Progress of delivery of cascaded/refurbished/PRM modified stock to TFW/Wales and Borders

[PHILIPE]

Yep, that seems reasonable. Even more reasonable (and what I thought might be the case) would be that the 8 or 9 class 153 being purchased by TfW and retained long-term were taken from the 13 (? - I forget the exact number) that received full PRM mods as part of the original TfW-RS plan before all the extra units (eg. Porterbrook 769 compensation) were added.

From your earlier post, it looks like 13 class 153s have completed the full PRM programme, but that these are a mix of 5 Angel (now TfW-owned) units and 8 Porterbrook ones. I'm guessing that was the original fleet I mention in the previous paragraph and that the fact it was shared between ROSCOs made it difficult for TfW to purchase them all together. Apart from having two ROSCOs involved, it does seem like the sensible thing to do would have been to purchase the 13 units (or 9 of them if that's all that will be required for the HOWL in future) that are already PRM compliant rather than doing full PRM mods on any more units unless it's needed in the short term due to the 769 problems.

It's been suggested up thread that TFW wanted to actually own their own fleet and that although Angel were willing to sell, Porterbrook may have been unwilling to. That is something that we may find it difficult to obtain the actual answer to on the grounds of being commercially sensitive.

 

[Cardiff123]

It seems pointless TfW purchasing these units, even if they are to get the full PRM mods. If its just PRM lite then it's even more pointless!
They would be better off purchasing the ones that originally had the full PRM mods and letting these 4 go. Although TfW need as many units as they can get, the balance of having 2 units in Landore will come to an end soon so by getting rid of the last 4 they are only effectively 2 units down. Long term the PRM lite units can't be used anyway unless some kind of long term dispensation is granted to allow them to continue to run attached.

Unless of course the original 153s with full PRM have expensive leases on. But surely a renegotiation could be done as they would be destined for scrap anyway and avoid the cost of mods.

There's nothing stopping PRM 'light' units being used long term as far as I'm aware. There's nothing in the PRM legislation that says PRM units must have a toilet, just that if a train does have a toilet, it must be PRM compliant.
So minus the toilet, the PRM light 153s meet the PRM requirements. Whilst it's not likely to happen, there's nothing stopping TfW running toilet-less 153s alone (or even paired up) on short routes in the Valleys for example (barring anything north of Radyr obviously).

TfW are desperately short of DMUs since they lost 30 Pacers and due to the disaster of the 769s. Any extra 153s they can get hold of until the new fleets start to enter passenger service is only positive.

 

[PHILIPE]

There's nothing stopping PRM 'light' units being used long term as far as I'm aware. There's nothing in the PRM legislation that says PRM units must have a toilet, just that if a train does have a toilet, it must be PRM compliant.
So minus the toilet, the PRM light 153s meet the PRM requirements. Whilst it's not likely to happen, there's nothing stopping TfW running toilet-less 153s alone (or even paired up) on short routes in the Valleys for example (barring anything north of Radyr obviously).

TfW are desperately short of DMUs since they lost 30 Pacers and due to the disaster of the 769s. Any extra 153s they can get hold of until the new fleets start to enter passenger service is only positive.

They would not be able to run singly without a toilet without dispensation but which has been granted for EMR to work the Barton-on-Humber Branch. Two particular units have been identified by number for this dispensation.

 

[43096]

They would not be able to run singly without a toilet without dispensation but which has been granted for EMR to work the Barton-on-Humber Branch. Two particular units have been identified by number for this dispensation.

If the unit has no toilet at all, then if it is PRM compliant it does not need a dispensation (e.g. Class 707). What does need a dispensation is if an otherwise PRM compliant unit retains a non compliant toilet (and no other PRM compliant toilet) then it will need a dispensation e.g. the TfW PRM lite 153s.

 

[Caaardiff]

There's nothing stopping PRM 'light' units being used long term as far as I'm aware. There's nothing in the PRM legislation that says PRM units must have a toilet, just that if a train does have a toilet, it must be PRM compliant.
So minus the toilet, the PRM light 153s meet the PRM requirements. Whilst it's not likely to happen, there's nothing stopping TfW running toilet-less 153s alone (or even paired up) on short routes in the Valleys for example (barring anything north of Radyr obviously).

TfW are desperately short of DMUs since they lost 30 Pacers and due to the disaster of the 769s. Any extra 153s they can get hold of until the new fleets start to enter passenger service is only positive.

Even if dispensation was granted, TfW own rules state you cannot run a service without a working PRM toilet. That applies to all units, not just 153s. Given that eventually these will be on the HOWL with a lack of station toilet provision, it's unlikely it will happen.

 

[PHILIPE]

Even if dispensation was granted, TfW own rules state you cannot run a service without a working PRM toilet. That applies to all units, not just 153s. Given that eventually these will be on the HOWL with a lack of station toilet provision, it's unlikely it will happen.

TFW Rules broken recently by a 150 running from Manchester to Cardiff toiletless. A non-compliant TFW 153 recently worked a round trip from Shrewsbury and Crewe and return on it's own on the local shuttle due to a failure. A replacement was found for the next trip but it was pointed out it was to avoid a cancellation.

 

[Caaardiff]

TFW Rules broken recently by a 150 running from Manchester to Cardiff toiletless. A non-compliant TFW 153 recently worked a round trip from Shrewsbury and Crewe and return on it's own on the local shuttle due to a failure. A replacement was found for the next trip but it was pointed out it was to avoid a cancellation.

Slightly different if its already in service. Likely taken out at the earliest opportunity.

 

[sd0733]

Slightly different if its already in service. Likely taken out at the earliest opportunity.

Definitely. I had a 3 car 175 with no toilets the other day, fitter attend and then swapped out at earliest opportunity, same with the solo 153/9 situation. 1 thing putting them out in an emergency or breaking en-route over not having one at all.

 

[Bikeman78]

If the unit has no toilet at all, then if it is PRM compliant it does not need a dispensation (e.g. Class 707). What does need a dispensation is if an otherwise PRM compliant unit retains a non compliant toilet (and no other PRM compliant toilet) then it will need a dispensation e.g. the TfW PRM lite 153s.

The toilets on the 153/9 have (officially) been locked out of use since January. As far as I know, the toilet remains in situ when they have the refurb but will remain locked out of use. So effectively they have no toilet.

There's no obvious reason why a pair of them couldn't run the Crewe to Chester shuttle, when you consider that plenty of people travel on a 508 to Liverpool from the same station. Not to mention that most trains in the Cardiff valleys won't have a toilet in a few years.

 

[sd0733]

The toilets on the 153/9 have (officially) been locked out of use since January. As far as I know, the toilet remains in situ when they have the refurb but will remain locked out of use. So effectively they have no toilet.

There's no obvious reason why a pair of them couldn't run the Crewe to Chester shuttle, when you consider that plenty of people travel on a 508 to Liverpool from the same station. Not to mention that most trains in the Cardiff valleys won't have a toilet in a few years.

On the refurb ones they are completely out of use as theres a Yale lock fitted which renders them completely inaccessible even to traincrew.

Agreed, lines like Coryton to Cardiff Bay seem ideal for a pair of them especially if theres more /9s than /3s on Canton and they cant be used otherwise especially as like you say there wont be any toilets soon.

 

[PHILIPE]

The toilets on the 153/9 have (officially) been locked out of use since January. As far as I know, the toilet remains in situ when they have the refurb but will remain locked out of use. So effectively they have no toilet.

There's no obvious reason why a pair of them couldn't run the Crewe to Chester shuttle, when you consider that plenty of people travel on a 508 to Liverpool from the same station. Not to mention that most trains in the Cardiff valleys won't have a toilet in a few years.

But the fact that EMR have had to have dispensation to run them (that is 2 specified ones) on the Barton-on-Humber Branch illustrates the fact they cannot legally run a complete train without toilets without this dispensation. It might be sensibly possible on the services you mention but legally not.

 

[Bikeman78]

But the fact that EMR have had to have dispensation to run them (that is 2 specified ones) on the Barton-on-Humber Branch illustrates the fact they cannot legally run a complete train without toilets without this dispensation. It might be sensibly possible on the services you mention but legally not.

The EMR units are not compliant at all are they? That's rather different to a refurbished unit that is compliant but has no toilet, e.g. like a class 315/507/508 or a refurbished TfW 153/9.

The reason that most units that have the old toilets locked out is because they dump on the track. I'm not sure how the unrefurbished class 321s have managed to avoid this.

 

[sd0733]

But the fact that EMR have had to have dispensation to run them (that is 2 specified ones) on the Barton-on-Humber Branch illustrates the fact they cannot legally run a complete train without toilets without this dispensation. It might be sensibly possible on the services you mention but legally not.

The Emr units also have no door sounders, compliant grab rails, information screens etc either they arent the same as a 153/9 now.

 

[Class360/1]

The toilets on the 153/9 have (officially) been locked out of use since January. As far as I know, the toilet remains in situ when they have the refurb but will remain locked out of use. So effectively they have no toilet.

There's no obvious reason why a pair of them couldn't run the Crewe to Chester shuttle, when you consider that plenty of people travel on a 508 to Liverpool from the same station. Not to mention that most trains in the Cardiff valleys won't have a toilet in a few years.

Why don’t the/9’s have toilets locked out of use?

 

[sd0733]

Why don’t the/9’s have toilets locked out of use?

They do. They're all locked out. Traincrew are banned from them too due to no tanks fitted.

 

[PHILIPE]

Unlike NT and EMR where their dispensation letters say they must be coupled to a compliant unit the TFW letters do not specify this but TFW, I think I have read, have their own restrictions in respect of attachment.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If you mean the long term 8 TfW intend to keep, the 8 are already in the fleet.
Any extra 153s would just be to support the current risk associated with the unreliable 769s.
I would think introducing 155s would require train crew training and route clearance, which is the last thing TfW need more of.
I can't see the 170s leaving before the 231s arrive.

We're getting into Speculative Ideas territory, but I don't think the relatively simple conversion course for crews for 153 -> 155 would be a big obstacle. Gauging-wise, my understanding is that 155s are less restricted than 153s due to the lack of steps at the no.2 end of each vehicle. Even then, the only location I'm aware of that being an issue is around Portsmouth which obviously wouldn't affect TfW.

All things being equal it would make sense on paper to concentrate the Leyland units with one TOC, and removing a microfleet from Northern. But it isn't going to happen, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[PHILIPE]

We're getting into Speculative Ideas territory, but I don't think the relatively simple conversion course for crews for 153 -> 155 would be a big obstacle. Gauging-wise, my understanding is that 155s are less restricted than 153s due to the lack of steps at the no.2 end of each vehicle. Even then, the only location I'm aware of that being an issue is around Portsmouth which obviously wouldn't affect TfW.

All things being equal it would make sense on paper to concentrate the Leyland units with one TOC, and removing a microfleet from Northern. But it isn't going to happen, so I'll leave it at that.

The conversion of 153s back to 155s has been done to death already where some people seem to think it is nothing more than just coupling 2 x 153s permanently together. Overwhelmingly responses were no. Whether one may query this they would need new wiring throughout, flexibility of using separately would be lost, would be too costly and whatever they do and for how long they work in the meantime the 153s days are numbered

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The conversion of 153s back to 155s has been done to death already where some people seem to think it is nothing more than just coupling 2 x 153s permanently together. Overwhelmingly responses were no. Whether one may query this they would need new wiring throughout, flexibility of using separately would be lost, would be too costly and whatever they do and for how long they work in the meantime the 153s days are numbered

I agree that's been done to death. However my post was in response to a suggestion that the 7 class 155 units with Northern would be useful for TfW. Not a suggestion that 153s should be converted back into 155s.

 

[PHILIPE]

I agree that's been done to death. However my post was in response to a suggestion that the 7 class 155 units with Northern would be useful for TfW. Not a suggestion that 153s should be converted back into 155s.

I didn't realise that you were referring to Northerns 155s.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I didn't realise that you were referring to Northerns 155s.

No problem . The post I responded to suggested that if Northern took an extra 7 156s from EMR, they could release the 155s to TfW as they're already PRM compliant and are mechanically identical (barring a handful of things) to the 153s.

On paper, that would seem sensible in some ways... but it would involve some crew training and route clearance (presumably just paperwork in this case) and that costs time and money. A limited number of 2-car sets in a fleet of mostly single-cars would also make diagramming a bit more complex.

 

[Skip 10]

Even if dispensation was granted, TfW own rules state you cannot run a service without a working PRM toilet. That applies to all units, not just 153s. Given that eventually these will be on the HOWL with a lack of station toilet provision, it's unlikely it will happen.

Out of interest, is there anywhere these TfW rules on PRM toilets can be viewed?

 

[Caaardiff]

It's internal fleet protocol, so unlikely to be in the public domain

 

[berneyarms]

153 922 left Landore today as the latest 153 to undergo PRM Lite and repaint.

153 935 came in on a slip move and joins 153 913 on works undergoing these mods.

That's 6 units now that have had PRM Lite completed: 906, 926, 921, 909, 910 & 922

Just wondering if there is any update on the 153 sets at Landore?

Also, any update on the Class 150 refurbs?

Last reported set in Canton was 150 259.

 

[The_Train]

Also, any update on the Class 150 refurbs?

Last reported set in Canton was 150 259.

150259 reported to be out now with 150237 said to be next to get the treatment at Pullmans

 

[PHILIPE]

TFW 153968 is working singly today shuttling between Coryton and Cardiff Bay,. The unit is not compliant and not even a "Lite" PRM one but has the toilet de-commisioned. There is quite a bit of discussion up thread regarding their use singly and some of the conditions can be open to interpretation but implying that it is in order.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

TFW 153968 is working singly today shuttling between Coryton and Cardiff Bay,. The unit is not compliant and not even a "Lite" PRM one but has the toilet de-commisioned. There is quite a bit of discussion up thread regarding their use singly and some of the conditions can be open to interpretation but implying that it is in order.

I’m sat on it right now. It’s showing as in TfW livery on RTT but it isn’t (it’s in EMR livery), and refurbished “Lite” 910, 921 and 926 are showing on RTT as in EMR livery when they’re all now in TfW livery!

 

[sd0733]

TFW 153968 is working singly today shuttling between Coryton and Cardiff Bay,. The unit is not compliant and not even a "Lite" PRM one but has the toilet de-commisioned. There is quite a bit of discussion up thread regarding their use singly and some of the conditions can be open to interpretation but implying that it is in order.

It looks to be a booked single 153/9. Shows as a CF58x diagram which I believe are for 153/9s. Apparently it was 153910 on the same diagram yesterday

 

[PHILIPE]

It looks to be a booked single 153/9. Shows as a CF58x diagram which I believe are for 153/9s. Apparently it was 153910 on the same diagram yesterday

Definitely on own having seen picture

 

[sd0733]

Definitely on own having seen picture

Yes it's only booked for 1 single 153/9.