Porterbrook to create Pacer demonstrator (now unveiled)

[northwichcat]

With yesterday's announcements about electrification "pauses", the need for pacers (and indeed D-78s) well into the 2020s is looking more likely. As a result there's suddenly going to be a much more promising business case for both. I'd even be expecting a revision of the ITT for the new Northern franchise, with the scrapping of the "no Pacers" condition.

The minimum of 120 brand new carriages for Northern presumed that would be enough for Northern to withdraw all the Pacers if they got those plus the DMUs released by FGW and Scotrail in service before December 2019. Are you saying that is unlikely to happen now? It was previously presumed the last of those new and cascaded trains would be available for Northern to use by December 2018.

I notice Tony Miles has suggested loco-hauled 442s for TPE is now looking very probable.

 

[47802]

The minimum of 120 brand new carriages for Northern presumed that would be enough for Northern to withdraw all the Pacers if they got those plus the DMUs released by FGW and Scotrail in service before December 2019. Are you saying that is unlikely to happen now? It was previously presumed the last of those new and cascaded trains would be available for Northern to use by December 2018.

I notice Tony Miles has suggested loco-hauled 442s for TPE is now looking very probable.

I can not say I rate the 442 option much but I guess if not using them meant some railbuses being kept its a more preferable option, and does Tony Miles have any evidence for that or is it just speculation? still you can never have enough debate about 442's on this forum

I don't see why ScotRail shouldn't be able to get its HST's by December 2019, even if the GW Electric only IEP are delayed, there should be enough Bi-Mode IEP and South West AT300's introduced to release most if not all the required HST's.

 

[455driver]

The South West isn't getting AT300s, the decision has not been made yet!

This must be the 20th time this fact has been posted but some posters still don't seem to understand it! :roll:

 

[47802]

The South West isn't getting AT300s, the decision has not been made yet!

This must be the 20th time this fact has been posted but some posters still don't seem to understand it! :roll:

I understand perfectly well that its not yet a done deal but given the Transport Minister said this in his statement

'For passengers in the south west the new contract with First Great Western will provide significant extra capacity.
I hope to be able to announce news on further new trains for the region soon.'

I would be extremely surprised if it doesn't happen

 

[455driver]

I understand perfectly well that its not yet a done deal but given the Transport Minister said this in his statement

'For passengers in the south west the new contract with First Great Western will provide significant extra capacity.
I hope to be able to announce news on further new trains for the region soon.'

I would be extremely surprised if it doesn't happen

He will be announcing the arrival of the 158s, they will be 'new' trains for the region!

New in government speak does not mean brand new, it never has and it never will!

 

[northwichcat]

The South West isn't getting AT300s, the decision has not been made yet!

This must be the 20th time this fact has been posted but some posters still don't seem to understand it! :roll:

The original press release said DfT and FGW are in negotiations over an order AT300s which should be concluded by the end of June. I doubt DfT would have made that public if it wasn't very likely to go ahead.

 

[47802]

He will be announcing the arrival of the 158s, they will be 'new' trains for the region!

New in government speak does not mean brand new, it never has and it never will!

Rubbish the South west will get AT300's I will donate 15 pounds to a rail preservation group if i'm wrong.

 

[Haydn1971]

The original press release said DfT and FGW are in negotiations over an order AT300s which should be concluded by the end of June. I doubt DfT would have made that public if it wasn't very likely to go ahead.

To be fair, the DfT haven't a good record this week on "stuff" - Pausing electrification, huge increase in road casualties and deaths, problems on HS2 risks - adding another bad news story wouldn't hurt anymore this month.

 

[455driver]

The original press release said DfT and FGW are in negotiations over an order AT300s which should be concluded by the end of June. I doubt DfT would have made that public if it wasn't very likely to go ahead.

If it is a done deal why has the decision been deferred?

The Government will put out anything before an election in the hope that the gullible will vote for them, once the election is out of the way they then 'clarify' what they actually meant!

Anyone remember back in the late 1990s Liebore stating they would renationalise the railways if elected, they got elected and 12 years later (and many many re-franchises) the railways were still privatised!

You believe what they say at face value if you like, those of us with a bit more experience will treat the statement with the contempt it deserves.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Rubbish the South west will get AT300's I will donate 15 pounds to a rail preservation group if i'm wrong.

Can I nominate the Devon Diesel Society at the South Devon Railway then!

 

[northwichcat]

To be fair, the DfT haven't a good record this week on "stuff" - Pausing electrification, huge increase in road casualties and deaths, problems on HS2 risks - adding another bad news story wouldn't hurt anymore this month.

DfT knew about electrification delays before they even said anything about AT300s for FGW.

The TPE ITT said about electrification of Manchester-York being 'some time no earlier than December 2020' opposed to the December 2018 previously announced and asked bidders to prepare plans based on electrification not be completed during the duration of the next franchise. They also made reference to 442s being available for TPE bidders but nothing about 222s that would have been expected to be released by EMT if MML electrification had been on time.

 

[Tommy1581]

Can I nominate the Devon Diesel Society at the South Devon Railway then!

What?

Pacer Preservation Society all the way...!

 

[47802]

If it is a done deal why has the decision been deferred?

The Government will put out any old crap before an election in the hope that the gullible will vote for them, once the election is out of the way they then 'clarify' what they actually meant!

Anyone remember back in the late 1990s Liebore stating they would renationalise the railways if elected, they got elected and 12 years later (and many many re-franchises) the railways were still privatised!

You believe what they say at face value if you like, those of us with a bit more experience will treat the statement with the contempt it deserves.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Can I nominate the Devon Diesel Society at the South Devon Railway then!

If you like but I think my money will be safe, presumably the numbers must add up reasonably well for them to consider it, and expect the Dft will be keen on it because if it doesn't happen then it potentially stuff's up the cascade strategy with Electrification so far behind and as Jcollins says Dft must have had some idea for a while of how far behind Electrification is.

 

[Smudger105e]

I think this thread has wandered slightly from the original discussion!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

What?

Pacer Preservation Society all the way...!

With the electrification pause, the Department for Transport is doing a good job of preserving pacers!

 

[edwin_m]

I can't see that the electrification "pause" makes any difference to the Pacer replacement situation. As I understand it the TPE bid already assumes no electrification within the franchise term, and none of the Northern routes is affected by the "pause".

The Great Western electrification is still supposed to release 15x units that might go to Northern (depending on what bidders assume) and the "pause" of the other schemes makes it more rather than less likely that GW will release these units as expected. MML electrification was never expected to release any 15x units so this isn't going to make any difference either. Unless a bidder has a really bizarre plan to make use of 222s, but these were never planned to be freed up before the Pacer replacement deadline anyway.

Interestingly for conspiracy theories, deferring Great Western instead of TPE or MML would have had a much greater impact on the Northern franchise by removing the source of cascaded DMUs.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I can't see that the electrification "pause" makes any difference to the Pacer replacement situation. As I understand it the TPE bid already assumes no electrification within the franchise term, and none of the Northern routes is affected by the "pause".

The Great Western electrification is still supposed to release 15x units that might go to Northern (depending on what bidders assume) and the "pause" of the other schemes makes it more rather than less likely that GW will release these units as expected. MML electrification was never expected to release any 15x units so this isn't going to make any difference either. Unless a bidder has a really bizarre plan to make use of 222s, but these were never planned to be freed up before the Pacer replacement deadline anyway.

Interestingly for conspiracy theories, deferring Great Western instead of TPE or MML would have had a much greater impact on the Northern franchise by removing the source of cascaded DMUs.

You're quite right, I suppose... I guess I was looking more at the subsequent franchise (assuming there's no structural change to the industry) and the impact not so much on Transpennine services themselves but on the local services along the same lines. The delay to the Ordsall Curve project is as likely to have an effect as the deferral of electrification on those services.

 

[Haydn1971]

Interestingly for conspiracy theories, deferring Great Western instead of TPE or MML would have had a much greater impact on the Northern franchise by removing the source of cascaded DMUs.

Very good point... we just need some more DMU's to get the TPE services up to a minimum of six cars on all services.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Very good point... we just need some more DMU's to get the TPE services up to a minimum of six cars on all services.

Can't cars from East Coast IC 225 trains be altered to fit with 185s cheaply? As they will be replaced by IEP.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Can't cars from East Coast IC 225 trains be altered to fit with 185s cheaply? As they will be replaced by IEP.

Not really, no. But it may be an option to haul them using 67 or 68s and double the 185s up.

 

[Haydn1971]

Not really, no. But it may be an option to haul them using 67 or 68s and double the 185s up.

Although this would blow apart the dwell time savings of the 185's

 

[alexl92]

A rumour on twitter, and I openly admit that I do not know the reliability of the source, states that DRS are looking to order further class 68s with up to 20 being used for TPE...

Again, I must emphasise that I have no idea how reliable this source is.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Although this would blow apart the dwell time savings of the 185's

I'd imagine most TPE customers would accept a reduction back to 4tph rather than the current 5 if it meant that the trains had ample capacity instead. I certainly would.

 

[Haydn1971]

I'd imagine most TPE customers would accept a reduction back to 4tph rather than the current 5 if it meant that the trains had ample capacity instead. I certainly would.

That very much depends on the total seats available now vs using loco hauled. I'm led to believe that some Leeds-Manchester services are running as three car units, so assuming two 3 car units and three 6 car units gives 1352 seats, per hour, vs 676 (2x six car 185's) plus 832 (5std Mk4's plus 1fst inc an accessible toilet in both classes) gives 1508 seats per hour - You'd get far more standing in a 185, so would using loco hauled on Leeds-Manchester actually give you more capacity - I'm not convinced - this is also assuming 6 Mk4's plus a loco and a DVT would be able to operate through all stations on TP North !

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I'd imagine any use of end-door stock anywhere on TPE would be on Hope Valley or North-west/Scotland services to free up extra 185s for the Standedge route. This includes the often-cited 68+442 lash-ups.

 

[Hophead]

I'd imagine any use of end-door stock anywhere on TPE would be on Hope Valley or North-west/Scotland services to free up extra 185s for the Standedge route. This includes the often-cited 68+442 lash-ups.

It's been my expectation for a while now that 442+loco will be proposed by one or more TPE bidders for the South Trans-Pennine route. And, as you say, that will see more 6-car services on the North Trans-Pennine, as well as dealing with the departure of the remaining 170s.

I acknowledge that this has next to nothing to do with Porterbrook's Pacer demonstrator, which is the nominal subject of the thread.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It's been my expectation for a while now that 442+loco will be proposed by one or more TPE bidders for the South Trans-Pennine route. And, as you say, that will see more 6-car services on the North Trans-Pennine, as well as dealing with the departure of the remaining 170s.

I acknowledge that this has next to nothing to do with Porterbrook's Pacer demonstrator, which is the nominal subject of the thread.

Indeed I'd momentarily forgotten which thread I was on. Apologies all round!

 

[Haydn1971]

I'd imagine any use of end-door stock anywhere on TPE would be on Hope Valley or North-west/Scotland services to free up extra 185s for the Standedge route. This includes the often-cited 68+442 lash-ups.

That may be the case, but the suggestion of Alexl92 was reducing the hourly trains from 5 to 4 in response to my comment about dwell times, which was a pointer to using them in TP North

 

[route:oxford]

I'd imagine any use of end-door stock anywhere on TPE would be on Hope Valley or North-west/Scotland services to free up extra 185s for the Standedge route. This includes the often-cited 68+442 lash-ups.

The 68+442 Combi would offer a very comfortable journey option on the Scotland-Manchester route.

Won't this cause considerable anxiety for enthusiasts though with diesel under the wires? Any chance of 88s?

 

[northwichcat]

The 68+442 Combi would offer a very comfortable journey option on the Scotland-Manchester route.

Won't this cause considerable anxiety for enthusiasts though with diesel under the wires? Any chance of 88s?

If you look at the thread on wnxx a number of enthusiasts are saying 442s will never appear on Scottish services, only North TPE and are refusing to explain their reason for saying that.

An issue with loco-hauled 442s on Scottish services could be the proposed portion working options, but then multiple units could be used on the services which join/split and 442s on the rest. However, the issue might then be the operator may not want a micro fleet of electric locos.

 

[158722]

Meanwhile, back in 144e discussion land...

If this is deemed successful and necessary (i.e. need to make some of the Pacer fleets fit for post 2020 operation), what could be the impact?

Given the terms of the Northern franchise to be rid of Pacers and GW wiring to free up some Thames valley 165/166s for cascading 143s and 150s away from the west, I'd suggest the 8x GW 143s go to Wales to displace a similar number of 142s for scrap. The entire 144 fleet also move to Wales, displacing the remaining 142s and their 153s, plus giving an overall fleet increase, which has been desirable. 23 units (38 vehicles) out, 31 units (72 vehicles in) with 143/144s concentrated on the valleys with a few 150s moved to replaced the 153s elsewhere.

Northern loose 56 vehicles, but receive 17 150/1s from FGW (34 vehicles) and the 8x Welsh 153s - a net loss, but Northern, as we know, should expect some new vehicles and cascaded 156s, 158s and possibly 170s from ScotRail, plus the benefits of the remaining wiring plans.

Of course, much of this depends on the wider impact of delayed electrification plans all over the country...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If you look at the thread on wnxx a number of enthusiasts are saying 442s will never appear on Scottish services, only North TPE and are refusing to explain their reason for saying that.

An issue with loco-hauled 442s on Scottish services could be the proposed portion working options, but then multiple units could be used on the services which join/split and 442s on the rest. However, the issue might then be the operator may not want a micro fleet of electric locos.

Indeed, the quote I've been given is specifically for Liverpool-Newcastle services. Also of note is that 8x 442s are expected to be retained by TSGN for a couple of peak time Eastbourne diagrams, hence only 16 units available for use as hauled stock. Covering all hourly Liverpool-Newcastle turns would seem to suggest 8 diagrams required.

 

[47802]

The 68+442 Combi would offer a very comfortable journey option on the Scotland-Manchester route.

Won't this cause considerable anxiety for enthusiasts though with diesel under the wires? Any chance of 88s?

I would imagine that putting a newly electrified route back to Diesel would be politically unacceptable, and that's ignoring the clause in the TPX ITT which states that services which have their entire journeys on an electrified route must be 90% worked by electric traction, obviously it wouldn't stop 442's being worked with an electric loco but its not freeing up much in the way of diesel capacity which is the key issue, so Newcastle Liverpool may be a possibility, although I think a Bi-mode option should be considered, and the 442's can form a useful function as scrap.

Wonder how long it will take for people to start moaning about the seats on the 144e given they are similar to those on the 377/6 and 387's