8 years left for Pacers?

[Chris125]

More bad news for people expecting 2019 to see new DMU's and the end of the Pacer's - apparently Porterbrook have already completed the designs for making their 142s compliant. That will surely keep them going until cascades can finally see them off.

Chris

 

[Nym]

Nice, now all I have to do is get the job with them and I can make sure it's done properly

 

[ANorthernGuard]

More bad news for people expecting 2019 to see new DMU's and the end of the Pacer's - apparently Porterbrook have already completed the designs for making their 142s compliant. That will surely keep them going until cascades can finally see them off.

Chris

They will have fallen apart by then, i'm not too worried, they was not bult to last anywhere near this long, in 7 years time they will be unable to run, they already caniballise demic ones as they are short of parts, they will not last til 2019.

 

[YorkshireBear]

More bad news for people expecting 2019 to see new DMU's and the end of the Pacer's - apparently Porterbrook have already completed the designs for making their 142s compliant. That will surely keep them going until cascades can finally see them off.

Chris

Well that is interesting!!!!

I think we might be looking at 100 year old pacers!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They will have fallen apart by then, i'm not too worried, they was not bult to last anywhere near this long, in 7 years time they will be unable to run, they already caniballise demic ones as they are short of parts, they will not last til 2019.

I wasn't aware of any being caniballised, are we talking the two written off ones or are there others?

 

[paul1609]

They will have fallen apart by then, i'm not too worried, they was not bult to last anywhere near this long, in 7 years time they will be unable to run, they already caniballise demic ones as they are short of parts, they will not last til 2019.

I wouldn't bet on it the "Thumpers" were deemed to be life expired when Marshlink electrification was mooted in the late 80's but they were kept going for nearly another 20 years.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Well that is interesting!!!!

I think we might be looking at 100 year old pacers!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I wasn't aware of any being caniballised, are we talking the two written off ones or are there others?

Some parts just are not being made any more (that's what fitters have told me), I think its only a few that have been involved in instances etc. they are rusting shells now and don't have the build quality like the 100 classes, basic rot has already started in a few and once it starts its almost impossible to stop

 

[yorksrob]

I wouldn't bet on it the "Thumpers" were deemed to be life expired when Marshlink electrification was mooted in the late 80's but they were kept going for nearly another 20 years.

Comparing Thumpers to Pacers - I nearly choked on my cherryade !

 

[ukrob]

ANorthernGuard, Porterbrook don't have any 142s anyhow which is what you work, do you sign 144s too?

 

[O L Leigh]

There are almost no new parts for Cl315s and Cl317s either. Stuff gets sent away to be reconditioned, such as motors being rewound and such, so although what comes back is not new it is at least in "as new" condition. The lack of new parts for Pacers, and, for that matter, anything else more than 20 years old, is hardly a shock or surprise.

Likewise, rot is nothing new. All the PEP-derived EMUs, such as Cl315s, suffer not only corrosion due to the ingress of water and other corrosive elements, but also bi-metallic corrosion due to the mix of metals that went into their construction.

O L Leigh

 

[ChrisCooper]

I suppose the good thing is that the idea of Tram-Trains seems to have gone quiet recently. That really strikes me as Pacer 2, but to some extent worse due to the fact that it would require massive expense in rebuilding platforms, and whilst restricting them to specific routes would be good, it would mean they would be the only things able to operate on many routes, make things complicated at stations where they had to operate alongside normal trains, and reduce flexability when it comes to platform allocations (at larger stations some platforms might be tram-train only or normal train only). Seriously have to think what they are cutting back in terms of comfort and quality to make the expense and trouble worth it.

 

[ert47]

I suppose the good thing is that the idea of Tram-Trains seems to have gone quiet recently. That really strikes me as Pacer 2, but to some extent worse due to the fact that it would require massive expense in rebuilding platforms, and whilst restricting them to specific routes would be good, it would mean they would be the only things able to operate on many routes, make things complicated at stations where they had to operate alongside normal trains, and reduce flexability when it comes to platform allocations (at larger stations some platforms might be tram-train only or normal train only). Seriously have to think what they are cutting back in terms of comfort and quality to make the expense and trouble worth it.

Could always have a Pacer with variable floor levels - much like with a modern bus.
Again, using designs of a bus, saves money and seems like a suitable evolution of the legacy that is the Pacer.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yes Porterbrook dont have any 142's. They have 32 143's and 46 144's.

What they have done is a limited regulations compatibility modification that would make them partially compliant when refurbished from 2014/2015 until the end of 2019. Remember the 2019 deadline is the final date of access compliance, there are other earlier deadlines for things like PID's and signage.

The main thing preventing Pacers being made compliant is the fixed bogies which couldnt be lowered unless they were replaced and it would never be financially worthwhile to replace the bogies.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

ANorthernGuard, Porterbrook don't have any 142s anyhow which is what you work, do you sign 144s too?

Just 142's, 1 class of Pacer is enough thankyou

 

[ChrisCooper]

Could always have a Pacer with variable floor levels - much like with a modern bus.
Again, using designs of a bus, saves money and seems like a suitable evolution of the legacy that is the Pacer.

I'm not sure that would work from an accesibility point of view. Given most tram-train designs the high floor section would be at the ends above the bogies. This would require doors on both sides of reasonable width, a wheelchair space, and possibly a wheelchair accessible toilet. It would probably also require at least some priority seats (afterall it's very much going against accessiblity to expect those who are mobility impared but not in a wheelchair to go down some steps into the low floor area to find a seat). The low floor area in the centre would also need sufficient width doors, a wheelchair space, and depending on the sort of journey a wheelchair accessible toilet. To be honest in most cases where journey times are short, a tramway conversion would probably be the best option, as with the Oldham line in Manchester, wheras for longer journies (Sheffield to Barnsley, Blackpool South to Colne, both proposed tram-train schemes) toilets would be needed. By the time you have two accessible toilets and wheelchair spaces you've lost a lot of space and added a lot of weight.

 

[Chris125]

I wouldn't bet on it the "Thumpers" were deemed to be life expired when Marshlink electrification was mooted in the late 80's but they were kept going for nearly another 20 years.

The IoW's 38TS was going to be 'life expired' in 2003 when the Island Line franchise was due to run out - they are currently expected to continue beyond their 80th birthday in 2018...

Chris

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I'm not sure that would work from an accesibility point of view. Given most tram-train designs the high floor section would be at the ends above the bogies. This would require doors on both sides of reasonable width, a wheelchair space, and possibly a wheelchair accessible toilet. It would probably also require at least some priority seats (afterall it's very much going against accessiblity to expect those who are mobility impared but not in a wheelchair to go down some steps into the low floor area to find a seat). The low floor area in the centre would also need sufficient width doors, a wheelchair space, and depending on the sort of journey a wheelchair accessible toilet. To be honest in most cases where journey times are short, a tramway conversion would probably be the best option, as with the Oldham line in Manchester, wheras for longer journies (Sheffield to Barnsley, Blackpool South to Colne, both proposed tram-train schemes) toilets would be needed. By the time you have two accessible toilets and wheelchair spaces you've lost a lot of space and added a lot of weight.

I don't think I will ever see the point of converting well used heavy Rail to Tram, they may be more frequent but they are often slower, more overcrowded and more expensive as someone who had lived in Oldham over half his life I'm yet to knopw anyone who wanted the Tram (but amazingly loads of councillors said that the whole of Oldham wanted it, methinks they are talking somewhere near the a**)

 

[northwichcat]

(but amazingly loads of councillors said that the whole of Oldham wanted it, methinks they are talking somewhere near the a**)

Even all the Oldham residents who are complaining about the conversion on the M.E.N. site then. :roll:

I bet if you gave them a ride on a class 37x train and one of a M500 tram and said which is better, few would say the M5000. It was just they had 142s and 150s so new vehicles sound good.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Even all the Oldham residents who are complaining about the conversion on the M.E.N. site then. :roll:

I bet if you gave them a ride on a class 37x train and one of a M500 tram and said which is better, few would say the M5000. It was just they had 142s and 150s so new vehicles sound good.

The loop line was one of the few that made a good profit, no wonder TfGM wanted it, even with the old trains 15 mins-25 mins into town compared with longer and more expensive they put up with it, I have nothing against trams where they are put somewhere that makes a benefit to the residents, I still don't know where the benefits are to Oldham residents.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

The loop line was one of the few that made a good profit, no wonder TfGM wanted it, even with the old trains 15 mins-25 mins into town compared with longer and more expensive they put up with it, I have nothing against trams where they are put somewhere that makes a benefit to the residents, I still don't know where the benefits are to Oldham residents.

Indeed, longer journey times, no doubt overcrowded trams and more expensive tickets: what's not to love? :roll: A town of over 100,000 and no heavy rail station. I'm still not sold on the benefits it had to Bury (except Sunday service) or Altrincham via Sale (the latter more so).

 

[northwichcat]

The loop line was one of the few that made a good profit, no wonder TfGM wanted it, even with the old trains 15 mins-25 mins into town compared with longer and more expensive they put up with it, I have nothing against trams where they are put somewhere that makes a benefit to the residents, I still don't know where the benefits are to Oldham residents.

2 potential benefits - the Oldham tram could continue to Chorlton/Airport giving more stops in Manchester and the frequency.

The disadvantages - I don't have the time to write all of them!

It'll be interesting they see how they measure the success of conversion for the Oldham Loop. For the Altrincham and Bury lines they use rail figures from the 1980s and compare them to current tram figures, even though heavy rail usage has increased exponentially over the last 20 years.

 

[yorksrob]

And I'd also say that the Oldham loop is rather a long route to be without toilet facilities in this day and age.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

But at least the councillors and Tram fans are happy

 

[WestCoast]

Indeed, longer journey times, no doubt overcrowded trams and more expensive tickets: what's not to love? :roll: A town of over 100,000 and no heavy rail station. I'm still not sold on the benefits it had to Bury (except Sunday service) or Altrincham via Sale (the latter more so).

Yeah, but do remember the intermediate stations as well, their level of service will increase.

The promise of modern rolling stock (i.e. trams) with renewed infrastructure is a big draw as well. Northern have no hope of getting anything better than Pacers and Sprinters in the near future and then new stock will be 'hand-me-downs'. TfGM would have never been able to invest so heavily in these lines (or stock) as heavy rail.

OK, I would prefer an Overground system (a real one though, not a West Yorkshire style MetroTrain network!) integrated in with the heavy rail, but as if funding for that would ever be secured...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And I'd also say that the Oldham loop is rather a long route to be without toilet facilities in this day and age.

There's many other longer routes without toilet facilities (e.g. LU, Merseyrail, many bus routes, Southern 455/8s). Although granted toilet facilities may be provided at stations (but often they are not!).

 

[KingBBoogaloo]

There is no current legislation that would prevent Pacres from operating beyond 2019 on the national network. The idea that the DDA would prevent them from operating after 2019 is fanciful, in fact its easier to make a 142 DDA compliant than a 158.

As already mentioned, the leasing companies are working on there plans for the Pacers, the first details appeared in Modern Railways back in 2009, along with a couple of artists impressions.

The fact they are doing so suggests that the industry are planning to use the Pacers well beyond 2019, something that was backed up lately by the specification for the next Great Western (GW) franchise, it made no mention of replacing the Pacers it operates, and if its not a contractual obligation, there is no need for the winner of that franchise to do so.

We already know there is enough DMUs being freed up by electrification to replace the 142s like for like and the TransPennine electrification will create more. It may be to late for GW but not for Northern or Wales, but it will take everyone from the passengers to the politicians and the staff to stand up and say enough is enough before anything will happen.

 

[yorksrob]

There's many other longer routes without toilet facilities (e.g. LU, Merseyrail, many bus routes, Southern 455/8s). Although granted toilet facilities may be provided at stations (but often they are not!).

This is certainly true - although I believe that this is due mainly to the age of the stock rather than the duration of journey (for example, the Networkers run similar routes to the 455's, but as they were a later generation of stock, they were built with toilets).

My personal view is that for a route such as Oldham to go from having toilet facilities to not having them is a step backwards.

 

[WestCoast]

My personal view is that for a route such as Oldham to go from having toilet facilities to not having them is a step backwards.

If you're brave enough to visit a toilet on a 142!

I am not so sure - many London inner surburban trains, for example, don't have toilet facilities. London Overground's 378s are new stock which were specifically ordered without toilets.

 

[Nym]

We already know there is enough DMUs being freed up by electrification to replace the 142s like for like and the TransPennine electrification will create more. It may be to late for GW but not for Northern or Wales, but it will take everyone from the passengers to the politicians and the staff to stand up and say enough is enough before anything will happen.

Errr... NO!

NW Electrification Releases:

Chat Moss: 6 Diagrams NT, 6 Diagrams TPE
Wigan via St Helens Central: 8 Diagrams NT
Euxton Jcn via Bolton & Chorley: 8 Diagrams NT and 4 Diagrams TPE (With timetable changes)

Some of these are doubled up, so NT releases C~30 units and TPE C~10

I'd love to know how long these are to replace 79 Class 142 Units....

TPE N Electrification, if done in full (Ex. Scarbrough and/or Middlesbrough) Releases:

9 Class 170 Units
C~30 Class 185 Units (16 Diagrams on TPE S and TPE NW)

Manchester - Huddersfeild (2 Diagrams)
Huddersfeild - Leeds Direct (4 Diagrams, interworked)
Leeds - Selby (2 Diagrams, interworked)
Hull - York (2 Diagrams, sporadic)
Leeds - York (4 Diagrams, interworked)

So at best, without any capacity increase for non-electrified lines, we're releasing C~80 - 85 units. With TPE and NWT Electrification. If you actually look into pacer replacement proper though, the numbers come closer to being able to retire 70 - 75 pacer units without significant capacity increase (that is needed), so realistically we're looking at retirement of 50 units.

If you want to deal with the Northern franchise area isolated to release enough units, and increase capacity, you need to wire...

Lostock Jcn - Wigan Station Jcns. (4 more diagrams, many double formed)
Windsor Bridge Junction - Hindley Jcn (Another 4 diagrams with some timetable re-writes, loss of through journeys, very politically popular and should have the 'sparks effect' on the loop line)
Wigan Station Jcns. - Southport (Another 4, again, many doubled up)

Then a choice of...
Hazel Grove & East Manchester Lines to Chinley with Bays. (Works out at roughly 12 - 15 diagrams, but yet again, there is the 'sparks effect')
Trafford Park - Liverpool S Parkway via Warrington Central (Only 4 diagrams, but again, very politically popular)

That would provide EMUs for the busiest routes, where the extra capacity is needed, the 185s would run the likes of Buxton, Calder Valley etc. And that would bring about an end to pacers, in a self contained to the North West way, would require about 40 - 50 6x23m car EMUs for TPE Operations, and all the available 319s to transfer to Northern (and retain all 323s to operate on the Bolton Corridor, doubled up)

 

[sprinterguy]

We already know there is enough DMUs being freed up by electrification to replace the 142s like for like and the TransPennine electrification will create more. It may be to late for GW but not for Northern or Wales, but it will take everyone from the passengers to the politicians and the staff to stand up and say enough is enough before anything will happen.

I presume that there's meant to be a "not" in that paragraph, six words from the start?

I would have thought that FGWs' tiny fleet of eight 143s would be the first to go (Reasoned thinking would suggest to ATW) of the three operators' Pacer fleets, given that one way or another the release of Network Turbos off the Thames Valley following electrification to Oxford and Newbury is likely to benefit FGW with some extra regional trains, even if the 165s/166s don't go directly to Bristol and the West Country.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Yeah, but do remember the intermediate stations as well, their level of service will increase.

The promise of modern rolling stock (i.e. trams) with renewed infrastructure is a big draw as well. Northern have no hope of getting anything better than Pacers and Sprinters in the near future and then new stock will be 'hand-me-downs'. TfGM would have never been able to invest so heavily in these lines (or stock) as heavy rail.

OK, I would prefer an Overground system (a real one though, not a West Yorkshire style MetroTrain network!) integrated in with the heavy rail, but as if funding for that would ever be secured...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


There's many other longer routes without toilet facilities (e.g. LU, Merseyrail, many bus routes, Southern 455/8s). Although granted toilet facilities may be provided at stations (but often they are not!).

2 an hour for most station is fine

and since did TfGM care for rail?? all TfGM care about seems to be trams because they get money from them now even tho the disruption is immense (and the planning totally s***e) the route to Ashton I can understand as it serves a lot of areas that were not covered (for at least 60 years anyway) by a Train route, Oldham Loop However had a good service

 

[jones_bangor]

There is no current legislation that would prevent Pacres from operating beyond 2019 on the national network. The idea that the DDA would prevent them from operating after 2019 is fanciful, in fact its easier to make a 142 DDA compliant than a 158.

As already mentioned, the leasing companies are working on there plans for the Pacers, the first details appeared in Modern Railways back in 2009, along with a couple of artists impressions.

But are Pacers that bad?

Compared to the dog-eared rubbish we were travelling around on in the early 90s, they're not that bad!

A decent re-furb and the ATW stock with high backed seats seem pretty good to me, much better than when they had bus type seats. It's more a issue of over-crowding?