providing level boarding, what the hell else do they want?" which I'm afraid came back to bite the industry on the bum when the Department for Transport's disability team slapped them with a raft of requirements and an unwillingness to keep extending deadlines.  The industry only have themselves to blame.  Of course the DfT are somewhat muddled in that one arm is trying to move entirely to DOO but the other arm still needs on board people who can whip out a ramp at unstaffed stations and low platforms.  But, it is the industry who has chosen to follow the legal loophole of locking a loo out of service so as to avoid inadvertant discrimination.

There is nothing stopping the non-compliant unit being semi permanently paired with a compliant unit and retaining both lavatories in service, or attached to a compliant unit with through gangways, like a 156 or 158, so long as the designated space for the wheelchair user is located in the section of the train where the accessible toilet is.  Always assuming of course the PA and PIS are compliant.

TfW only use the single non compliant 153 on the Cardiff Bay shuttle, which for many years was a 121/122, with no toilet, and the wheelchair access only to the guard's van.  I think the days of treating the disabled as parcels are long gone.  In the not too distant future they will be replaced by tram trains, which also lack toilets.  So it's a non issue really.

Sadly we were travelling on a different route  to that.   Charlie

 

Some TFL / LT lines have quite long journeys without toilets, the whole thing is totally daft, no PRM on Underground & Surface stock but the old D Stock on the Bedford - Bletchley has to have toilets fitted for a 30 minute journey.  Totally daft.

[Wickham Green too]

1 hour ago, charliepetty said:

... Some TFL / LT lines have quite long journeys without toilets, ...

... but how many passengers actually use those trains to travel through London ? - the vast majority of journeys will be into or out of town.

[Wheatley]

There is no legal requirement to have a toilet on a train. The DDA and PRM Regs do not say that disabled people must have access to toilets, they say that the provision of toilets must not be discriminatory. 

 

What there usually (invariably ?) is though is a franchise obligation to provide toilets on journeys over a certain length. These obligations will have been carried over into the management contracts currently in use. 

 

A unit with an accessible toilet is PRM compliant, it can also have as many non-accessible toilets as the operator chooses because the DDA requirement to provide non-discriminatory services is fulfilled by the accessible toilet.  A unit with no toilet at all is also PRM compliant because a service which is not provided to anyone cannot by definition be discriminating against anyone. 

 

A unit with only a non-accessible toilet cannot be PRM compliant because the toilet provision is discriminatory, and therefore can no longer be certified for use on the national network, even coupled to another compliant unit. 

 

One way to solve the problem would have been to permanently couple the PRM toilet fitted 153s to the others, disable the inner cabs and register / certificate them as 2 car units, I believe there are some spare numbers in the 155xxx series . But as no-one wanted them other than as stop gaps, no-one did that. 

Edited May 10, 2023 by Wheatley