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

[hexagon789]

Maybe LIAR?

LIAR?

 

[dazzler]

RAIL magazine, nicknamed LIAR due to the (possibly occasional) inaccuracy of their reporting!

 

[hexagon789]

RAIL magazine, nicknamed LIAR due to the (possibly occasional) inaccuracy of their reporting!

Oh right, I've never heard of that "alternative name" will we say? But no, it wasn't in rail. I'm sure it was Today's Railways, possibly The Railway Magazine but I'm 95% sure it was the former.

 

[dk1]

Assuming that the bi-mode introduction goes well, I'd have thought Greater Anglia- there's 5x153 in that fleet. Even if the bi-modes are initially introduced replacing turbostars (especially on Cambridge & Peterborough services), it would allow a cascade immediately increasing capacity on all other routes, getting rid of the 153s first?

Will be a while yet. The class 755s are not planned to take over until May at the earliest.

 

[AndrewE]

Very unlikely the whole carriage will be dedicated to bikes and luggage despite the meaning of one word in one document. The tender spec linked to by sprinterguy states:
Why would you internally refresh and add PIS and power sockets to what would basically be a luggage van?

Power socket for the refreshment trolley and PIS for the benefit of the onboard staff? Why use the words "dedicated vehicle" unless it means that?
Could still be the result of crap journalism, though...

 

[GrimShady]

Power socket for the refreshment trolley and PIS for the benefit of the onboard staff? Why use the words "dedicated vehicle" unless it means that?
Could still be the result of crap journalism, though...

Must be LIAR lol

 

[Bertie the bus]

You're really clutching at straws now. PIS for onboard staff? The P in PIS is passenger. Why would staff need PIS? How many staff do you think the WHL services are going to have?

 

[Tobbes]

It's hard to see why a 153 sandwiched into a 156 which was 2019 compliant would result in a non-compliant train - all it would mean is that the loo would be removed/locked out of use, and that disabled travellers would be in one of the 156 vehicles, no? This sounds like an excellent idea.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Despite it being repeated ad infinitum that it isn't why do people keep thinking DDA/PRM is all about toilets? There would also be no requirement to lock the toilet out of use if the 156 had a compliant one.

 

[scotraildriver]

You only need 1 compliant toilet per TRAIN. As long as there is 1 you can have as many other types as you like - even down to the hole in floor variety.

 

[AndrewE]

You're really clutching at straws now. PIS for onboard staff? The P in PIS is passenger. Why would staff need PIS? How many staff do you think the WHL services are going to have?

I would expect the trolley staff to be fielding passenger questions all the time (so they need to be kept up-to-date) and anyway it looks really bad if the staff know less than the passengers who simply had the benefit of being in the next coach!
There may be only 1 person running a bus, but one of the the benefits of a train is that there are usually more staff involved, who you are not forbidden to talk to when the vehicle is in motion...

 

[cactustwirly]

It's hard to see why a 153 sandwiched into a 156 which was 2019 compliant would result in a non-compliant train - all it would mean is that the loo would be removed/locked out of use, and that disabled travellers would be in one of the 156 vehicles, no? This sounds like an excellent idea.

The 153 would still need compliant door buttons, priority seating PIS etc

 

[AndrewE]

The 153 would still need compliant door buttons, priority seating PIS etc

What seating? It's a luggage van... and it is getting PIS

 

[hexagon789]

What seating? It's a luggage van...

Why would it need to be PRM-compliant if it's purely a "luggage van"?

 

[AndrewE]

Why would it need to be PRM-compliant if it's purely a "luggage van"?

Nobody sensible (least of all the original post or the linked document) & certainly not me says it ought to be.
Has anyone else bothered to look at that again recently? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...&set=gm.1956499791056868&type=3&theater&ifg=1

 

[hexagon789]

Nobody sensible (least of all the original post or the linked document) & certainly not me says it ought to be.
Has anyone else bothered to look at that again recently?

Indeed I have, but it neither confirms nor denies that seating will be fitted. It's doesn't say: "exclusively for the storage of bicycles and luggage" does it? While a rail-enthusiast publication stated that half the seats would be removed with only the remaining space used for cycles, luggage etc.

 

[AndrewE]

Indeed I have, but it neither confirms nor denies that seating will be fitted. It's doesn't say: "exclusively for the storage of bicycles and luggage" does it? While a rail-enthusiast publication stated that half the seats would be removed with only the remaining space used for cycles, luggage etc.

Perhaps you didn't get to the 2nd paragraph. If you read it, what do you think "dedicated carriages for cycles and sports equipment" means? It doesn't say "dedicated space."
Have you got any other ideas on how to get a bargain-basement way of providing luggage space on existing trains with negligible expense?

 

[route:oxford]

What seating? It's a luggage van... and it is getting PIS

Some people like to sit near their bikes.

Scotrail would be slaughtered in the press if it were announced they were dumping wheelchair users in luggage vans.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Some people like to sit near their bikes.

Scotrail would be slaughtered in the press if it were announced they were dumping wheelchair users in luggage vans.

Who said wheelchair users were going to be accommodated there? I'd rather suspect they will not, as the disabled bog is not there.

 

[Bertie the bus]

What seating? It's a luggage van... and it is getting PIS

How many times do you need telling it isn't? I quoted some of the work that is going to be done which shows it isn't. ScotRail have said they will provide 3D visualisations of the work they require. What 3D visualisation would be required for an empty space?

I would expect the trolley staff to be fielding passenger questions all the time (so they need to be kept up-to-date) and anyway it looks really bad if the staff know less than the passengers who simply had the benefit of being in the next coach!
There may be only 1 person running a bus, but one of the the benefits of a train is that there are usually more staff involved, who you are not forbidden to talk to when the vehicle is in motion...

This is getting surreal. I normally have very little requirement for information from staff but if I did I wouldn't be too impressed if the response was 'Hang on a minute mate, I'll tell you when the PIS scrolls to the relevant information'.

 

[Skutter]

The very first post in the thread includes the quote:
To me a "dedicated carriage" implies - no, can only mean - exclusively for the use of.
I don't know why InOban thinks it's "Only mooted on this thread."

Dedicated can mean not usable for anything else - so not a standalone vehicle you could borrow to run a service somewhere else.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

RAIL magazine, nicknamed LIAR due to the (possibly occasional) inaccuracy of their reporting!

Oh right, I've never heard of that "alternative name" will we say? But no, it wasn't in rail. I'm sure it was Today's Railways, possibly The Railway Magazine but I'm 95% sure it was the former.

I think it's also a play on the "Grauniad" nickname for a certain national newspaper, referring to the frequent typographical and proofreading errors.

Dedicated can mean not usable for anything else - so not a standalone vehicle you could borrow to run a service somewhere else.

If it isn't fully PRM-ified, it can't be borrowed anyway, regardless of whether it has seats or not. If the plan is to insert them into the middle of 156s there's the added advantage of not needing to train all staff in terms of cab layouts (depot drivers will still need it), but just the evacuation/fault-finding/location of fire extinguishers and so on. This also means they can't be borrowed for an Anniesland service or similar.

Whether they'll retain some seating or not, perhaps we'll have to wait and see. I understand that some folk wouldn't want to leave their bikes/luggage in a different carriage, so it'd be a pain if the only reason they had to was a lack of PIS in that carriage. A handful of tip-up seats would probably suffice for those that can't be away from their bikes for any length of time... but on the other hand if I was riding one of the most beautiful railway lines in the world I'd be disappointed with the restricted view (due to high window sills) offered in a Leyland Super-Sprinter!

 

[haggishunter]

 

[jopsuk]

To avoid confusion that image is not of any 153 proposal- it's a concept for 156s from Angel Trains

 

[61653 HTAFC]

To avoid confusion that image is not of any 153 proposal- it's a concept for 156s from Angel Trains

The shape of the vehicle looks more like a 142! Hope Northern don't see it, it'll give them ideas for "The Pacer of the future!"

I also note that the regular 156 it's coupled to hasn't had the same air-con upgrade that the concept has...

 

[HLE]

Power sockets on a dogbox? Whatever next. Already had WSP fitted this year.

Can’t see any becoming available before this time next year

 

[GrimShady]

View attachment 54078

I just noticed the lower window cut out on the bulkhead, can this even be done on a MK3 based vehicle?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I just noticed the lower window cut out on the bulkhead, can this even be done on a MK3 based vehicle?

I imagine it'd be easier on a 153/155 as the bodysides aren't structural and are just riveted together.

Though despite appearances, 156s aren't Mk3-based anyway.

 

[AndrewE]

I imagine it'd be easier on a 153/155 as the bodysides aren't structural and are just riveted together.
Though despite appearances, 156s aren't Mk3-based anyway.

The body-side panels may well stiffen the structure though. Obviously there will be a correlation between the size of the windows/the amount of metal left around the perimeter and the force needed to distort the resulting panel.

 

[GrimShady]

I imagine it'd be easier on a 153/155 as the bodysides aren't structural and are just riveted together.

Though despite appearances, 156s aren't Mk3-based anyway.

More of a MkIV/MkIII hybrid are they not? MkIV had a lot in common with them I believe, still could you cut panels out of a MkIV structure without affecting it?