5x Class 153 conversion to bike and baggage vans for Scotrail

[Neptune]

I would hope so if the plan was having the 153s sandwiched between various 156 units on the booked formations. They have worked with everything between 150 and 158 in the sprinter family over the years as well as 170s sometimes in the West Mids.

The plan is to couple it to one end of the train, not the middle of the 156.

 

[delt1c]

I think proper 1st would be money for old rope on those lines with the tourists. I can see why they've done it in the 153s, though. A quirk of 156s is that the layout is 2 small windows at the end with a lot of wall, then 6 big picture windows, then 2 small ones again (I've long wondered why, as the spacing of those windows means they take up the space of a large one). Nobody is going to pay for a premium class on a scenic route with a window view like that. 153s (provided the seats are high enough) have a pretty good view due to the narrow pillars. So to put 1st or similar in 156s would require it being in the middle of the coach, which would be a bit weird.

It did make me giggle, though!

I believe when designed the 156's were to have a parcel compartment, hence the small windows at 1 end. This was changed before construction to all seating but with the small windows retained.

 

[alangla]

Yes, and it's been done before, however you need some sort of adapter to connect the manual wiring plug on the inner 156 end to the autocoupler on the 153. I've also heard of a 156-158 hybrid, but that requires a gangway adapter plate as well (same as the 3-car 158s formed of 1.5 2-car units).

Unless ScotRail have changed their 156 inner couplings to bolted bar couplers as some TOCs have?

Did FGW not run a 150/153 or 158/153 hybrid at one point (153399?) as you say, it’s dependent on the inner end coupler being the standard auto coupler and not the bolted bar that some units now have

 

[hexagon789]

Unless ScotRail have changed their 156 inner couplings to bolted bar couplers as some TOCs have?

They have, it was mentioned upthread a few times.

 

[fgwrich]

Did FGW not run a 150/153 or 158/153 hybrid at one point (153399?) as you say, it’s dependent on the inner end coupler being the standard auto coupler and not the bolted bar that some units now have

There's been at least 2 iterations of 153399, As well as a few 150/9s & the obvious 158/9 formations. In both times for the 399, 369 was the 153 used - I cant remember if this was before or after the 150s were changed to a bar coupler though, though I have a feeling they were.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

That may be part of the marketing ploy to get people to pay the premium. One of the benefits is to sit near the bike, oh and here's some other benefits too. No pay? No see cycle at all times.

That's an easy fix, lock your bike to the rack.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's an easy fix, lock your bike to the rack.

Generally the railway asks you not to do that, indeed isn't it a Byelaw offence (though not likely to be enforced)?

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

Generally the railway asks you not to do that, indeed isn't it a Byelaw offence (though not likely to be enforced)?

I know guards sometimes don't like it, but if I was travelling with my bike out of sight I'd use the lock to immobilise it as a minimum. If it's on a standalone rack then I'd probably lock it to the rack, and I've even seen some that appear to be designed for locks.

 

[adamedwards]

Possible trains in the current timetable to add 153s to would be:

from Glasgow 05;20 (but unlikey as very early), 1033, 1635 (ideal for connections from London)
From Oban 0521 (too early) 0857 1441 (M-F) 1611 (Sat) 2037 (probably too late)

So a possible pair of diagarams would be 1033 north returning as the 1441 or 1611 and 1635 north returning the next day as the 0857. (The 1211 really could do with the extra seats but it joins a Fort William trains going south)

What I very much hope is when they have the 153s on the Far North they will run them in service attached to a Glasgow to Inverness train, so as to enable tandems to get to the north. What I don't know is which services are Inter7City and which are class 158, as the latter is needed, to enable the 153 to have access to the rest of the train. Does anyone know which trains on the Highland Main Line are 158s?

My ideal would be the 153 leaves Glasgow on the 1508 (connecting from London) and then is attached to the 1833 to Wick at Inverness. London to Wick with tandem in one day!

Sadly the ScotRail Inter7City trains do not take tandems even though LNER were quite happy with them in the old TGS carriages (so long as you booked two spaces) unlike GWR never accepted them. (So no hols in Devon or Cornwall for us with tandem) I appreciate the I7C do not use the old TGS vehicles but its a shame you cannot put a tandem in a power car. Even just being able to do so between principle stations plus say Aviemore and Pitlochry would be a major boost for tandem owners.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I love this idea and look forward to seeing them in action.

I have to say though that the use of space for bike racks looks poor. Vertically mounted racks could have gotten a whole load more in. I expect there will have been reasons.

On balance me too. ScotRail - Scotland in general have tended to be willing to give things a try and be innovative. Good for them. Probably not worth me flying back from the USA to try them out though. Really hope they are a success.

 

[marks87]

My ideal would be the 153 leaves Glasgow on the 1508 (connecting from London) and then is attached to the 1833 to Wick at Inverness. London to Wick with tandem in one day!

You would struggle to get the 153 from the “south” platforms to the “north” platforms at Inverness in 7 minutes, especially when there’s bikes to unload and load.

 

[dazzler]

Generally the railway asks you not to do that, indeed isn't it a Byelaw offence (though not likely to be enforced)?

It seems to be fairly common practice to lock bikes to the rack on XC Voyagers, probably because the racks are out of sight (unless you sit on the floor next to them!) - I've certainly used a cable lock on them in the past.

European racks seem to be constructed so that locks can be used (and it is usual practice to lock bikes to them, especially on overnight services!)

 

[ashkeba]

Generally the railway asks you not to do that, indeed isn't it a Byelaw offence (though not likely to be enforced)?

It was covered in some other recent thread on here. I think it said it is not in itself an offence but it can easily become one. Definitely if you fail to unlock and trap another bike in and delay the train.

 

[pdeaves]

LNER were quite happy with them in the old TGS carriages (so long as you booked two spaces) unlike GWR never accepted them.

GWR/FGW did take tandems in HSTs; I used to do it. I never understood the need to book two spaces as the racks were side by side so a tandem could only ever occupy one space (never an issue, just an odd quirk).

 

[Killingworth]

What bothers me about these units is the inability to be able to guarantee availability on enough trains to make them practical in service. Great if they could be on every train on a route, but they can't be. They'll be on a limited number of trains and careful planning will be necessary to check which. If a unit becomes unavailable can alternative conveyance be provided? I'd be very wary of getting to Oban, only to find I had to cycle home or wait for days for space!

When will they all become available so we can see how it will all work?

It's the practical details that make excellent ideas come to grief.

 

[CEN60]

What bothers me about these units is the inability to be able to guarantee availability on enough trains to make them practical in service. Great if they could be on every train on a route, but they can't be. They'll be on a limited number of trains and careful planning will be necessary to check which. If a unit becomes unavailable can alternative conveyance be provided? I'd be very wary of getting to Oban, only to find I had to cycle home or wait for days for space!

When will they all become available so we can see how it will all work?

It's the practical details that make excellent ideas come to grief.

Does anyone know what the timetable plans are - I would have thought the route to Fort William would have been better suited as an end destination for mountain bikers & skiers (rather than Oban)

 

[route101]

What bothers me about these units is the inability to be able to guarantee availability on enough trains to make them practical in service. Great if they could be on every train on a route, but they can't be. They'll be on a limited number of trains and careful planning will be necessary to check which. If a unit becomes unavailable can alternative conveyance be provided? I'd be very wary of getting to Oban, only to find I had to cycle home or wait for days for space!

When will they all become available so we can see how it will all work?

It's the practical details that make excellent ideas come to grief.

Do they not put your bike in a van ? Im sure they done this on the far north line.

 

[najaB]

I'd be very wary of getting to Oban, only to find I had to cycle home or wait for days for space!

I would've thought that, for people who hold a cycle reservation, Scotrail would just put the bikes in a van and drive them down.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

It was covered in some other recent thread on here. I think it said it is not in itself an offence but it can easily become one. Definitely if you fail to unlock and trap another bike in and delay the train.

With these racks it's unlikely that you'd trap anyone in. On other types of racks I use my lock to immobilise the bike itself so it can't be pedalled.

Does anyone know what the timetable plans are - I would have thought the route to Fort William would have been better suited as an end destination for mountain bikers & skiers (rather than Oban)

Yeah I thought that too, but apparently the train would be too long if they sent them to Fort William, so Oban it is. For now at least. There's some cycle traffic to the ferries at Oban but also Fort William is a massive mountain biking centre.

Tbh I think there's a lot of potential for campers and hillwalkers turning them into improvised sleepers

 

[ld0595]

I'm sure there were rumours saying there would be a timetable recast on the WHL in the near future, so I suspect this would include more standalone services to Fort William to accommodate the 153s.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

I'm sure there were rumours saying there would be a timetable recast on the WHL in the near future, so I suspect this would include more standalone services to Fort William to accommodate the 153s.

Will inevitably annoy the regular passengers when two carriages of passenger space are replaced by one carriage for bikes.

 

[computerSaysNo]

Will inevitably annoy the regular passengers when two carriages of passenger space are replaced by one carriage for bikes.

I'm assuming the recast will be so that Fort William trains can be 4 carriages + 153 (net gain 1/2 carriage passenger space) with all Oban services being completely seperate (2 or 4 carriages; net gain 0 or potentially 2 carriages). If they wanted to run the 153 to Fort William at the moment they'd have to run the Oban as 2 carriages (do any Oban/Fort William trains currently send 4 to Oban and 2 to Fort William? If yes then net loss 2 carriages, if no then no gain/loss) and the Fort William as 2 carriages + 153 (net loss 1 1/2 carriages).

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

I'm assuming the recast will be so that Fort William trains can be 4 carriages + 153 (net gain 1/2 carriage passenger space) with all Oban services being completely seperate (2 or 4 carriages; net gain 0 or potentially 2 carriages). If they wanted to run the 153 to Fort William at the moment they'd have to run the Oban as 2 carriages (do any Oban/Fort William trains currently send 4 to Oban and 2 to Fort William? If yes then net loss 2 carriages, if no then no gain/loss) and the Fort William as 2 carriages + 153 (net loss 1 1/2 carriages).

Ahh, I totally misunderstood, Ignore me. Sorry!

 

[47827]

I'm assuming the recast will be so that Fort William trains can be 4 carriages + 153 (net gain 1/2 carriage passenger space) with all Oban services being completely seperate (2 or 4 carriages; net gain 0 or potentially 2 carriages). If they wanted to run the 153 to Fort William at the moment they'd have to run the Oban as 2 carriages (do any Oban/Fort William trains currently send 4 to Oban and 2 to Fort William? If yes then net loss 2 carriages, if no then no gain/loss) and the Fort William as 2 carriages + 153 (net loss 1 1/2 carriages).

I don't know the current configurations of each service but there were typically traditionally differences between summer and winter due to different timetables and loadings. I'd imagine a few trains that are 4 car on either route in the summer could run with 2 car over winter. Whether any (pre covid) are simply left as 4 car all year round these days I wouldn't know though. Due to platform lengths and the odd passing loop being too small I'd say Scotrail probably wouldn't want to exceed 6 cars on any section all that often. If Oban and Fort William trains do begin running separately off Glasgow you can kiss goodbye to many of the remaining spare paths between Craigendoran Jcn and Crianlarich which engineers trains and charters used traditionally if available, bar the Royal Scotsman which has its own secured paths. There just isn't the demand to greatly increase the number of travel options between Glasgow, Dumbarton and Crianlarich. Looking to see if anything else can be done with the loops along that section (if feasible) would be a so much more efficient way of operating as these bike carriages will struggle to pay for all the extra crews and paths needed before Crianlarich.

 

[adamedwards]

The planned increase in Fort William trains is about improving the service to increase use and tourism, not about facilitating the 153s, which are a plus on top of that. The Modern Railways article explains this. Worth buying this month.

 

[berneyarms]

If Oban and Fort William trains do begin running separately off Glasgow you can kiss goodbye to many of the remaining spare paths between Craigendoran Jcn and Crianlarich which engineers trains and charters used traditionally if available, bar the Royal Scotsman which has its own secured paths.

That’s a bit of an exaggeration.

There are four sets of passing loops between Craigendoran Jctn and Crianlarich, including the latter, one of which doesn’t even see regular use.

It will be certainly possible to path separate Oban/Fort William services and keep space for pathing extra trains.

At present on the Oban route the separate services in both directions are the 05:20 ex Glasgow & 08:57 ex-Oban, 10:33 ex-Glasgow and 14:41 ex-Oban, and the 16:36 ex-Glasgow and 20:37 ex-Oban.

That may in itself be enough.

 

[InOban]

A major problem with timetabling the FW route is the Aluminium oxide train which is much longer than any of the loops except possibly Crianlarich, and has to stop at every one to exchange the radio token. Starting up the hill from Rannoch to Corrour anyone?
The southbound path is a particular problem to an improved FW service.

 

[47827]

A major problem with timetabling the FW route is the Aluminium oxide train which is much longer than any of the loops except possibly Crianlarich, and has to stop at every one to exchange the radio token. Starting up the hill from Rannoch to Corrour anyone?
The southbound path is a particular problem to an improved FW service.

Having had experience of dealing with additional traffic on the route it was hard enough sometimes before the Alcan issue begun as there were so many conflicts due to poorer numbers of loops beyond Crianlarich (even ghost freight paths often ruined schedules e.g an MOD train that rarely ran). After the Alcan started it got tougher depending on the direction the Alcan was going too and day of the week. Then when the extra Oban services started (especially on a weekday when the school ex limits the Oban paths even more) it got somewhat harder. It will still be possible to run extra traffic with increased flexibility probably after the recast for the bike carriages, but it will be harder and harder. Possibly a land cruise overnighting at Fort William and returning on the Sunday or a Jacobite ECS will be safer than any out and back stuff. Good job the charter industry is in sleep mode for now then really so nobody need test it too soon.

 

[Scotrail314209]

The current 08:23 split service was very popular with cyclists, with some having been turned away at the time. If they are going to recast the timetable I can see the Oban/Mallaig splits at Crianlarich being withdrawn in order to save time. This also means you can run a 153 on the end of both. The 8:23 also has some slack at Fort William, so maybe they could detach the 153 there and have it wait about for the next southbound 156, which should be the 16:05 from Mallaig, that has about 10 minutes at Fort William, so that should be enough time for them to reattach?

Though the issue would be pathing the Oban service in the morning if they abandoned the split. You can't run it out at 08:53 as that clashes with the 08:54 Alloa service. If you were to do, it then runs the risk of being caught behind the Airdrie - Balloch service at Dalmuir, unless you add some pathing time into it. This Balloch service also oddly appears to skip Dumbarton Central, so you might be able to easily run the Oban behind it. In terms of a pass, you could have the 06:03 Mallaig - Glasgow await the Oban service to arrive at Arrochar & Tarbet, which should only add a couple of minutes onto the time.

Alternatively, you could run it out at 08:36, but that gets you stuck directly behind the 08:33 Anniesland service.

 

[alangla]

Alternatively, you could run it out at 08:36, but that gets you stuck directly behind the 08:33 Anniesland service.

Given this service has 10 mins at Anniesland, surely swapping paths is the answer? Oban at 0833 and Anniesland at 0836. ScotRail seem to have largely abandoned any pretence at exact clockface schedules over the last few years, at least around Glasgow, so a couple of minutes flexing on a counter peak service that likely carries fresh air is neither here or there.