8 years left for Pacers?

[Surreyman]

I don't believe that will happen. I'm just saying it's possibly one of the few viable options for keeping Pacers in services beyond 2019. If DfT don't like the idea then they always order brand new trains for the North of England, Wales and the South West.

Can't help thinking this is another example of 'Kicking the Can down the Road'
i.e current Government, current Dft, current TOC, current ROSCO all aware of the problem but thinking '2020 is long way away and we/I probably won't be in this position/job then'.
Similarly Dft only focussed on Transport issues up to 2015.
Would be interesting to know if anyone on this forum knows what the ROSCOs view/policy/plan is on future of Pacers?

 

[northwichcat]

Dont forget that no bombardier trains are really suitable pacer replacement..

?

A lot of the Northern 142 routes are similar to the Snow Hill lines but not as frequent.

With Northern Hub proposals including line speed enhancements, something faster than 75mph with good acceleration, as well as longer carriages being required to cater for rising passenger numbers and DDA compliance, the 172 spec sounds ideal as Pacer replacement in the North of England.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would be interesting to know if anyone on this forum knows what the ROSCOs view/policy/plan is on future of Pacers?

Angel Trains haven't publicly said anything AFAIK. Porterbrook, however, have said making the 153s DDA complaint in single carriage formation is non-economically viable.

A Pacer is only 30% longer than a 153 and needs more work doing to it to make it complaint and a Pacer is also less versatile.

 

[HSTEd]

The policy is probably to make no moves to make it possible to withdraw the Pacer fleet, in the hopes that DfT will do nothing until its far too late and the government is forced to legislate to put back DDA compliance.

This means they get to keep wringing the Pacers and don't have to spend any more on rebuilding them.

 

[northwichcat]

The policy is probably to make no moves to make it possible to withdraw the Pacer fleet, in the hopes that DfT will do nothing until its far too late and the government is forced to legislate to put back DDA compliance.

This means they get to keep wringing the Pacers and don't have to spend any more on rebuilding them.

If that happens that disability rights groups will be all over DfT, as will local councils in areas that keep Pacers (as many have invested in making bus transport more accessible) and local businesses in areas that keep Pacers (why should they make sure they provide adequate facilities for disabled employees when the trains serving the nearest station are not properly accessible?)

Given that Pacers pretty much cover every county in the North of England and there will likely be a general election around 2019 any government who keeps the majority of Pacers in the North of England and fails to plan for the 2019 deadline could see them losing the next government on that decision.

Yes Joe Public will blame Northern Rail but any good leader of the opposition will use any delay to DDA to their advantage and make sure the public are fully aware of it.

 

[Eagle]

?

A lot of the Northern 142 routes are similar to the Snow Hill lines but not as frequent.

With Northern Hub proposals including line speed enhancements, something faster than 75mph with good acceleration, as well as longer carriages being required to cater for rising passenger numbers and DDA compliance, the 172 spec sounds ideal as Pacer replacement in the North of England.

And on those lines that will be electrified by 2019, 37xs?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Given that Pacers pretty much cover every county in the North of England and there will likely be a general election around 2019 any government who keeps the majority of Pacers in the North of England and fails to plan for the 2019 deadline could see them losing the next government on that decision.

Yes Joe Public will blame Northern Rail but any good leader of the opposition will use any delay to DDA to their advantage and make sure the public are fully aware of it.

That said, I wonder just how many people base their decision of who to vote for on something like that - of those who use public transport, how many would care what showed up, and whether it was DDA-complicit? I'm sure for the majority of people there are more pressing issues that dictate who they vote for, things that affect their everyday life and very existence. The only people I could really see it having a massive effect on would be disabled rights campaigners and some of the disabled community, however then again you would have to ask how high up Pacers still being in use would rank up on their list of deciding factors. I will say this - if it's Labour in power from 2015-2020, and most Pacers still are in the North of England, I doubt it would even be remotely enough to affect their support levels, they will win the majority of urban seats come what may across Merseyside / Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Yorkshire.

 

[ffm]

Dont worry, Pacers have an infinite life and it will always be cheaper to modify stations than to create a Pacer replacement. If any rail vehicle justifies a "best investment" award, the Pacer qualifies.

Oh please NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anything to get rid of them. And to the poster who said the complainers may be people who will complain about anything - well I am not one. I hate the damned things - especially the ex-FGW bus seat mingers. The high backed Arriva refurbs have heating, at least, but that doesn't stop during the summer! The only saving grace of a Pacer is that it is better than walking, just. Please, of please for a second hand set of 150s up in the North East, or even a 101...........

If ever a rail vehicle deserved a "worst investment" award the Pacer would be it.

 

[HSTEd]

And on those lines that will be electrified by 2019, 37xs?

Ideally it would be some sort of 23m carriage length EMU, which can work in multiple with Turbostars and other stock as required.

But we won't get that so I will just say Electrostars or desiros (although I prefer the former)

 

[MidnightFlyer]

If ever a rail vehicle deserved a "worst investment" award the Pacer would be it.

I think the Pacer's cheapness is the reason they were built. A low-cost solution to lines which brought in little money..

 

[Eagle]

A low-cost solution to lines which brought in little money..

Also a low-cost alternative to closing said lines. I wonder how much of the network we might have lost if it weren't for Pacers.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think the Pacer's cheapness is the reason they were built. A low-cost solution to lines which brought in little money..

Quite. If BR had been aware of quite how much growth the nations railways would see over the previous twenty+ years I'm fairly sure they'd have bought (or at least tried to buy) fewer Pacers and more Sprinters. But they couldn't know that so instead decided to buy something cheap instead.

 

[Surreyman]

If that happens that disability rights groups will be all over DfT, as will local councils in areas that keep Pacers (as many have invested in making bus transport more accessible) and local businesses in areas that keep Pacers (why should they make sure they provide adequate facilities for disabled employees when the trains serving the nearest station are not properly accessible?)

Given that Pacers pretty much cover every county in the North of England and there will likely be a general election around 2019 any government who keeps the majority of Pacers in the North of England and fails to plan for the 2019 deadline could see them losing the next government on that decision.

Yes Joe Public will blame Northern Rail but any good leader of the opposition will use any delay to DDA to their advantage and make sure the public are fully aware of it.

Well I would be only too happy if disability rights groups hammer the Dft (Anyone who has a pop at that 'Unfit for Purpose' dept is all-right in my book).
There still seems to be a possibility that they could be made DDA compliant, I claim no insight myself but Roger Ford (of Modern Railways)hinted that it might now be possible (he has lots of industry contacts).

 

[507 001]

Also a low-cost alternative to closing said lines. I wonder how much of the network we might have lost if it weren't for Pacers.

Just out of curiosity, how much cheaper to run is say a 142 compared to a 150?

 

[ainsworth74]

Just out of curiosity, how much cheaper to run is say a 142 compared to a 150?

In terms of track access charges, according to this Network Rail document a 2-car 142 will cost 7.9p per mile whilst a 150 will cost 9.98p per mile. No idea in terms of fuel consumption and maintenance.

 

[northwichcat]

In terms of track access charges, according to this Network Rail document a 2-car 142 will cost 7.9p per mile whilst a 150 will cost 9.98p per mile. No idea in terms of fuel consumption and maintenance.

I appreciate you answered the question which 507 001 asked but what should be noted is on some Northern services 2 car Sprinters have been replaced by 4 car Pacers to improve capacity. So the pair of 142s cost 15.8p per mile and provide around 200 seats if the units have 2+2 seating. On the other hand a 156+153 formation costs 16.1p per mile and provides around 220 seats.

On the other hand some diagrams which were outgrew 142s have been upgraded to Sprinters.

My understanding is leasing costs tend to be higher for new units but maintenance costs tend to be higher for older units.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There still seems to be a possibility that they could be made DDA compliant, I claim no insight myself but Roger Ford (of Modern Railways)hinted that it might now be possible (he has lots of industry contacts).

As has been pointed out already in this thread it's certainly possible but only if a lot of cash is thrown at units which will be around 35 years old by the time DDA kicks in, so whether it's economically viable is another question. Somewhere on the web there's a NR document evaluating the cost of life extension programs on ex-BR units. IIRC they list options for 142s, 143s and 144s but then dismiss them later on as non-economically viable.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That said, I wonder just how many people base their decision of who to vote for on something like that - of those who use public transport, how many would care what showed up, and whether it was DDA-complicit?

The issue of DDA-compliance itself may not interest a lot of people but point at Pacers and say they would be replaced by brand new trains and you have the interest of a lot of people.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think the Pacer's cheapness is the reason they were built. A low-cost solution to lines which brought in little money..

Are not there cases where travel loadings that applied at the time of Pacer introduction were somewhat lower than they are at present on certain routes within the areas where they are employed, so that particular raison d'etre would not have the same validity in 2012.

 

[northwichcat]

Are not there cases where travel loadings that applied at the time of Pacer introduction were somewhat lower than they are at present on certain routes within the areas where they are employed, so that particular raison d'etre would not have the same validity in 2012.

Very much so. As passenger numbers have risen some routes have lost Pacers while routes like Southport-Piccadilly, Piccadilly-Chester via Altrincham and Calder Vale which were effectively Sprinter routes in the early 1990s, now all see Pacers. On the other hand Bidston-Wrexham lost it's Pacers simply by getting moved in to a different franchise.

 

[tbtc]

Just out of curiosity, how much cheaper to run is say a 142 compared to a 150?

Northern claimed in the press a year or two ago that a new train would cost three times as much to run as a Pacer, but frustratingly didn't say whether this was the ROSCO fee, the track access charge, fuel costs, a combination of some/all of these... (since some costs ought to remain the same, like staffing)

(I know that's not the question that you asked)

 

[northwichcat]

Northern claimed in the press a year or two ago that a new train would cost three times as much to run as a Pacer, but frustratingly didn't say whether this was the ROSCO fee, the track access charge, fuel costs, a combination of some/all of these... (since some costs ought to remain the same, like staffing)

(I know that's not the question that you asked)

Given that there's no new train designs for 15.5m carriages, I wondered if they looked at the cost of a 2 car 172 with 23m carriages in making that comparison.

A 3 car 172 as direct replacement for 2x142 diagrams may have lower staffing costs on off-peak services like Southport-Airport which get some 4 car 142s even off-peak and some have two 'conductors' on.

The same Northern did say they would look at the CRSE prototype DMU that they claimed would cost about 50% of what an order from a EU based manufacturer would cost.

 

[ainsworth74]

The same Northern did say they would look at the CRSE prototype DMU that they claimed would cost about 50% of what an order from a EU based manufacturer would cost.

I thought they did but got shut down by the DfT?

 

[tbtc]

Given that there's no new train designs for 15.5m carriages, I wondered if they looked at the cost of a 2 car 172 with 23m carriages in making that comparison

Yeah, that's why I'm unsure about using the Northern figure as anything "scientific" - hard to know what is comparing like with like.

Guess we should just be grateful there's no tiny trains being built - don't need more of them

 

[HSTEd]

Well instead of a double Pacer one could have a 3-car 20m vehicle EMU.... but really we need to stop building 20m vehicles and go all 23m.....

Class 323 lookalike replacing double pacer gives an increase in capacity.....

 

[northwichcat]

Well instead of a double Pacer one could have a 3-car 20m vehicle EMU.... but really we need to stop building 20m vehicles and go all 23m.....

Really the Southport line needs an interior similar to the 156s but with enough luggage space for Airport passengers. It did originally get 156s but passenger demand grew and they proved to be too small. The 3 car Southeastern EMUs with 20m carriages and 2+2 seating have 176 seats, so not enough seats for the Southport line, even if you proposed fast-tracking electrification work that hasn't even been proposed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I thought they did but got shut down by the DfT?

Yes they did look at it but got prevented for progressing with it by DfT.

 

[tbtc]

Really the Southport line needs an interior similar to the 156s but with enough luggage space for Airport passengers. It did originally get 156s but passenger demand grew and they proved to be too small. The 3 car Southeastern EMUs with 20m carriages and 2+2 seating have 176 seats, so not enough seats for the Southport line, even if you proposed fast-tracking electrification work that hasn't even been proposed

If anyone did look into further electrification schemes then the Salford - Wigan - Southport line ought to be one of the next routes on the list (along with the line through Warrington Central), given the five trains an hour from Manchester to Wigan (esp as the Kirkby service is going to be just a shuttle from Wigan)

 

[HSTEd]

Really the Southport line needs an interior similar to the 156s but with enough luggage space for Airport passengers. It did originally get 156s but passenger demand grew and they proved to be too small. The 3 car Southeastern EMUs with 20m carriages and 2+2 seating have 176 seats, so not enough seats for the Southport line, even if you proposed fast-tracking electrification work that hasn't even been proposed.

They get away with 60m spread over four vehicles now so 60m spread over three vehicles is probably adequate, ofcourse if it is not then a fourth vehicle could always be added.

The objective should be an all electric railway, with the need for additional rolling stock due to demand increase and the approaching expiry of the bulk of the diesel fleet we are presented with an opportunity that will not arise again for another 40 years.

 

[northwichcat]

They get away with 60m spread over four vehicles now so 60m spread over three vehicles is probably adequate, ofcourse if it is not then a fourth vehicle could always be added.

Yes 'get away' is the right term. Northern get a lot of criticism for using Pacers on Southport-Airport services.

Given the average size of passengers is increasing (including height not just weight), something like the Merseytravel Pacer seating shouldn't be attempted on new builds.

So it looks like we're back to a 4 car EMU with 20m carriages or a 3 car EMU with 23m carriages debate again.

Incidentally a 4 car Pacer is a bit longer than 60m but the extra would be offset by not having redundant driving cabs.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The same Northern did say they would look at the CRSE prototype DMU that they claimed would cost about 50% of what an order from a EU based manufacturer would cost.

Are we really making reference here to CSRE (China Sourced Railway Equiment), as the only CRSE that I have heard of is the Centre for Religious and Spiritual Education whose only "trains" are trains of deep meditational thought.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Are we really making reference here to CSRE (China Sourced Railway Equiment), as the only CRSE that I have heard of is the Centre for Religious and Spiritual Education whose only "trains" are trains of deep meditational thought.

I would assume so Paul, in the same way that I would assume CSRE written on a religious forum to mean Centre for Religious and Spiritual Education and not transport parts from Asia

 

[Coolguy22468]

I was at Manchester Piccadilly today and I was a bit shocked about how many pacers were there.

In my opinion they should a new wave pacers because they have been very successful and economical and on the correct track work brilliantly.

 

[yorksrob]

Well, the Richmond seat ones are decent enough little workhorses for what they do.

That said, after the initial tinkering to get them to work properly, they turned out not to be all that much cheaper than the 15* units to build anyway. Also, bearing in mind, most routes that would have generated enough usage for a pacer thirty years ago have experienced a considerable increase in passenger numbers over those last thirty years, so I would say they should aim to build a modern equivalent of the Sprinter class rather than a Pacer class in the near future.