-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Porterbrook to create Pacer demonstrator (now unveiled)
- Thread starter northwichcat
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Blindtraveler
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 10,544
What is actually being done in this refit? I didnt keep up with the previous thread so am a bit behind. Assume most of it is compliance related?
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
Deleted. No longer relevant due to threads being merged. Thanks.
Last edited:
That sounds like an intention, (strangely enough there is a general election in a few weeks), but wait and see the reaction when the bidders give the cost of the requirement. Then there is the treasury under whichever coalition we have for the next five years.
There may be a trade off against meeting the ITT timetable specs., so I don't think the Pacers are dead yet provided they meet the only legal requirements, i.e. accessibility regs. (possibly with derogation for work in progress) by 2020. That would be a consideration of any ROSCO.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I guess the new Government could move the goalposts on the Northern franchise. However they would then have to delay the process, extend the interim franchise arrangement and possibly pay compensation to the bidders.
I can't see Labour doing this, as their party runs most of the authorities in the North who have been pushing for Pacer replacement. The Tory SoS has just overruled the civil servants to impose Pacer replacement despite the poor business case for doing so, and it would be the height of cynicism for any incoming Tory government to backtrack on it. Nor can I see any of the smaller parties that might have influence in a coalition wanting to do so, with the possible exception of UKIP who are an unknown quantity as far as I'm concerned.
I can't see Labour doing this, as their party runs most of the authorities in the North who have been pushing for Pacer replacement. The Tory SoS has just overruled the civil servants to impose Pacer replacement despite the poor business case for doing so, and it would be the height of cynicism for any incoming Tory government to backtrack on it. Nor can I see any of the smaller parties that might have influence in a coalition wanting to do so, with the possible exception of UKIP who are an unknown quantity as far as I'm concerned.
Last edited:
RichmondCommu
Established Member
Four and a half years is a long time. I realise that the capital investment budget is limited but at least some of the worst examples of the class 142 could be replaced.
Last edited:
Yes, goalposts have moved (in this pre-election phase of the electoral cycle) since this project was launched... They could move again... And Edwin M gives consideration to possible outcomes...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Would it be advantageous to merge this thread with the previous one, to avoid unnecessarily covering old ground..?
Last edited:
I agree - I think Porterbook have been too late with this and the TOCs that operate pacers have probably already put plans into place to replace them. Assuming Northern/Arriva Trains Wales get most of the 150s/153s available from First Great Western, there is still likely to be a shortfall once all the 142s (+143s if necessary) are removed. That said, a fleet of nicely refurbished 144s (+143s if they are, too) shuttling up and down the Valleys would be better than the 142s that currently operate there.
Though with how notoriously busy the valley lines are around peak times, pacers could perhaps work in 6 car formations along the busier routes.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
The Valley Lines are being electrified. Assuming that happens I really can't see a role for Pacers as they are even less suitable for anything else on ATW.
I have merged the 2 threads, can I ask that members use the report function in these situations - I've just come across this by chance, there's so much content on the forum that we'll never be able to read everything!
They to be electrified yes, but the question is when. It is looking likely that it will be a CP6 scheme, so would happen after 2020. I also wonder whether refurbished Pacers could be a cheap way of doing a trial (re)opening of lines in the Swansea area, such as the Gwaun-Cae-Gurwen branch. Other routes in that area though (such as Aberdare/Glyn-Neath to Swansea) might be better off with low-floor dual-voltage tram-trains.
I think the platforms on some ValleyLines routes can take 6x 20m vehicles, the others only 4x 20m. Thus a 6-car Pacer (I think they are 15m vehicles) would probably be 10m too long for some platforms and 30m shorter than the available platform length on the busier routes. Perhaps they could run 8-car Pacer formations on the long-platform routes and 4-car 150s on the other routes?
northwichcat
Veteran Member
Given there's no off-the-shelf replacements that can be ordered it really isn't.
Siemens were awarded the contract to build 185s (a new design of train) in August 2003, the first 185s entered service in March 2006, with the last 185s not entering service until January 2007. So it took 3.5 years to get them all in service.
The Northern Rail winning bidder is expected to be chosen in late 2015, so using the same time scales as the 185 order it'll be mid-2019 before the new trains are all in passenger service, while they have until December 2019 to get rid of the Pacers.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I would have thought Borderlands, Conwy Valley and Crewe-Chester would be more suitable for Pacers than services running in the largest city in Wales.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
At five diagrams that's a bit of a micro-fleet.
northwichcat
Veteran Member
Plans only exist to refurbish 143s and 144s which isn't a cheap job and will reduce the capacity of trains which already have very low capacity. I've heard the ePacer will still need minor exemption orders to remain in service post-2019 but DfT were said to be willing to consider minor exemption orders at the time the ePacer was started on.
The easiest way of getting rid of 142s is to allow a new order for Northern so their large fleet of worn out trains (which are frequently overcrowded) can be replaced. ATW's small 142 fleet can be replaced by a cascade of either the FGW 150/1s or one or more of 143s or 144s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Crewe-Shrewsbury would possibly be another one.
ATW do have just 8 x 153s currently and some Welsh people's dream for all ATW services to be 158s or 175s long-term looks unlikely with Network Rail having said no to 158s on Conwy Valley and Borderlands.
Actually, I think that's a good point about micro-fleets, which counters my suggestion earlier of using Pacers to trial new services in the Swansea area. At 1hr 15mins, at best, I think Llandundo to Blaenau Ffestiniog is a bit too long to be on a Pacer also, except perhaps if something significant is done about the legroom, in which case you might need 4-car Pacers to handle the loadings.
Perhaps the new W&B franchise should aim at three diesel types, 175 and 158 for express services (eg. Cambrian, north-south, Manchester services, Cardiff-Pembs.) and refurbished Super Sprinters (153, 155 or 156) with improved legroom for the rest (eg. HOWL, Conwy Valley, Swansea-Pembs.)
Yeah much better to scrap the perfectly usable 143/144s and then try to squeeze everyone into a crush loaded 150 etc (if they can physically get on) than travel on a 143/144 (refurbished or not) wouldn't they! :roll:
If you want to scrap them then please post your alternatives to provide the same capacity within the same budget!
If you cant do that then please shut up, this is all about providing capacity at an affordable price!
Last edited:
Techniquest
Veteran Member
Scrapping 442s, yes I wouldn't argue with that, but scrapping the 144s when they still have useful life in them yet is stupid.
Not long until we get to see what they've done with 144012, hopefully they've done a good job on it!
Not long until we get to see what they've done with 144012, hopefully they've done a good job on it!
I'm inclined to agree with that. However, given that they will be seeing a reduction in capacity - and given that 2 carriage Pacers already aren't fit for purpose in terms of capacity on most Northern routes, I'd rather see them permanently doubled up.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I guess the answer to the questions posed here may depend on what the successful bidder for Northern does. Assuming the new Government doesn't renege on the spec, they have to lease 120 new self-powered vehicles and replace all their Pacers but I think we've agreed that the one won't be enough to do the other.
To my mind they have three choices:
- Lease more than 120 new vehicles, increasing costs significantly, and hope they win out on quality.
- Lease some D78s in addition to the new vehicles, assuming they can find enough suitable duties for them to replace the remainder of the Pacer fleet.
- Sign up for some cascaded 15x units due to come off lease with other operators before the Pacer deadline. The replacements for those franchises would then have to lease new-builds, D78s or even refurbished Pacers to fill the gap.
To my mind they have three choices:
- Lease more than 120 new vehicles, increasing costs significantly, and hope they win out on quality.
- Lease some D78s in addition to the new vehicles, assuming they can find enough suitable duties for them to replace the remainder of the Pacer fleet.
- Sign up for some cascaded 15x units due to come off lease with other operators before the Pacer deadline. The replacements for those franchises would then have to lease new-builds, D78s or even refurbished Pacers to fill the gap.
Sheffield to Huddersfield is at least 1hr 13 and the Sheffield to Leeds stopper can take 1hr 20 - knock yourself out, your welcome to our Pacers once we have something to replace them
I agree. I've found the 144s pleasant to travel on and I think it's great that Porterbrook has proposed extending their service life with the refurbishment. I'm hoping to make a trip to Sheffield to get a ride on it once it's back in traffic
Hopefully more follow after 144012 as well!
Last edited:
Yes.
Pretty much how I see it.. But summarised a lot more neatly and succinctly than I could've managed !
The ITT is quite clear lets hope its stuck to. I'm sick of the 3rd rate train service provided to Northern England a population of 15 million its a national disgrace.
So why don't you shut up until you can up with something more useful to say, 35 years is more than enough for these trains
Last edited:
Oh, I wasn't suggesting Pacers are currently only used on short trips. They are used for Swansea-Pembroke Dock which takes almost 2 and a quarter hours and I wouldn't be supprised if Northern use them on something that takes even longer. I was just saying that, if some Pacers are kept, I would like to see them restricted to fairly short journies.Sheffield to Huddersfield is at least 1hr 13 and the Sheffield to Leeds stopper can take 1hr 20 - knock yourself out, your welcome to our Pacers once we have something to replace them
Well just remember that there's an election and many of the promises made in the last 6 months will turn out to be just that, promises, a little bit hollow maybe. That means that HS3, (which has never been defined anyway) and Pacer removal, (I'm sure that only MPs who have complaints in their in-trays knew what they were before the media blew the story up on a quiet news day), are both at risk.
Just because Pacer removal is mentioned (in an oblique way) in the ITT, it doesn't mean that they will be replaced, especially when the cost of EU compliant DMUs embarasses their budgets, and the Porterbrook proposal provides a functional, legally compliant solution at a more reasonable cost until more existing DMUs are released from other TOCs. That would serve their purpose until after the next general election.
WillPS
Established Member
... and the 2020 DDA regs?
Well yes... The whole point of the work being done on this trial refurbishment is to make 143s/144s compliant and available for use post-2020...
Goalposts have since moved.. they may move again..
And no such compliance work was considered cost-effective for 142s, it seems..
northwichcat
Veteran Member
I think you've missed something key.
The Northern ITT says bidders can propose to use 15xs and 17xs which will be released by their current franchises. Scotrail are planning to release 10 x 2 car 156s, 8 x 2 car 158s and 29 x 3 car 170s by the end of 2018.
The new build plus the Sprinters released by Scotrail should be sufficient number of carriages to withdraw all but one of the 142s. Taking on the 170s would then be enough carriages to withdraw the remaining Pacers, plus add come additional diesel carriages to the franchise.
The additional would be required to make the proposed December 2019 enhancements like extending some Calder Vale services to the Airport. I think we have to presume the December 2017 enhancements on non-electrified lines would have to be made using existing Northern DMUs released by North West electrification.
FGW recently announced their plan is to release 15 x 150/1s and 14 x 153s but I imagine they'll go directly/indirectly to another franchise. I also predict they'll be an add-on option on the new self-powered trains order, which will allow more trains to be ordered when other franchises come up for renewal without going through the tendering process again (meaning quicker delivery.)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
That plan exists for 23 x 144s with Northern, 15 x 143s with ATW and 8 x 143s with FGW.
So the first thing is you still need something to replace the 79 x 142s with Northern and the 15 x 142s with ATW, which are heading for the scrapheap regardless of any Porterbrook plans for ePacers.
I identified the Sprinters and Turbostars being released in my previous post. At a real push you can get enough released carriages to replace 76 x 142s, assuming a 3 car Turbostar replaces a doubled up Pacer formation - which may not work in practice if the diagrams involve the formations splitting.
That leaves you with 18 x 142s to replace while FGW will release 8 x 143s. However, there's a big issue with replacing Northern's 2 car Pacers with 2 car ePacers in that the seating capacity is reduced by up to 35%, so you'd need 4 Pacer carriages to replace 3 meaning the shortfall is much bigger than it appears at first glance. You also don't have any spare carriages to combat the loss in capacity with making 150s accessible.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
It would be lovely if Northern Rail didn't operate Pacers on lines simply because 1 hour 15 is too long to spend on a Pacer.
Wait a minute I thought Conwy Valley services were 153s and 150s (with low density seating), a 4 car ePacer would be a big increase in capacity. What about the 3 car 144s?
One of the reasons Network Rail rejected 158 use on Conwy Valley and Borderlands was dwell times would be too long. While the 155 and 156 doors can open and close a bit quicker than 158 doors I'm not sure it wouldn't affect dwell times still.
Last edited by a moderator:
This oft-mentioned "new build order", does it exist? So somebody has a price, a delivery schedule and most importantly, budget to commit?
There is a lot of wishful thinking here and so near to a general election of which nobody knows how it will change government. An ITT is just that, an invitation to tender. Of course there could be consequential costs if the scope was changed when the costs of the bids were seen, but the DfT haven't done that before have they?
The cost of a fully compliant DMU design in relatively small quantities may be far above expectations and may signal a further push to release more existing stock by advancing the electrification programme.
Porterbrook may be kite-flying but I doubt that the demonstrtor exercise is purely speculative and there would be a sound business opportunity to life extend what some here who aren't riven with hatred of Pacers in general, see as reasonable stock for some services.
Pacers have the benefit of being here already and could be compliant with all legal requirements (including DDA 2020 if it needs to be spelt out separately for some) with relatively low-cost modification.
There is a lot of wishful thinking here and so near to a general election of which nobody knows how it will change government. An ITT is just that, an invitation to tender. Of course there could be consequential costs if the scope was changed when the costs of the bids were seen, but the DfT haven't done that before have they?
The cost of a fully compliant DMU design in relatively small quantities may be far above expectations and may signal a further push to release more existing stock by advancing the electrification programme.
Porterbrook may be kite-flying but I doubt that the demonstrtor exercise is purely speculative and there would be a sound business opportunity to life extend what some here who aren't riven with hatred of Pacers in general, see as reasonable stock for some services.
Pacers have the benefit of being here already and could be compliant with all legal requirements (including DDA 2020 if it needs to be spelt out separately for some) with relatively low-cost modification.
- Status