Are you proposing to build station toilets at Hope Valley stations instead then?
No toilets are a problem on infrequent rural services. However, they could be cascaded to services with frequent services instead.
What percentage of Pacers work long-distance infrequent rural services? Here in Wales they are not used on the Heart Of Wales Line or Conwy Valley Line (lenghy infrequent rural services). They are mostly to be found on frequent services around Cardiff, though they do come west to Pembrokeshire sometimes.
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.
Forget Wales and the South West, ValleyLines electrification should eliminate the need for Pacers on current ATW services, and release 8 class 150s to replace FirstGW's 8 Pacers. That just leaves the north of England (and, admittedly, the majority of Pacers) to sort out.
Dont forget that no bombardier trains are really suitable pacer replacement..
As I said above, from what I've seen it is normally frequent, almost metro-like, services that are Pacer-worked. I've often said that 3-car 377s would, in my opinion, be ideal for the ValleyLines if/when electrified. Giving other parts of the country new EMUs and cascading some 150/2-like EMUs to the Valleys would do the trick also though. LondonMidland-style class 172s (with corridor connections) would be useful on outer suburban services with a greater-than 75mph linespeed that are currently worked by class 150s (Cardiff - Cheltenham being the one on my mind, although that one should be electrified in my opinion). Rural lines like HOWL, in my opinion, would be best worked by 156s (or a group of coupled 153s with improved legroom), short branch lines with many stops (eg. Pembroke Dock if the services terminated at Whitland or Carmarthen rather than running through to Swansea) could be 150s.
One question though, could Pacers be worked as a heritage operation (like the 3-CIGs on the Lymington branch were) as a cheap way to re-open lines on a trial basis to prove the case for full openning (perhaps as a Manchester Metrolink style tram system)? Again I have a Welsh example, the frieght only lines north of Swansea.
Guess we should just be grateful there's no tiny trains being built - don't need more of them
Depends on the definition of 'tiny'. If 2-car units are tiny, then I disagree, nothing wrong with 158s or 156s (or even 150/2s, provided they are not used on services they shouldn't be). A 170, 175 or 150/1 is a different story because of the lack of corridor connections on the ends.
In my opinion they should a new wave pacers because they have been very successful and economical and on the correct track work brilliantly.
How about a 21st century Pacer?
Cheap construction with a 75mph top speed, wide doors with easy wheelchair access, a big DDA compliant toilet, good acceleration and lots of room for standing passengers.
I would say they should aim to build a modern equivalent of the Sprinter class rather than a Pacer class in the near future.
I agree with yorksrob, we need a new series of lightweight, cheap to run, DMUs but the goal should be 21st century Sprinters rather than 21st century Pacers. We hopefully shouldn't need to be as bargin-basement as BR did when they built the Pacers. Actually, there might be enough 150/2s, 153s/155s and 156s around for the 75mph routes suited to sprinters, so a new batch of extra-fuel-efficent lightweight regional express trains (like class 158s) would probably be more useful (Wales needs a heck of a lot more 158s at any rate).
