Porterbrook to create Pacer demonstrator (now unveiled)

[SpacePhoenix]

Best demonstrator for Pacers would be a demonstration of the route to the scrapyard! Hopefully as more route miles get electrified it might reduce the need (nationwide) for DMUs to the point where they could be scrapped. I would suggest conversion of them to electric articulated trams but it's very likely that it would be far cheaper to go for a new build of trams.

 

[northwichcat]

The problem with Pacers is the awful jerky ride especially on curves due to non articulation and their inability to stop when required on a greasy rail. Rebodying will not change that.

Plus the deafening squeal on sharp corners and the inability to provide a decent level of acceleration when the train has a crush loading. Then there's the issue of the draughty doors - particularly bad on early/late services in winter where the service can reach 75mph.

The ride quality is also bad when the unit crosses level crossings or when it passes a high speed train in the opposite direction - it can feel like a crane is trying to tip the train over.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Press of course are "all over" anything, and not always for good reason.

When discussing such large sums of money in this kind of abstract manner, to the nearest £0.5 million is probably fine.

Just looking at some previous news stories about train orders the press usually round down and then say 'over' before the rounded down amount.

It's worth remembering smaller orders cost more. Apparently the SRA tried to cut down the 185 order to 46 x 3 carriage trains (the number originally proposed was 54) but when Siemens said the price per unit was higher for orders under 50 trains, they decided the solution was to order 51 and to give TPE Manchester Airport-Blackpool (which was originally going to remain with Northern) rather than pay the higher price.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Personally, if there was a surplus of DMUs I'd start to withdraw the 150s. I know they're only 30 years old and not life expired but if the last Northern example I travelled on is anything to go by, they're really not that pleasant to travel on compared to newer trains. I'd sell a number to preservation and keep a few more as reserves and spare parts.

Give them a good refurb and they'll be far more pleasant.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Give them a good refurb and they'll be far more pleasant.

Agreed. In any case, a surplus of DMUs is not something we will see for many years, if ever.

Neil

 

[alexl92]

Agreed. In any case, a surplus of DMUs is not something we will see for many years, if ever.

Neil

I thought as much. So therefore I think a new class of DMU should be ordered! (I know, I'm living in a fantasy world).

 

[cjmillsnun]

I thought as much. So therefore I think a new class of DMU should be ordered! (I know, I'm living in a fantasy world).

Definitely. However the problem then is cost. You have to design all of the emissions kit to fit into the UK loading gauge.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Definitely. However the problem then is cost. You have to design all of the emissions kit to fit into the UK loading gauge.

What, like the IEP has done?

Neil

 

[hurricanemk1c]

Interesting development that's been knocking around for a few years.

And the IEP has raised floors over the engines to accomodate the engine kit. Not sure about that. Also they have a length advantage - can't imagine any new build DMU (ever for the UK, but anyway) have 26m vehicles. It would have to be end doors if it has underfloor engines (to meet platform heights) which restrict flow on Pacer-style diagrams

 

[Bletchleyite]

Easier to do if you aren't modifying anything

True.

So, as one idea, because Hitachi have clearly done that work, might they be able to supply a modified IEP for regional services? 3x26m, IEP engine layout with a smaller engine, door layout per the Class 395?

Is that a huge design change?

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Easier to do if you aren't modifying anything

Existing DMUs don't have to be modified to meet the latest standards but new DMUs must be built to the latest standards, so all that means is Bombardier can't offer their existing design 172s anymore. It's likely even without new emission standards that Hitachi would be interested in designing new DMUs if someone wanted to place an order for them.

 

[Haydn1971]

That's the key... Someone needs to issue a tender brief for a new order that's worthwhile for the manufacturers to invest in a new design.

 

[rebmcr]

IEP engine layout with a smaller engine

Is that a huge design change?

Yes, because there's currently no such thing as a smaller engine.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, because there's currently no such thing as a smaller engine.

You what? There are many engines on the market. One from the bus industry may be a good start.

Another option, if reliable enough, would be an 3-car IEP derivative with 750HP (or whatever it is IEP is getting) under only the middle coach. Then it's basically the same design.

My general point is that the "lack of design" thing is an excuse. The Government simply do not wish to open their wallets.

Neil

 

[47802]

You what? There are many engines on the market. One from the bus industry may be a good start.

Another option, if reliable enough, would be an 3-car IEP derivative with 750HP (or whatever it is IEP is getting) under only the middle coach. Then it's basically the same design.

My general point is that the "lack of design" thing is an excuse. The Government simply do not wish to open their wallets.

Neil

I'm sure you could find a smaller compliant engine, as far as IEP goes the engines are a 1000 bhp each, driving trailers are not designed for an underfloor engine so the shortest realistic IEP variant would be more likely a 4 car unit with 2000bhp, a 3 car unit with 1000bhp would probably be somewhat in adequate by modern standards and not very fault tolerant, the 4 car unit OK as possible bi-mode solution, but not as a pure DMU and probably not very cheap and probably want a 23m version rather than 26m

If you going to do that may as well just buy some bi-mode IEP for XC and cascade some Voyagers, but then you are potentially cascading some expensive trains to secondary routes. Railbuses are crap but they are also cheap and quite effective.

As well as pushing electrification I think we need to look at Tram Trains, and Battery 'O' Star

 

[Haydn1971]

Another option, if reliable enough, would be an 3-car IEP derivative with 750HP (or whatever it is IEP is getting) under only the middle coach. Then it's basically the same design.

That's inspired actually, similar to the Sheffield Tram, use a stock design triple body, slip a power pack in the centre carriage with the raised floor, you could either delete the doors completely so people exit/enter via car 1 & 3 or have non compliant doors in the centre car (due to the raised floor).

 

[alexl92]

Please no more Hitachi products. They're so cosmetically boring!

 

[Rapidash]

Please no more Hitachi products. They're so cosmetically boring!

Which is pretty much an issue for spotters, photters and bashers alone

 

[Bletchleyite]

Please no more Hitachi products. They're so cosmetically boring!

I doubt the passengers of the North would care provided they have bogies, seats and a roof.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

I doubt the passengers of the North would care provided they have bogies, seats and a roof.

Priorities for me (as a passenger of the North) for Pacer replacement would be:
* More capacity
* Improved ride quality
* Improved seating in 2+2 formation
* Improvements allowing journey time improvements, such as better acceleration
* Better on board toilet facilities
* Luggage racks in more than 1 location on board

For me something like a nice external design is on a par with things like a screen on board showing a live interactive map of the journey as I've seen on the continent.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Priorities for me (as a passenger of the North) for Pacer replacement would be:
* More capacity
* Improved ride quality
* Improved seating in 2+2 formation
* Improvements allowing journey time improvements, such as better acceleration
* Better on board toilet facilities
* Luggage racks in more than 1 location on board

It would be difficult to build a modern 3-car DMU that did *not* improve all of these noticeably over a Pacer.

Neil

 

[Rapidash]

Priorities for me (as a passenger of the North) for Pacer replacement would be:
* More capacity
* Improved ride quality
* Improved seating in 2+2 formation
* Improvements allowing journey time improvements, such as better acceleration
* Better on board toilet facilities
* Luggage racks in more than 1 location on board

For me something like a nice external design is on a par with things like a screen on board showing a live interactive map of the journey as I've seen on the continent.

And I'll second that list as something us down in the South West would want as well.

 

[Rich McLean]

In the not overly distant future, the peaks in/out of Exeter will need to go 5 or 6 coaches long, as even the x2 150's are getting rammed full these days. The Sprogling Express somehow ends up full even when its headed down to Paignton, and that departs Exeter mid afternoon.

Think everywhere barring SJP/Exton could fit that?

Three carriages long, either Pacer or Sprinter as the norm would seem like an excellent idea to me, in my spectacularly-not-that-knowledgeable mind.

The Schools diagram was 143+143+143 but is now booked 143+143+150. Could all change again in December

 

[hurricanemk1c]

I'm sure you could find a smaller compliant engine, as far as IEP goes the engines are a 1000 bhp each, driving trailers are not designed for an underfloor engine so the shortest realistic IEP variant would be more likely a 4 car unit with 2000bhp, a 3 car unit with 1000bhp would probably be somewhat in adequate by modern standards and not very fault tolerant, the 4 car unit OK as possible bi-mode solution, but not as a pure DMU and probably not very cheap and probably want a 23m version rather than 26m

If you going to do that may as well just buy some bi-mode IEP for XC and cascade some Voyagers, but then you are potentially cascading some expensive trains to secondary routes. Railbuses are crap but they are also cheap and quite effective.

As well as pushing electrification I think we need to look at Tram Trains, and Battery 'O' Star

As far as I'm aware, all IEP stock have sloped floors to avoid an engine, be there one fitted or not. Economy of making one style of bodyshell for driving and antoher for trailers.

I'm not expecting any new DMU's except possibly small batches to fill in gaps, although these might work out as more expensive than electrifcation in the long term. For the Pacer refurbishment, it gives Porterbrook more options and TOC's more options for stock. Might be good for those holes in electrification

 

[47802]

As far as I'm aware, all IEP stock have sloped floors to avoid an engine, be there one fitted or not. Economy of making one style of bodyshell for driving and antoher for trailers.

I'm not expecting any new DMU's except possibly small batches to fill in gaps, although these might work out as more expensive than electrifcation in the long term. For the Pacer refurbishment, it gives Porterbrook more options and TOC's more options for stock. Might be good for those holes in electrification

You will notice there are significant differences in the design of the driving and non driving trailers anyway, as far as I am aware the driving trailers do not have sloping floors as per the trailer cars, I also assume that part of the driving trailers have lower roofs to accommodate the pantograph. The non driving trailer cars will have a sloping floor regardless of whether they have an engine fitted or not. Its probably why the wheelchair spaces are in the driving trailer I imagine that the sloping floor would be more difficult to accommodate in the driving trailer anyway as the doors are further from the ends to accommodate the cab at one end and the large toilet at the other.

 

[455driver]

you could either delete the doors completely so people exit/enter via car 1 & 3 or have non compliant doors in the centre car (due to the raised floor).

Neither would be acceptable and would never be approved.
The first because of fire regs (there are strict rules about locking doors out now so a coach with no doors would be a no no, and the second because of accessibility rules.

 

[The Ham]

Neither would be acceptable and would never be approved.
The first because of fire regs (there are strict rules about locking doors out now so a coach with no doors would be a no no, and the second because of accessibility rules.

I can't see why all the doors would have to be accessible, as not all doors to buildings have to be. Especially if the doors are not that far apart from each other.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Please no more Hitachi products. They're so cosmetically boring!

I think that most people would rather something turned up of a suitable capacity than for there to be nice looking trains which are rammed.

Also (given we're talking about pacers) are you saying that they are a nice looking train?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Interesting development that's been knocking around for a few years.

And the IEP has raised floors over the engines to accomodate the engine kit. Not sure about that. Also they have a length advantage - can't imagine any new build DMU (ever for the UK, but anyway) have 26m vehicles. It would have to be end doors if it has underfloor engines (to meet platform heights) which restrict flow on Pacer-style diagrams

But you could replace sprinters with the new 26m stock, which can then be cascaded to release pacers.

A potential route could be the SWT's line to Exeter, as it would be likely to need to be cleared (at least in parts) for IEP anyway. I doubt there would be a problem with finding a new home for the 159's.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Neither would be acceptable and would never be approved.
The first because of fire regs (there are strict rules about locking doors out now so a coach with no doors would be a no no, and the second because of accessibility rules.

I agree on the first (you get it in Switzerland, though I agree it wouldn't be approved in the UK and I don't personally like the idea of a vehicle with no doors). On the second...well...the IEP is clearly compliant. But I thought the "bump" was in the middle of the saloon, not at the ends? So perhaps a bit like a low floor bus in being sloped up?

Neil

 

[jon0844]

That's the problem, we need more diesels today but in 5-6 years time we may only need a handful as sprinters and turbostars released by electrification take over pacer duties.

Can't you build a train that is designed from the outset to make switching to electric as cheap and easy as possible n years down the line? At least you're then covered for any projects that slip, or unforeseen cascades etc.

 

[WatcherZero]

That's partly what IEP is, the diesel engines are removable if no longer required later in life and your just left with a standard carriage, albeit one with a slightly higher floor than an Electric carriage.

 

[SWTH]

In the not overly distant future, the peaks in/out of Exeter will need to go 5 or 6 coaches long, as even the x2 150's are getting rammed full these days. The Sprogling Express somehow ends up full even when its headed down to Paignton, and that departs Exeter mid afternoon.

Think everywhere barring SJP/Exton could fit that?

Three carriages long, either Pacer or Sprinter as the norm would seem like an excellent idea to me, in my spectacularly-not-that-knowledgeable mind.

The Schools diagram was 143+143+143 but is now booked 143+143+150. Could all change again in December

Quite a few stations can't accommodate six carriages:
Lympstone Village (4)
Lympstone Commando (4)
Exton (4)
Digby & Sowton (4)
St James Park (Local door only)
Newton St Cyres (Local door only)
Eggesford (3)