Porterbrook to create Pacer demonstrator (now unveiled)

[northwichcat]

Given that there maybe some need for single units why not keep a few a single units and convert a load into 3 coach sets for use on lines where 2 coach units are too busy?

Like I've already said in this thread Porterbrook think keeping 153s in single car formation post-2019 is non-economically viable and if they go ahead with the proposed 2 car 143/4s refurbishment then they'd only have 10% more seating than a 153, which is possibly one reason why Porterbrook are looking at the 143/4 refurbishment - so they have something on offer for the few remaining branch lines which still have low loadings.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If the 153s were becoming centre cars in 150s or in any other units, signing them shouldn't be an issue for drivers at the very least, as the cabs won't ever be leading, surely?

I was thinking the conductors would need to sign both types.

Also, if they are made to be 3 car (63m length) they may need to be moved to new routes due to capacity requirements and platform lengths.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Also, if they are made to be 3 car (63m length) they may need to be moved to new routes due to capacity requirements and platform lengths.

69m. But I think that is a given - a single 153 might be replaced with a refurbished Pacer or a 150. Ormskirk-Preston, say, has no need for 2x23m. 2x23m, or even 3x23m, might work well on the North West Express routes.

Neil

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Like I've already said in this thread Porterbrook think keeping 153s in single car formation post-2019 is non-economically viable and if they go ahead with the proposed 2 car 143/4s refurbishment then they'd only have 10% more seating than a 153, which is possibly one reason why Porterbrook are looking at the 143/4 refurbishment - so they have something on offer for the few remaining branch lines which still have low loadings.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I was thinking the conductors would need to sign both types.

Also, if they are made to be 3 car (63m length) they may need to be moved to new routes due to capacity requirements and platform lengths.

Quite right, conductors/guards would need training on them. If reformed to 155s as they were built, some routes currently barred to 153s might well be fine for 155s: Pompey is barred to 153s due to the steps below the doors at the former 'inner' end, as these steps would no longer be needed they could be removed. 155s of course regularly worked Cardiff to Portsmouth in the 1980s.

 

[Parallel]

Am I right in thinking 153s aren't cleared for south of Salisbury due to issues with the third rail?

Does anyone know where pacers are cleared to on this line, Warminster or possibly Salisbury?

 

[Rhydgaled]

Am I right in thinking 153s aren't cleared for south of Salisbury due to issues with the third rail?

I think I've seen one at Southampton, so probably not. I guess Southampton is therefore the nearest they get to Portsmouth.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Am I right in thinking 153s aren't cleared for south of Salisbury due to issues with the third rail?

Does anyone know where pacers are cleared to on this line, Warminster or possibly Salisbury?

I think the issue I mentioned with the 'new' sets of crew steps at the 'new' cab end does relate to the third rail. Though I'm not 100% sure.

 

[SprinterMan]

I think the issue I mentioned with the 'new' sets of crew steps at the 'new' cab end does relate to the third rail. Though I'm not 100% sure.

I don't think it's to do with the 3rd rail, AFAIK the new steps foul the platforms east of Southampton, hence they are not allowed to go there.

Adam

 

[northwichcat]

69m. But I think that is a given - a single 153 might be replaced with a refurbished Pacer or a 150. Ormskirk-Preston, say, has no need for 2x23m. 2x23m, or even 3x23m, might work well on the North West Express routes.

No. A 150 carriage is 20m long, so a 153+150 is 63m.

Most trains built with 3+2 seating have 20m carriages, the only diesel exception is the 16x which are only cleared for a limited number of routes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No. A 150 carriage is 20m long, so a 153+150 is 63m.

Ah, we are talking cross-purposes. I was talking of the idea of forming 3-car Class 155s, because I think going forward 3-6 is probably a more sensible combination of lengths than 2-4, as there will be increasingly fewer trains for which 2 is a suitable length, but probably plenty where 4 is too many. 153s can solve that as single units but not if combined into other units.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Ah, we are talking cross-purposes. I was talking of the idea of forming 3-car Class 155s, because I think going forward 3-6 is probably a more sensible combination of lengths than 2-4, as there will be increasingly fewer trains for which 2 is a suitable length, but probably plenty where 4 is too many. 153s can solve that as single units but not if combined into other units.

My post was responding to the post from 61653 HTAFC which I had quoted.

3 car 155s is a much better option as that would allow 156s to be used in 2/4 car formations and 155s to be used in 3/6 car formations or for a 155+156 to be used in a 5 car formation, so an almost range of options.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My post was responding to the post from 61653 HTAFC which I had quoted.

He said "or any other units". I don't see any sense in putting a 153 between two halves of 150 when you could just form them into 2 or 3-car units within the class (and if there's a spare one permanently couple it to a 156). But never mind

3 car 155s is a much better option as that would allow 156s to be used in 2/4 car formations and 155s to be used in 3/6 car formations or for a 155+156 to be used in a 5 car formation, so an almost range of options.

I agree

Neil

 

[jopsuk]

when talking train length it really does make more sense to talk about metres than carriages. After all, a two car class 142 is 31m whilst a 1 car class 153 is 23m! A 6-car pacer formation would be 93m, but a 6-car 153/155/156 formation would be 138m- the equivalent of a 9-car Pacer train!. 6-car 150 would be 120m.

Note that for London Crossrail was expected to be 10-car trains, but the winning Bombardier Aventra bid used longer trains so they're 200m, 9-car units as the actual specification was simply for 200m

 

[northwichcat]

when talking train length it really does make more sense to talk about metres than carriages. After all, a two car class 142 is 31m whilst a 1 car class 153 is 23m! A 6-car pacer formation would be 93m, but a 6-car 153/155/156 formation would be 138m- the equivalent of a 9-car Pacer train!. 6-car 150 would be 120m.

Agreed even though DfT always talk about carriage numbers when talking about cascades. I wonder when it comes to Pacers being withdrawn whether they'll start saying things like a 3 car Turbostar is equivalent to a 4 car Pacer or a 4 car 155/6/8 is equivalent to a 6 car Pacer.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

No worries. Northern or it's successor will need something to replace the 142s

But that is a matter for Angel Trains, not Porterbrook.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed even though DfT always talk about carriage numbers when talking about cascades. I wonder when it comes to Pacers being withdrawn whether they'll start saying things like a 3 car Turbostar is equivalent to a 4 car Pacer or a 4 car 155/6/8 is equivalent to a 6 car Pacer.

Well, it sort-of is. But if we are talking new DMUs, we are talking an improvement in service here on the background of growth despite a not so good service. So we need these to be a growth build, not just a seat-for-seat replacement, or nothing will be solved other than people having a slightly less bouncy train to stand in crush loaded conditions on.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But that is a matter for Angel Trains, not Porterbrook.

It's a matter for any leasing company. If Angel Trains terminate the leases on 142s, presumably Northern can go to the open market for a replacement - indeed, they would be mad not to.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Well, it sort-of is. But if we are talking new DMUs, we are talking an improvement in service here on the background of growth despite a not so good service. So we need these to be a growth build, not just a seat-for-seat replacement, or nothing will be solved other than people having a slightly less bouncy train to stand in crush loaded conditions on.

Yes we need more carriages not just replacement carriages but you could for instance say Northern will get an initial cascade of 13 x 3 car Turbostars, 10 of which can be used as direct replacement for 10 x 4 car 142 diagrams, then the other 3 are for extra capacity.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It's a matter for any leasing company. If Angel Trains terminate the leases on 142s, presumably Northern can go to the open market for a replacement - indeed, they would be mad not to.

Noting comments made in past days about the strictures so applying to Northern and the time period of the extension (or whatsoever other title maybe given) to the 2004 franchise, coupled with the time period that seems to be the accepted norm for having large-scale new or cascaded fleet replacements for the large numbers of the Class 142 units, also noting the word presumably that I have emboldened in your quote above, how is that time period for which I still need reassurances upon that this stated facility to be allowed in freedom seen when viewed with the still adamantly made statement that Angel Trains are not changing their mind with regard to their final date for the Class 142 units without a major upgrading programme.

 

[northwichcat]

It's a matter for any leasing company. If Angel Trains terminate the leases on 142s, presumably Northern can go to the open market for a replacement - indeed, they would be mad not to.

Only if DfT allow them to. They could just as easily say instruct SWT to issue an ITT for 158/9 replacement for both SWT and EMT and then let Northern take on the 158/9s currently at SWT and EMT as 142 replacement.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

A friend of mine has said the Super Pacer which will enable operation past 2020 will be in service in April.

 

[JaJaWa]

A friend of mine has said the Super Pacer which will enable operation past 2020 will be in service in April.

http://www.railmagazine.com/news/2015/02/12/porterbrook-s-rebuilt-pacer-set-to-enter-traffic-in-april

Porterbrook’s rebuilt Pacer set to enter traffic in April

A Class 144 Pacer modified to operate beyond 2020 will enter traffic in April, following a rebuild by Rail Vehicle Engineering Limited at its Derby workshops.

The scheme is being funded by Porterbrook, which owns the two-car diesel multiple unit (144012). The rolling stock leasing company is paying £800,000 for the project, but told RAIL on February 10: “We expect the full Class 144e specification to cost around £175,000 per vehicle; £350,000 for a two-car unit.

“This compares with an estimated cost for a new two-car DMU of £3.5 million to £4m, if you could find a manufacturer to build one. And the new train would be more expensive to maintain.”

Porterbrook says the Class 144 Evolution scheme “aims to transform perceptions of the Class 144 fleet by improving the exterior, upgrading the interior, and investing in the latest onboard technologies”.

Yes this was announced by Porterbrook.

 

[Stonesourscotty]

By the Sounds of that Article Porterbrook are scared of this underspecced scruffy London Underground Stock

 

[WatcherZero]

I think they announced the Pacer trial before Vivarail announced their trial.

 

[The Ham]

By the Sounds of that Article Porterbrook are scared of this underspecced scruffy London Underground Stock

Neither are likely to last for much beyond 2030 nor are they going to be suitable for many routes (mostly where there are existing services run by pacers or a few reopenings), it should also be seen in the light of the fact that it is only Porterbrook currently have any (public) plans for life extending their pacers, meaning that there is likely to be enough of a market for both.

 

[northwichcat]

No misleading facts in that Porterbrook claim then.

A 3 car Pacer could be replaced by a new build DMU for under £4m without any capacity reduction due to the short (15.5m) carriages on a Pacer. However, they compare a 2 car Pacer with the estimated cost of a new 2 car train with 23.7m carriages.

 

[Rhydgaled]

A 3 car Pacer could be replaced by a new build DMU for under £4m without any capacity reduction due to the short (15.5m) carriages on a Pacer. However, they compare a 2 car Pacer with the estimated cost of a new 2 car train with 23.7m carriages.

There's aren't many 3-car Pacers though... A new-build TSI-PRM-compliant unit would probably have to be 40m (2x 20m) to be a decent replacement for an unmodified 2-car Pacer, since a new unit will have an accessible toilet and likely have more doors per vehicle than a Pacer.

 

[route:oxford]

No misleading facts in that Porterbrook claim then.

A 3 car Pacer could be replaced by a new build DMU for under £4m without any capacity reduction due to the short (15.5m) carriages on a Pacer. However, they compare a 2 car Pacer with the estimated cost of a new 2 car train with 23.7m carriages.

How much would a new 2-car train made of 2 15.5m coach cost in comparison to a new 2-car train made of 23.7m coach length?

Only by analysing this comparison can we judge whether Porterbrook's 2 for 2 is reasonable.

 

[northwichcat]

How much would a new 2-car train made of 2 15.5m coach cost in comparison to a new 2-car train made of 23.7m coach length?

Only by analysing this comparison can we judge whether Porterbrook's 2 for 2 is reasonable.

The cost Porterbrook have suggested seems to be the rough costs that were given by Bombardier for the class 172s - the larger the order the lower the cost per carriage.

No-one would likely consider a new 15.5m train for general use. The closest you'd get to a new Pacer would probably be a PPM 175: http://www.parrypeoplemovers.com/PPM175-spec.htm which is less versatile than a Pacer but could be used on selected branch lines instead of a Pacer.

Maybe if you got the price of a PPM 175 and the price of a 2 car 172 and found the average you'd have a rough idea of what a new Pacer equivalent would cost?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There's aren't many 3-car Pacers though... A new-build TSI-PRM-compliant unit would probably have to be 40m (2x 20m) to be a decent replacement for an unmodified 2-car Pacer, since a new unit will have an accessible toilet and likely have more doors per vehicle than a Pacer.

They are comparing apples with pears. Comparing a 3 car 144 with the cost of a new 2 car Turbostar is a fair comparison, whether there are many 3 car 144s or not. You could also compare the cost of a new 3 car Turbostars with the cost of a pair of 2 car Pacers if you'd prefer. Most new trains have a 23.7 or 23.8m carriages unless they have 3+2 seating or are based on a previous order which had 3+2 seating (like the 350/4s being based on 350/1s which were originally ordered as 450s.)

If you just compare 1 carriage with 1 carriage you could say a M5000 tram would be cheaper than a 2 car version of a 387.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you just compare 1 carriage with 1 carriage you could say a M5000 tram would be cheaper than a 2 car version of a 387.

An M5000 tram with a diesel engine and beefed-up crashworthiness is probably the kind of form a modern day Pacer would take, if one were to be built, IMO. Perhaps a 3-section one for a bit more capacity. Would be quite a nice unit and very suitable for branch lines.

Neil

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'm looking forward to seeing the 'Super Pacer' in action, presumably it will return to the Yorkshire area for testing, where crews are already passed on 144s... How are Northern coping with a 144 missing, I wonder?

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Wouldn't it make sense to add a third car onto these Super Pacers if capacity is not increased?
I have been looking at the PPM newsletter and published data for ages now. They have very interesting concepts for lightly used rail lines. And also cheap tram/pretend heritage ideas which would make new rolling stock affordable.

As much as I want to see the Super Pacer I think it's time for new railbuses for Northernland and Devon.