Stock cascade of class 150s

[whole diary]

[Rhydgaled]

looks as if porterbrook are looking into reforming the class 153 Units back into 2 Car sets to allow them to  comply with the new Disability access rules due in 2020

I must be missing something obvious here, but how does coupling two non-compliant cars together make a compliant unit?

I think it is because the reduction in capacity of a single 153 when fitted with a DDA^» (Disability Discrimination Act - about) compatible toilet and wheelchair space is too much, but by reverting to a two car unit you win back the space of the two small cabs, and then only one carriage has to have the major modifications - the other could become fully seated with its toilet removed.

So as a two car 155 the overall BCR^▸ (Benefit Cost Ratio) is totally different to that of 2 individual 153s?

Paul 

Interesting, would the cabs actually go? They could just use the space saved by not having a toilet at all in one car to replace the seats lost by having a bigger toilet in the other car. Still no word on any plans for Pacer replacment or DDA modifications for 2020 though.

[paul7575]

Interesting, would the cabs actually go? They could just use the space saved by not having a toilet at all in one car to replace the seats lost by having a bigger toilet in the other car. Don't really know about what the small cabs replaced, when the 155s were originally converted, but presumably they took up some useful space that was otherwise unused.

I've never been in a 155 (as they are all up north) - so does anyone know how the middle of the complete 155 unit is currently fitted out?

Still no word on any plans for Pacer replacment or DDA^» (Disability Discrimination Act - about) modifications for 2020 though.

Would you seriously expect there to be?  They've got 9 years to go - even if they waited to issue an ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender) for 3 or 4 years from now they'd still have bags of time...

Paul

[Rhydgaled]

Still no word on any plans for Pacer replacment or DDA^» (Disability Discrimination Act - about) modifications for 2020 though.

Would you seriously expect there to be?  They've got 9 years to go - even if they waited to issue an ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender) for 3 or 4 years from now they'd still have bags of time...

Paul

The ROSCOs^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about) are unwilling to buy DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) due to possibility of further electrification. If Pacers are to be replaced using new EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) rather than building new DMUs (either directly or through cascades) then plans do need to start emerging now, and of course DDA discussions for mark3 and 153 vehicles have already started.

[phile]

I don't believe in posting certain items posted on other Forums without substance and which may be merely based on what somebody may state they have heard or stories that are just based on rumour.  Howeve, this would appear to be genuine in so much as The London Midland website states that the introduction of 172s in service on the Snow Hill lines will commence next week, September 5th. No details are published as to how many will be in service at the outset and the rate of introduction, but we should then expect the arrival of the 150/1s to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) as they become released.   (Note 150108 and 150126 already arrived in advance) .

[Kingfisherdart]

A (usually very reliable) website, has mentioned that whilst 150108 and 150126 have arrived with FGW^▸ (First Great Western), two additional 153s will be heading this way.

Anyone shed any light on this?

[anthony215]

I thought FGW^▸ (First Great Western) already had the 2 class 153's from London Midland which it was decided would be staying with FGW?

[Kingfisherdart]

That's what I thought! But as it mentions 108 & 126 which arrived after the 153s, as well as being dated 26/08/11, made me wonder whether it was an additional 2 on top of the 2 we already have..? Website was www.thejunction.org.uk

[paul7575]

The two 153s just announced by DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) are presumed to be the two already with FGW^▸ (First Great Western), but they could have been on temorary hire previously and yet to be officially transferred.  So the junction might just be reporting the administrative follow up, IYSWIM...

A further possibility is that it wouldn't be that unusual if those two 153s already with FGW went back and were replaced by a different pair.
 
Whereas the original 9 ex LM^▸ (London Midland - recent franchise) 150s have apparently already been 'transferred' to FGW even though only two have arrived, i.e. the reverse is the case with the 150s...   Then there's the two more 150s due as part of the recent allocation, so although 9 have been transferred, there are still 9 to arrive, so it's easy to see how reports get muddled...

Paul

[brompton rail]

Interesting, would the cabs actually go? They could just use the space saved by not having a toilet at all in one car to replace the seats lost by having a bigger toilet in the other car. Don't really know about what the small cabs replaced, when the 155s were originally converted, but presumably they took up some useful space that was otherwise unused.

I've never been in a 155 (as they are all up north) - so does anyone know how the middle of the complete 155 unit is currently fitted out?

Most of the space on 155's is used for luggage / package storing shelves. The 155 only have 1 toilet, the space in the other coach is a stand up bike store. The only loss of seating must be in that coach where a toilet is placed where the bike store was. Since the mini drivers cab is in the parcel space at the end of vehicle it is no wonder that it is tiny. Therefore I suspect that these cabs would not be removed should they be reformed into 155's, perhaps just closed off?

_{Edited in an attempt to unmangle use of the 'quote' function - this required some educated guesswork on my part, hopefully it hasn't altered the meaning of what the poster intended.}

[Tim]

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it), they could keep non-compliant vechicles in traffic anyway if the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) grants a derrogation.

[brompton rail]

Thanks I B.

[ChrisB]

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it), they could keep non-compliant vechicles in traffic anyway if the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) grants a derrogation.

I'm not sure they can derogate after 2020 can they? They will finally have to be compliant....

[anthony215]

Yes i think they have to be made compliant and if tehy cant they have to be withdrawn and replaced, probably one of the reasons why the valley lines look like they are going to be wired. Also has another advantage of freing up some class 150's perhaps some could be sent down to west wales and some to Northern or FGW^▸ (First Great Western)

[northwesterntrains]

Still no word on any plans for Pacer replacment or DDA^» (Disability Discrimination Act - about) modifications for 2020 though.

For Pacers to be DDA compliant the following needs to happen:

1. Removal of the double step or all station platforms in Pacer areas rebuilt to the same height and a minimum width to avoid any ramp issues.  The latter would require compulsory land order purchases to make platforms wider in some cases e.g. at Guide Bridge station.
2. New DDA toilet at either front or rear of train (due to door layout) or Pacers to have no toilets and to be kept for short routes only.  The latter would require a number of Pacers to be cascaded away from North West England which has too many Pacers to keep them only on short services.
3. New doors that are strong enough to deal with a wheelchair crashing in to them.  Also new door controls.
4. Replacement seats on most 142s as the bus bench seats are too low down to comply.
5. New larger, brighter destination displays and on board PIS^▸ (Passenger Information System).

The cost would run in to hundreds of millions, so it isn't economically viable to do.

[northwesterntrains]

AIUI^▸ (as I understand it), they could keep non-compliant vechicles in traffic anyway if the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) grants a derrogation.

It was decided that transport needed until the end of 2019 to be fully accessible in the mid 1990s.  DfT can't just say 20 years later that wasn't enough time, they needed to say that years ago if it was the case.