Northern Pacer Withdrawals - Info?

[Sprinter107]

Shame the 153s are pretty rubbish

Agreed. Absolutely dreadful. I hate the things.

 

[Killingworth]

Agreed. Absolutely dreadful. I hate the things.

But a brand new '253' incorporating a further 30 years of rail development could be a very versatile, and comfortable, different matter. It could never happen?

 

[deltic08]

But a brand new '253' incorporating a further 30 years of rail development could be a very versatile, and comfortable, different matter. It could never happen?

Isn't a 253 a 7 coach HST?

 

[Killingworth]

Isn't a 253 a 7 coach HST?

Well that would certainly add capacity! OK, lets call it a 153/2019, whatever, but we don't need to add 2, 3, 4 or 5 extra carriages to trains when the basic minimum unit is inadequate, but a second unit is over generous.

 

[superkev]

Agreed. Absolutely dreadful. I hate the things.

Here Here. The noisy, slow, designed for someone with no legs 155s are even worse.
K

 

[Killingworth]

Derogation, dispensation, it's as clear as mud, but here's the latest from DfT on Class 150/2s. It certainly keeps a lot of people busy working through all this detail.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...070/Porterbrook_class_letter_27_June_2019.pdf

 

[superkev]

Derogation, dispensation, it's as clear as mud, but here's the latest from DfT on Class 150/2s. It certainly keeps a lot of people busy working through all this detail.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...070/Porterbrook_class_letter_27_June_2019.pdf

Can anyone translate this gobbidegook. The parasitic professions certainly know how to look after there own.
K

 

[jonesy3001]

the porterbrook 150/2s?

 

[krus_aragon]

Can anyone translate this gobbidegook. The parasitic professions certainly know how to look after there own.
K

As I read it, that's official permission for the 150/2 units listed in Annex A to avoid having the accessibility modifications done listed in Annex B, so they can run in 2020 as they are. (But if there's any other modification work done to them in the mean time, the owner would need to apply again to keep the permission.)

Based on Wikipedia's list of allocations for the Class 150, most of these units are TfW ones, but some are listed as GWR and Northern.

 

[jonesy3001]

228/268-277 are northern 150/2s

 

[krus_aragon]

228/268-277 are northern 150/2s

You sniped me as I was editing my above post.

 

[Cardiff123]

As I read it, that's official permission for the 150/2 units listed in Annex A to avoid having the accessibility modifications done listed in Annex B, so they can run in 2020 as they are. (But if there's any other modification work done to them in the mean time, the owner would need to apply again to keep the permission.)

Based on Wikipedia's list of allocations for the Class 150, most of these units are TfW ones, but some are listed as GWR and Northern.

I'm confused, I'm pretty sure most of the TfW units listed have already had their PRM mods, I'm sure I've seen them in service

 

[krus_aragon]

I'm confused, I'm pretty sure most of the TfW units listed have already had their PRM mods, I'm sure I've seen them in service

The dispensations listed are for relatively minor details: height of door buttons and handrails, width of wheelchair backstops, bodyside PIS, etc. There's no dispensation for other things, such as interior PIS and accessible toilets.

The document says that a new dispensation would be needed if the units undergo any further refurb. It also says that this document replaces a previous one dated May 2015. It may be the case that with recent refurbishment work (to sort out what the 2015 document didn't excuse) this new document simply says "yeah, it's still fine to skip those little things we excused you from last time". I haven't been able to find a copy of the previous document to check, though.

 

[Mathew S]

It's dissappointing that the capacity of a 195 is so close to a pacer. I was expecting an uplift closer to sprinter capacity !

Passengers on busy pacer routes will be dissappointed if they end up with the same capacity, albeit in a new format.

Will the Hope Valley stopper, which regularly has full and standing 142's and 150's end up with a full and standig 195?

The 2 - car capacity is down to the accessible loo, ans wheelchair/standing/luggage space which altogether take up basically 1/3 of one carriage.

 

[Bikeman78]

There aren't many routes where a 331 will replace a Pacer.
With all the cascaded in units, are Northern still short of Pacer replacements?

There's a pair of DMUs on the routes through Shipley in the morning peak. Also I think there is a Doncaster to Leeds and return with a 170. I don't know if those diagrams also work non electrified routes. Are there any DMU diagrams in the north west that run under the wires all day?

 

[yorksrob]

Here Here. The noisy, slow, designed for someone with no legs 155s are even worse.
K

If the 155's were going to be used purely for strengthening purposes, they could spread the seats out a bit more.

 

[yorksrob]

The 2 - car capacity is down to the accessible loo, ans wheelchair/standing/luggage space which altogether take up basically 1/3 of one carriage.

Then they should have all been built as 3-carriage.

 

[northernchris]

There's a pair of DMUs on the routes through Shipley in the morning peak. Also I think there is a Doncaster to Leeds and return with a 170. I don't know if those diagrams also work non electrified routes. Are there any DMU diagrams in the north west that run under the wires all day?

Is the AM peak DMU still running? I was expecting that to switch to a 321/2 from this week using the unit displaced off the Leeds - Doncaster route. The Doncaster 170 has now stopped. I believe there was a DMU regularly covering for a 319 in the North West prior to the 195s entering service, and last week the 1701 Manchester Victoria - Liverpool was a 142+150

 

[Mathew S]

Then they should have all been built as 3-carriage.

I don't disagree. But looking at it from the other side, it's bad for business to be carting around fresh air all day and most of the routes they'll operate will be just fine with 2 carriages for most of the day.

At this point, we're almost half way through the current franchise. I can't help thinking that a follow on order for more centre carriages, and enough additional units to replace the 150s, might well be the headline of whatever comes next.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't disagree. But looking at it from the other side, it's bad for business to be carting around fresh air all day and most of the routes they'll operate will be just fine with 2 carriages for most of the day.

At this point, we're almost half way through the current franchise. I can't help thinking that a follow on order for more centre carriages, and enough additional units to replace the 150s, might well be the headline of whatever comes next.

I think the point is that pacer carriages never were "normal" carriages in terms of capacity. They are shorter than 15x and mk3 based carriages, and as such aren't fit for purpose for the vast majority of Northern routes. The aim should never have been to replace 2-carriage pacer capacity like for like.

 

[Mathew S]

I think the point is that pacer carriages never were "normal" carriages in terms of capacity. They are shorter than 15x and mk3 based carriages, and as such aren't fit for purpose for the vast majority of Northern routes. The aim should never have been to replace 2-carriage pacer capacity like for like.

I think, although the seating capacity is comparable, the real world capacity of a 195 is much greater because there's an awful lot more standing room. The vestibules are positively capacious, and the aisles are pretty wide as well. So, realistically, I reckon they'll be okay for routes that have had 2-car services all along.

 

[sprinterguy]

I think, although the seating capacity is comparable, the real world capacity of a 195 is much greater because there's an awful lot more standing room. The vestibules are positively capacious, and the aisles are pretty wide as well. So, realistically, I reckon they'll be okay for routes that have had 2-car services all along.

Yes, because in this day and age more standing passengers is seen as an improvement in travelling conditions. Heaven forfend the railway companies actually provide more seats for the travelling public in recognition of the meteoric rise in passenger numbers since the Pacers were first introduced nearly 35 years ago.

 

[Mathew S]

Yes, because in this day and age more standing passengers is seen as an improvement in travelling conditions. Heaven forfend the railway companies actually provide more seats for the travelling public in recognition of the meteoric rise in passenger numbers since the Pacers were first introduced nearly 35 years ago.

Yes, obviously. But most commuters seem to be used to the fact that standing is a thing. And the number of people that I see standing in preference to sitting down - even on the new 195s - is completely bonkers.

 

[sprinterguy]

Yes, obviously. But most commuters seem to be used to the fact that standing is a thing.

On routes in the North of England where train lengths fall short of the platform lengths, it shouldn't have to be. Though it has surprised me the number of platforms that have required work carried out just to accommodate 4 x 23 metre carriages. And granted that standing is less of a hardship on short distance commuter trips, but the 195s have been ordered primarily to cover longer distance regional routes (Which admittedly also see shorter distance commuter trips in the environs of the likes of Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool).

 

[Mathew S]

On routes in the North of England where train lengths fall short of the platform lengths, it shouldn't have to be. Though it has surprised me the number of platforms that have required work carried out just to accommodate 4 x 23 metre carriages. And granted that standing is less of a hardship on short distance commuter trips, but the 195s have been ordered primarily to cover longer distance regional routes (Which admittedly also see shorter distance commuter trips in the environs of the likes of Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool).

I still think this is a bit of a misunderstanding of what these routes really are. Yes, they're longer distance trains than we usually think of Northern operating; but they are still primarily, I would argue, commuter routes. Leeds-Manchester, Manchester-Warrington-Chester, Manchester-Wigan-Preston, Liverpool-Manchester, they're all commuter routes first and foremost. The exceptions to that are probably leisure travellers on the Lake District and Blackpool services, I guess, but I do think that the new trains are adequate for that, albeit only just.
On platforms, I don't think many people who don't use these routes regularly are really aware that, in many cases, four car trains are the absolute most that the stations can accomodate without moving things like bridges, junctions, etc. and other really costly - and disruptive - works. It's one of the reasons why I bang on about frequency of service being so important. If you've only got one or two trains an hour, not being able to get on one and having to wait for the next is a massive pain. By contrast, once you get to six or more trains per hour, it becomes a different thing completely.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, because in this day and age more standing passengers is seen as an improvement in travelling conditions. Heaven forfend the railway companies actually provide more seats for the travelling public in recognition of the meteoric rise in passenger numbers since the Pacers were first introduced nearly 35 years ago.

Quite !

I still think this is a bit of a misunderstanding of what these routes really are. Yes, they're longer distance trains than we usually think of Northern operating; but they are still primarily, I would argue, commuter routes. Leeds-Manchester, Manchester-Warrington-Chester, Manchester-Wigan-Preston, Liverpool-Manchester, they're all commuter routes first and foremost. The exceptions to that are probably leisure travellers on the Lake District and Blackpool services, I guess, but I do think that the new trains are adequate for that, albeit only just.
On platforms, I don't think many people who don't use these routes regularly are really aware that, in many cases, four car trains are the absolute most that the stations can accomodate without moving things like bridges, junctions, etc. and other really costly - and disruptive - works. It's one of the reasons why I bang on about frequency of service being so important. If you've only got one or two trains an hour, not being able to get on one and having to wait for the next is a massive pain. By contrast, once you get to six or more trains per hour, it becomes a different thing completely.

I'm afraid that for those of us who've been enduring undersized trains for decades, more standing room doesn't cut it.

The biggest problem with the pacers is that they have a habit of turning up when a normal train is expected and their comparative lack of capacity is blindingly obvious. This can happen at any time of day, not just rush hours.

Even for commuters, standing up on trains for long periods is unacceptable. Given the size and shape of the Northern network, these units could turn up on some very long routes indeed. Most areas of the country are developing unified fleets. The least we should have been doing in the North is specifying that new builds should be interchangeable in terms of capacity, with the sprinter fleet.

 

[EIKN]

The comments about the capacity of the 195, may be put at ease .
As the chairman of Northern was being ' grilled ' by , Look North ( Leeds ), and he did state that they are able to have more than one extra coach inserted to make for a longer run .
Which leads me to wonder what ' mark ' of coach it would be under .
I do don't understand why the Class 158/class 170 couldn't have an extra two or three coaches added
The 195 if one looks , it has the similar front profile as the class 144 , but the rest reminds me of a class 170 .
So are they shorter than the 170, as both that and the 158 are still excellent trains with the 170 still being made into the new millennium. But what is to stop a 'TOC' from adding coaches , if they are indeed as short as a pacer , then rather than have them on these ' glory routes ' not to mention Northern are totally ignoring Yorkshire and Northlincs. Here on the Scunthorpe line we still have the evil that is the pacer .

It would make more sense ( and local councillors ar e passing rumours Scunthorpe- Doncaster may go to 195 ( probably as they are as small as they are) but possible extensions to run to Cleethorpes or Lincoln , Gainsborough etc.
But the 170's and refurbed 158's would be well suited to the Barrow and Windermere routes .

 

[Mathew S]

The least we should have been doing in the North is specifying that new builds should be interchangeable in terms of capacity, with the sprinter fleet.

They are. PRM refurbished 150s are 124/130 seats, 156s are 140-152, 2-car 158s are 138/142. 3-car 158s are 207.
The 2-car 195s are 124, so exactly the same as a 150, and the 3-car 195s are 204 which is as near as makes no difference the same as a 158.
204 on the three car sets is also more than the 169 (incl. 15 first class) seats on a 185.
They're not perfect by any means, the 195s, but to pretend they aren't comparable to Sprinters in terms of capacity is rubbish.

 

[yorksrob]

They are. PRM refurbished 150s are 124/130 seats, 156s are 140-152, 2-car 158s are 138/142. 3-car 158s are 207.
The 2-car 195s are 124, so exactly the same as a 150, and the 3-car 195s are 204 which is as near as makes no difference the same as a 158.
204 on the three car sets is also more than the 169 (incl. 15 first class) seats on a 185.
They're not perfect by any means, the 195s, but to pretend they aren't comparable to Sprinters in terms of capacity is rubbish.

They must have a greater capacity than a pacer then, because pacers are generally a lot more cramped.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If your local councillors are going about claiming that improvements are on the way when they aren't, that's a problem. Northern are poor but it doesn't help that the thinly-spread improvements in rolling-stock are being promised to every single local route by local councillors and politicians. I hear people on the Penistone line saying that new trains are on the way, but the future stock for that line (150s) might well be older than the 144s currently in use!