Northern franchise awarded to Arriva.

[swt_passenger]

To add, I'm really rather pleased to be proven correct on the need for new DMU's - something the armchair experts in here got so badly wrong. For nearly two years we've had this closed mind by several members that new DMU's aren't required due to the 100's of cascaded 80's and 90's EMU's that we're going to save the day !

Really? I would have thought that view lapsed completely as soon as DfT put that fairly well publicised requirement for 120 new DMU vehicles into the ITT?

 

[yorksrob]

To be fair, I think that the majority on this forum recognised the need for new regional DMU's long before the Establishment cottoned on.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Really? I would have thought that view lapsed completely as soon as DfT put that fairly well publicised requirement for 120 new DMU vehicles into the ITT?

New DMUs have been required for ages. But what those new DMUs should do is supplement, not replace, the existing utterly inadequate fleet.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

New DMUs have been required for ages. But what those new DMUs should do is supplement, not replace, the existing utterly inadequate fleet.

It's just anything for you to complain about, isn't it ?

Pacers are life expired - they're both unreliable and unsafe, they have no place on a modern network where them failing in a platform or across a busy junction can result in significant disruption. Oh, and of course, disabled people can't quickly and easily board them, even with that ridiculous modified waste of time and space that is the Pacer e144 or whatever stupid name Porterbrook managed to think up in between their lectures on legalised extortion and getting money for old rope.

But just carry on waffling on about things you really don't understand, it's quite funny, in a sad sort of way.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

To say there's a whole day need for 3 or 4 car units is simply not true - given the cost of new trains, the new units will have to operate at 90-100% capacity as much as possible, sadly, I'm still expecting standing on some services after the new fleets are introduced, hopefully this will be for just the last links into major destinations.

The thing is, there are/will be loads of 2-car 15x trains hanging around after Northern has got its new trains and wiped out the Pacers.
What I doubt is that new 2-car trains are a good idea when the new trains will be put on the key regional routes, not pottering up local branches.
But no doubt the financial equation didn't add up.

Another worthwhile approach would be putting 2x2-car on (say) Manchester-Cumbria services, with the train splitting at Lancaster for Windermere/Barrow.
But Northern don't generally go in for that sort of thing.
ATW do it to a degree - splitting 4-car 158s from Birmingham into 2x2 at Shrewsbury or Chester for instance.

 

[northwichcat]

New DMUs have been required for ages. But what those new DMUs should do is supplement, not replace, the existing utterly inadequate fleet.

The Northern Pacers have to go by the end of 2019, some of the routes which will get new trains such as Calder Vale, Southport and Sheffield-Lincoln currently get Pacers, others like Leeds-Nottingham never see Pacers so some of the new trains will directly replace Pacers, others will replace Sprinters which can then be deployed on other services.

The other Pacers will be replaced either as a result of electrification or as an indirect result of electrification e.g. Central Belt electrification in Scotland freeing up DMUs including 29 x 170s. If my local line gets some of those cascaded 170s I won't be complaining about poor quality or unsuitable DMUs being used on the services.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The thing is, there are/will be loads of 2-car 15x trains hanging around after Northern has got its new trains and wiped out the Pacers.
What I doubt is that new 2-car trains are a good idea when the new trains will be put on the key regional routes, not pottering up local branches.
But no doubt the financial equation didn't add up.

One thing to consider across Britain as a whole is if the new trains have 23m carriages (which most of us probably hope they do) then once the 150s are 153s are withdrawn, the shortest diesel train could be 46m and currently a number of services are operated by 23m class 153s or 31m Pacers, so a newer 2 car DMU could provide a capacity gain.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's just anything for you to complain about, isn't it ?

Can the railway do no wrong in your eyes?

Pacers are life expired - they're both unreliable and unsafe, they have no place on a modern network where them failing in a platform or across a busy junction can result in significant disruption. Oh, and of course, disabled people can't quickly and easily board them, even with that ridiculous modified waste of time and space that is the Pacer e144 or whatever stupid name Porterbrook managed to think up in between their lectures on legalised extortion and getting money for old rope.

Did you enjoy your largely false rant? Pacers are old, but are safer than travel by car. More people travelling by rail is safer than them travelling by car. They may be less reliable than other stock but they aren't failing all over the place in the way you suggest. As for the e144, I think it looks quite good - a decent branch-line train. Would be happy to see them on Bedford-Bletchley.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But no doubt the financial equation didn't add up.

In which case my view would be that another equation should have been tried involving fewer new units (within spec, of course).

Another worthwhile approach would be putting 2x2-car on (say) Manchester-Cumbria services, with the train splitting at Lancaster for Windermere/Barrow.

That would have worked had they specced bi-mode rather than DMU/EMU and would not be such a bad idea, though I would say 2x3-car more like it.

 

[northwichcat]

Really? I would have thought that view lapsed completely as soon as DfT put that fairly well publicised requirement for 120 new DMU vehicles into the ITT?

I agree it was included in the ITT but certain posters on here kept suggesting the new order would be dropped as a result of the government's spending review.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I was just wondering about what would happen if, come December 31st 2019, there are not enough units or trains to replace the pacers - could some be granted dispensation?

The government is allowed to give dispensation but so far has only do so for minor infringements e.g. the door controls on the Porterbrook 150s are at the wrong height but they will be allowed to remain in service post-2019 without moving the door controls by a few cm.

 

[Haydn1971]

The thing is, there are/will be loads of 2-car 15x trains hanging around after Northern has got its new trains and wiped out the Pacers.

Correct, but 10 years on, these will be life expired too, so buying new 2/3 car units to use now as 4/5/6 units makes sense looking into the 2020's when more lines are electrified and 2/3 car DMU's are just required for the low use branches
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Really? I would have thought that view lapsed completely as soon as DfT put that fairly well publicised requirement for 120 new DMU vehicles into the ITT?

I'd been saying it well before that based upon my discussions with local councils as part of the SCRIF, the West Yorkshire IF and various other bits of work I'd been involved in since about 2009.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Correct, but 10 years on, these will be life expired too, so buying new 2/3 car units to use now as 4/5/6 units makes sense looking into the 2020's when more lines are electrified and 2/3 car DMU's are just required for the low use branches

There is a possibility that this is the reason - but if there is really only going to be a 30% capacity increase I really think it is insufficient. It's better than nothing, but it won't solve the problem.

 

[Rail Ranger]

The Pacers could in theory be kept after 31st December 2019 if they always ran coupled to a unit which was DDA-compliant.

 

[455driver]

The Pacers could in theory be kept after 31st December 2019 if they always ran coupled to a unit which was DDA-compliant.

Which is the point a lot of posters refuse to accept!

 

[TUC]

Can the railway do no wrong in your eyes?



Did you enjoy your largely false rant? Pacers are old, but are safer than travel by car. More people travelling by rail is safer than them travelling by car. They may be less reliable than other stock but they aren't failing all over the place in the way you suggest.

Safety isn't the only issue though is it? A comfortable, pleasant environment is what is equally important to passengers. Pacers belong to the 'take it or leave it' nationalised railway of yesterday's world.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Safety isn't the only issue though is it? A comfortable, pleasant environment is what is equally important to passengers. Pacers belong to the 'take it or leave it' nationalised railway of yesterday's world.

They do, but much less so than cramming into *anything* that happens to be full and standing.

 

[bramling]

Safety isn't the only issue though is it? A comfortable, pleasant environment is what is equally important to passengers. Pacers belong to the 'take it or leave it' nationalised railway of yesterday's world.

That's a well and good, but I'd prefer a lightly loaded Pacer to a heavily crowded modern train.

If the new order and associated cascades are sufficient to eliminate *both* Pacers *and* overcrowding, then great. If not then at least some Pacers need to be retained (or further new trains built). This is what should dictate the timetable for Pacer withdrawal, not political considerations. The disability issue isn't terminal in itself either, as Pacers could continue to run attached to other units.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The Pacers could in theory be kept after 31st December 2019 if they always ran coupled to a unit which was DDA-compliant.

A similar proposal has been suggested for the 153s... The worry is that in either case they'd end up running alone if the compliant unit fails, or if it doesn't there'll be a lot of complaints about what many will see as a needless cancellation.

 

[northwichcat]

Which is the point a lot of posters refuse to accept!

It would still require an exemption order though so can't happen unless Mr McLoughlin grants one.

 

[yorksrob]

It's just anything for you to complain about, isn't it ?

Pacers are life expired - they're both unreliable and unsafe, they have no place on a modern network where them failing in a platform or across a busy junction can result in significant disruption. Oh, and of course, disabled people can't quickly and easily board them, even with that ridiculous modified waste of time and space that is the Pacer e144 or whatever stupid name Porterbrook managed to think up in between their lectures on legalised extortion and getting money for old rope.

But just carry on waffling on about things you really don't understand, it's quite funny, in a sad sort of way.

Can you honestly say, hand on heart, that you know, even with all the stock replacements, that there won't be a capacity problem in the next ten years? Until we know, I'd rather we kept some stock back.

With regards to trains failing, they all have their moments. I'm not aware of 144's having particularly poor reliability stats in comparison with other units of a similar vintage.

142's need to go admittedly.

 

[TUC]

No. Don't forget that a number of these "Northern Connect" routes are former TPE routes moved to Northern. These ones are the most overcrowded.

Are they, or are they more like former Arriva Trains Northern/First North Western services that then got moved into Northern when arguably some of them should have moved into TPE instead?

 

[yorksrob]

It's just anything for you to complain about, isn't it ?

Pacers are life expired - they're both unreliable and unsafe, they have no place on a modern network where them failing in a platform or across a busy junction can result in significant disruption. Oh, and of course, disabled people can't quickly and easily board them, even with that ridiculous modified waste of time and space that is the Pacer e144 or whatever stupid name Porterbrook managed to think up in between their lectures on legalised extortion and getting money for old rope.

But just carry on waffling on about things you really don't understand, it's quite funny, in a sad sort of way.

Can you honestly say, hand on heart that you're certain that even with all these new and cascaded trains, we're not going to end up with a rolling stock shortage?

Thinking of the 312's that we're ditched before being life expired.

Are 144's even worse in terms of reliability than other units of a similar vintage?

Until things pan out, I think it would be wise not to send all the Pacers to the torch on the back of a ministerial decree (although the 142's do need to go).

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Can you honestly say, hand on heart, that you know, even with all the stock replacements, that there won't be a capacity problem in the next ten years? Until we know, I'd rather we kept some stock back.

With regards to trains failing, they all have their moments. I'm not aware of 144's having particularly poor reliability stats in comparison with other units of a similar vintage.

142's need to go admittedly.

I can't say, hand on heart, we're not going to have capacity problems in the next ten years, but I can say, hand on heart, trying to keep running Pacers is absolutely the wrong idea.

 

[yorksrob]

I can't say, hand on heart, we're not going to have capacity problems in the next ten years, but I can say, hand on heart, trying to keep running Pacers is absolutely the wrong idea.

When I moved up here, I hated pacers (they were a step down from the Southern Region trains I was used to).

However, having commuted on 144's daily for several years, they're not that bad generally and I'd definitely prefer them to standing!

 

[Haydn1971]

There is a possibility that this is the reason - but if there is really only going to be a 30% capacity increase I really think it is insufficient. It's better than nothing, but it won't solve the problem.

Do you have any other pearls of wisdom to explain otherwise ?

 

[tbtc]

• Three and a half extra services per hour off peak from Sheffield (one to Worksop, one to Chesterfield, one to Leeds and bi-hourly to Manchester via the Hope Valley). The Leeds one is the most interesting one – the headline grabbing 20% reduction in journey times suggests something comparable to the ~45 minute XC service (i.e. Wakefield Westgate only, or maybe Meadowhall as well?).
  
• 
  
• I didn’t know that there was room on the line through Westgate for this extra service – especially not with the hourly Knottingley – Wakefield Kirkgate service running through to Leeds that way too! Could be busy north of Wakefield (seven an hour, some 125mph, some 75mph stoppers)
  
• 
  
• Some of the other news is a bit surprising. I mean, good news about the hourly Scarborough – York service and regular Leeds – Bridlington one too – but this introduces a second TOC to these routes (okay, a third if you include the token EMT service to Scarborough) – which goes against the grain a little?
  
• 
  
• I still don’t really understand why we need a separate “TransPennine” franchise (other than “because it’d be too big to put everything into one franchise”) but I suppose I can see the logic in one TOC running the “fast” services on a line (Manchester to Blackpool, Hope Valley, Sheffield to Scunthorpe, Huddersfield to Leeds) and another running the “slow” services on that line – even though there are some Northern services which were limited stop that didn’t fall under the TPE umbrella. However, what’s the difference between a “fast” service from York to Scarborough and a “slow” service? There’s not enough intermediate stations to warrant any distinction. I’m not knocking the idea of a second service per hour to Scarborough, but why under a separate TOC?
  
• 
  
• The line through Bramley/ Pudsey (four/ hour at the moment) sees one extra service an hour to Bradford (ex Nottingham) and one extra service an hour to Halifax? Shame it can’t be a straightforward ten minute service from Leeds to Halifax.
  
• 
  
• Expect more posters up advertising through GC “London” fares from “local” stations around Yorkshire/ Cleveland? Maybe even on Humberside, if they want to upset applecarts...
  
• 
  
• Hull – York finally gets a regular hourly service – this has always seemed an underserved market that may have done better if within PTE boundaries (but not rural/ scenic enough to warrant the pressure groups of misty eyed enthusiasts).
  
• 
  
• I really don’t get the fascination with Nottingham to Carlisle (and then up the GSW to Glasgow... always up the GSW... :roll. It seems to crop up in these discussions pretty regularly. Never Derby to Carlisle, or Hull to Carlisle or even Bradford to Carlisle. Is there some amazing demand to get from Nottingham to Carlisle? Or is this just the usual “BR did it a generation ago, and it looks good on a map” approach?
  
• 
  
• Despite the regular claims that “...all new franchises will have a generic name and plain livery and won’t be allowed to be branded with private operators...”, it looks like that’s still in the realms of Enthusiast Wishlist, rather than fact. I still expect lots of complaints that the new operator will be repainting various things (which ignores the fact that paint jobs only last a certain time, so all stock needs touching up every few years anyway)
  
• 
  
• If a private TOC want to spend money on paint jobs instead of profits, is that a terrible thing? I mean, they’ve already committed to a certain level of premium/ subsidy, so the decision to splash the cash on corporate branding is about money that’d otherwise go to shareholders (rather than taxpayers or cheaper fares)?
  
• 
  
• Sundays are going to be interesting... significant increase to frequencies and hours of operation are very welcome ... have the DfT decided that they might as well take the Unions on over Sundays *and* DCO at the same time? That’s an argument for another thread, of course, but looks like we’ll be having a lot of arguments about it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are they, or are they more like former Arriva Trains Northern/First North Western services that then got moved into Northern when arguably some of them should have moved into TPE instead?

They are both. There are some (Manchester-Blackpool, Manchester-Windermere, Manchester-Barrow) that are being moved from TPE.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do you have any other pearls of wisdom to explain otherwise ?

Because many Northern and TPE (moving to Northern) services are running over 30% PIXC, and there will be a sparks effect.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

When I moved up here, I hated pacers (they were a step down from the Southern Region trains I was used to).

However, having commuted on 144's daily for several years, they're not that bad generally and I'd definitely prefer them to standing!

They're OK, they did what they had to do, which was keeping lightly used routes open, but now, trying to keep using them is the wrong idea.

When you're limited in train paths, terminal capacity and platform lengths, wasting it on slow, short, low capacity, unreliable trains that can't work in multiple at longer lengths is the wrong idea.

The plan to eliminate Pacers and significantly increase capacity is absolutely the right thing to do, as long as we continue to increase capacity by train lengthening and procuring additional units well into the future - that's something we can only ever do when we've got new units coming in from a new manufacturer and it's possible to order new carriages.

 

[wigwamman]

The feeling I'm getting from freinds, is that both unions are also gearing up for a long and bitter dispute mainly over DCO but also other issues they feel may arise.

 

[yorksrob]

Oh absolutely. I agree with what you're saying regarding capacity. I just think that currently 144's don't seem to be more restricted in multiple than a lot of units. I agree entirety regarding the 142's which are only suited to the lightly used routes (which they're never on out of Vic ) But a 3 carriage 144 really ain't that bad a commuter train.

 

[Roose]

Another worthwhile approach would be putting 2x2-car on (say) Manchester-Cumbria services, with the train splitting at Lancaster for Windermere/Barrow.
But Northern don't generally go in for that sort of thing.
ATW do it to a degree - splitting 4-car 158s from Birmingham into 2x2 at Shrewsbury or Chester for instance.

As has already been mentioned, two car units on the Furness line are inadequate other than on the most lightly-used services. Imagine what fun we have when a single 153 turns up, especially when its a 'school service'!

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Oh absolutely. I agree with what you're saying regarding capacity. I just think that currently 144's don't seem to be more restricted in multiple than a lot of units. I agree entirety regarding the 142's which are only suited to the lightly used routes (which they're never on out of Vic ) But a 3 carriage 144 really ain't that bad a commuter train.

144s in three car formation have some value, as they're 46 metres long, and being comparable in length to a 2 car Class 158 or Class 170 unit, they don't disrupt platform length calculations.

What value is there in retaining just 10 units though, better utilisation of a newer fleet, as a result of improve reliability and the like, will easily fill the sort of gap you might be able to fill by those 10 units (or 8, given a couple would also be on Exams and maintenance themselves).