GrimShady
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2016
- Messages
- 1,740
In hope it won't be ironing boards!
-
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!
5x Class 153 conversion to bike and baggage vans for Scotrail
- Thread starter adamedwards
- Start date
- Status
In hope it won't be ironing boards!
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Glenmutchkin
Member
I did immediately edit the post to undo the 'autocorrect' that turned bog into big. I think there is a short time window that allows editing without it being declared at the bottom of the post.
The 156 refurb is Fainsa ironing boards. Previously discussed elsewhere on this forum - there's a few pictures on the thread.
Journeyman
Established Member
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2014
- Messages
- 6,295
I was rather hoping the "Scenic Train" 156 might be different, but I guess it's not.
I personally have no problems with the current seats in a 156, but I'd think twice before undertaking a five-hour journey sitting on an ironing board.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I was rather hoping the "Scenic Train" 156 might be different, but I guess it's not.
I personally have no problems with the current seats in a 156, but I'd think twice before undertaking a five-hour journey sitting on an ironing board.
There isn't really a "scenic train" 156, is there? The 158s were for that, and they're mostly Grammer IC3000 (though a few are I think a Grammer style cushion on a different seat frame). The 156s are a suburban fit-out.
Journeyman
Established Member
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2014
- Messages
- 6,295
In which case they absolutely shouldn't be used for the journey to Mallaig. Honestly, five hours on an ironing board?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I'm not quite sure I remember rightly now, but weren't they going to use "scenic lines" 158s, but then there was an issue saying they couldn't e.g. clearances?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
By the way...scenic 158 non-Grammer version:
Grammer version:
Both roughly 50% airline 50% table, alternating as per the original layout (with some tweaks for PRM-TSI).
Grammer version:
Both roughly 50% airline 50% table, alternating as per the original layout (with some tweaks for PRM-TSI).
krus_aragon
Established Member
No, I think it's more to do with operational convenience for the Conwy Valley, as once the mishmash of 175 and 158s are replaced with a uniform fleet, everything in North Wales (other than the Borderlands line) will be incompatible with any existing rolling stock you might use, with the resulting issues for maintenance, ECS positioning moves in the morning, etc.
I think a better comparison for the West Highland routes would be the Heart of Wales line, which is due to receive cascaded 170s for the next franchise.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
TBH I'm quite surprised they didn't just order a 6th Class 230 and have those operating the Valley for the foreseeable. Or are they proposing a service rejig that might result in going back to the "old order" of services operating through to elsewhere[1] from the branch, which might allow a more useful timetable e.g. a run to Llandudno in the morning peak *and* one back in the evening peak, which without having big lunchtime service gaps (well, bigger than the present approximately 3 hourly service) isn't possible with one unit?
[1] Traditionally the Valley interworked with a stopping service from Llandudno Junction to Holyhead, which was replaced by the small stations getting request stop calls on longer distance services.
krus_aragon
Established Member
One could hope for some extensions back along the coast, but with Bangor already going to 2tph, there may not be the case for reintroducing the old stopper.
An issue with the idea of using 230s long term is that, reading between the tea leaves, the 230s are a stop-gap in the hope of extending Borderlands services through the tunnel to Liverpool. If that comes off, you'd have a choice between a unique unit just for the Conwy Valley, or going for the homogenised fleet anyway.
Altnabreac
Established Member
By the way...scenic 158 non-Grammer version:
Both roughly 50% airline 50% table, alternating as per the original layout (with some tweaks for PRM-TSI).
I’m on one of these units just now and very pleasant it is too. Excellent window alignment.
Joy!
And we were heading in the direction too.
Although they are Fainsa "ironing board" seats that have been fitted in the 156 and 385, ScotRail opted for a better quality padding, so they are a bit comfier than the standard ironing board seats fitted to the new units in England.
Yeah , not as bad as i feared , bit upright but was used to old 156
By the way...scenic 158 non-Grammer version:
Grammer version:
Both roughly 50% airline 50% table, alternating as per the original layout (with some tweaks for PRM-TSI).
Be warned, while those Inverness 158s are quite pleasant and in my opinion set the bar for how all long distance 158/159s should be. The recently refurbished “Haymarket” sets however are pretty awful. I was on one from Perth to Inverkeithing last week and while the Richmond seats have been modified, the bases still feel the same. It’s the very noticeable decrease in legroom however I’m not pleased about. Prepared to play footsie / knock into the person say opposites knees for most of the journey as it’s been stupidly narrowed. We (me + the other unknown passenger opposite) both had to sit at an angle to each other to stop us banging into each other through the journey. In short, it’s a bit of a half ar@sed job really. The usb sockets are also some of the slowest I’ve ever used, and the ceilings are filthy - possibly not even touched.
Just a reminder this thread is to discuss '5x Class 153 conversion to bike and baggage vans for Scotrail'.
If anyone wishes to discuss something else, please create a new thread, or use an existing thread, as appropriate.
Thanks
If anyone wishes to discuss something else, please create a new thread, or use an existing thread, as appropriate.
Thanks
rdlover777
Member
Will they still retain the cabs and be used as a makeshift DVT for trains on branchlines?
kje7812
Member
DMLV (Driving Motor Luggage Van) would be a better fit if they are purely for storage. Would there be much point in removing the cabs?
rdlover777
Member
ah okie, also, i only know the term DVT
rdlover777
Member
Also, is it know as to what they'll look like? Like will they have the windows filled in?
No, because of the cost of installing the various in-cab signalling/radio stuff. That's why the proposal is just for stripping the seats out, locking the bog and then use as luggage vans in the middle of existing 2-car units.
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
A 156 sandwich will look ridiculous. Should have swapped 5 155's out.
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
A mismatched vehicle in a unit hasn't bothered Waterloo suburbanites for the last almost-40 years...
rdlover777
Member
Have you not seen the Class 455/7? It has a Class 508 TSO
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 18,469
Just be glad that these vehicles all have standard gangway heights!
Would never have happened today.
Would never have happened today.
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
A mismatched vehicle in a unit hasn't bothered Waterloo suburbanites for the last almost-40 years...
They also look silly.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
You can do it with a Class 158 which has a different inner gangway, there are adaptor plates to allow them to join.
That's irrelevant when capacity is needed.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Quite. Some people would be rather taken aback by the European practice of just whacking a load of differently liveried coaches together to form a train!
- Status