8 years left for Pacers?

[stuartmoss]

I was unaware that Pacers were being phased out up to the end of 2019, but have just read this on the Pacer page on Wikipedia: Under the Disability Discrimination Act drawn up in the mid 1990s, all public transport will need to be accessible by 2019. Pacers are unable to meet this requirement so will have to be withdrawn by the end of 2019.

This has got me wondering about all the stations with low platforms, or the old stations with footbridge access to far platforms, what impact will the DDA have on them for 2019? Surely in the current spending climate the government isn't going to throw millions at the railways to make these changes....or are they?

 

[Lampshade]

They could put in Harrington Humps to deal with the low platforms. Footbridges and subways will need much more investment though, hopefully written into new franchise specifications.

 

[Michael.Y]

Leominster is having a new lift fitted onto its footbridge.

 

[daikilo]

I was unaware that Pacers were being phased out up to the end of 2019, but have just read this on the Pacer page on Wikipedia: Under the Disability Discrimination Act drawn up in the mid 1990s, all public transport will need to be accessible by 2019. Pacers are unable to meet this requirement so will have to be withdrawn by the end of 2019.

This has got me wondering about all the stations with low platforms, or the old stations with footbridge access to far platforms, what impact will the DDA have on them for 2019? Surely in the current spending climate the government isn't going to throw millions at the railways to make these changes....or are they?

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.

 

[Oliver]

They could put in Harrington Humps to deal with the low platforms. Footbridges and subways will need much more investment though, hopefully written into new franchise specifications.

Whether it's in a franchise or not makes little difference - someone has to pay, and that's either passengers or taxpayers. Many of these "improvements" are of very little benefit.

 

[NSEFAN]

IIRC the "safety" card was played in order to withdraw the last slam door units. It seems that the "discrimination" card is played for Pacers.

In both cases, the truth is that the rolling stock is just worn out and due for replacement. The way I see it, the DDA is just a means by which to force out new carriages by a deadline. Otherwise, as has been mentioned, ROSCOs will just keep milking the units for every penny they can get.

 

[paul1609]

IIRC the "safety" card was played in order to withdraw the last slam door units. It seems that the "discrimination" card is played for Pacers.

In both cases, the truth is that the rolling stock is just worn out and due for replacement. The way I see it, the DDA is just a means by which to force out new carriages by a deadline. Otherwise, as has been mentioned, ROSCOs will just keep milking the units for every penny they can get.

If the current state of the economy hasnt improved just look for an emergency extension. No doubt there will be protests but the alternative would be a Northern Beeching 2.

 

[NSEFAN]

If the current state of the economy hasnt improved just look for an emergency extension. No doubt there will be protests but the alternative would be a Northern Beeching 2.

True, but the government could turn the problem on its head by giving the order for the replacement trains to Bombardier, then pat themselves on the back for the resulting economic fertilizer they've just spread in the field of UK-based train manufacturing.

In terms of monetary cost, if we still have a conservative-minded government in 2019, they will just pass the costs onto the railway, which will in turn pass on the cost to the passengers. Isn't economics wonderful?

 

[northwichcat]

The issue with DDA is the Dec 2019 deadline was decided in 1994, which gave the railways enough time to replace Pacers and to refurbish other units to be DDA complaint. FNW gave their 150s partial DDA compliance when they refurbished them in 2000.

 

[dstrat]

IIRC the "safety" card was played in order to withdraw the last slam door units. It seems that the "discrimination" card is played for Pacers.

In both cases, the truth is that the rolling stock is just worn out and due for replacement. The way I see it, the DDA is just a means by which to force out new carriages by a deadline. Otherwise, as has been mentioned, ROSCOs will just keep milking the units for every penny they can get.

It might have been a convenient excuse but it is anything but untrue to say that the Mk1 units were unsafe when they rammed into each other!

 

[NSEFAN]

It might have been a convenient excuse but it is anything but untrue to say that the Mk1 units were unsafe when they rammed into each other!

My point was that the real reason for replacement (tatty worn out trains) is dressed with some other excuses (safety, access, etc). Whilst these are often true, they aren't the primary reason for replacing the stock: economics.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad newer trains have replaced MK1s from a safety perspective. It just bothers me that legislation (which preys on the secondary reasons for replacement) is needed to force new trains into the system, when this should be happening naturally as things get old and technology improves.

 

[dstrat]

Ah ok, totally agree

 

[lincolnshire]

Whether it's in a franchise or not makes little difference - someone has to pay, and that's either passengers or taxpayers. Many of these "improvements" are of very little benefit.

I remember seeing somewhere on a Network Rail site somewhere it said about improvements to station for the disabled that it was been paid for by the government , so that they would comply with the Disability Access Act.
Tax payer paying again, considering all the ticket barriers going in and all the extra revenue coming in to the TOC,s then should n,t they be paying for these improvements to access ? It actually makes me wonder if even ticket barriers are been paid for by Network rail too, so in other words taxpayer paying out so that the TOC,s can get more profit in to there accounts.

 

[tbtc]

This has got me wondering about all the stations with low platforms, or the old stations with footbridge access to far platforms, what impact will the DDA have on them for 2019?

Going beyond the Pacer argument, there are a lot of inaccesable bits on infrastructure on the network (subways etc).

Some of these are at stations where the passenger numbers don't necessarily justify a brand new bridge, but I guess someone is going to have to decide whether the cost of that is better than the cost of asking passengers to cross the tracks unsupervised (etc).

Are there some remote stations where it'd be simpler to close "platform two" and only use the one platform for trains in either direction (like Hartlepool, on a double tracked line)?

 

[jon0844]

True, but the government could turn the problem on its head by giving the order for the replacement trains to Bombardier, then pat themselves on the back for the resulting economic fertilizer they've just spread in the field of UK-based train manufacturing.

Replace Pacers with Bombardier built trains? Do you really want to see this forum filled with people saying 'We want the Pacers back'?

Also, if we want them to be up and running by 2019/2020 then we better get Bombardier to start building them next week, or they'll be cutting things a bit fine.

 

[NSEFAN]

Replace Pacers with Bombardier built trains? Do you really want to see this forum filled with people saying 'We want the Pacers back'?

Also, if we want them to be up and running by 2019/2020 then we better get Bombardier to start building them next week, or they'll be cutting things a bit fine.

The 172s didn't seem too bad when I travelled on some London Midland and London Overground examples a couple of weeks ago. Clearance issues permitting, they could easily replace the 142s and 143s, methinks. Plus, Bombardier have already made plenty of class 172s so they should have no problem in making a few hundred more carriages.

 

[Nym]

For DDA Stairs thingey, you could just mass order stairchairs (They have a stair shaped rubber track and a platform, operated by one person) for disabled passengers and advise to book assistance in advance.

I know it's supposed to be easy access for all and everything, but you have to draw a line somewhere, you can't make all of LUL accessable without digging a load of new tunnels.

With regards to pacers, I don't have a problem with them, and a lot of disabled pax I know (those who have difficulty walking or with stairs) find it easyer getting on and off 14x units than say, 156 or 158 units in the same stations, smaller steps to the platform. God forbid if a 185 operated service is what they need to get on, I've had to lift pax onto them before (yes, I knew them!).

 

[Lampshade]

Are foot crossings DDA compliant?

 

[Nym]

The 172s didn't seem too bad when I travelled on some London Midland and London Overground examples a couple of weeks ago. Clearance issues permitting, they could easily replace the 142s and 143s, methinks. Plus, Bombardier have already made plenty of class 172s so they should have no problem in making a few hundred more carriages.

And you'd think so, but remember, this is Derby...!

But yes, even with electrification, we need the additional capacity too so will still need more diesel units, but they need to be thinking of what the next round of diesel units that will replace the 156 fleet will consist of, will it be enough lines electrified by then, or will it be something making use of hydrogen fuel cell tech? LNG engines?

There's any number of potential developments in the world of trucking, so why not take a leaf out of that book, Volvo have an LNG powered tractor unit that runs at 480 - 510hp, bang on for a regional railway carriage. And LNG fits emissions standards much nicer than diesel or SVO.

PS: LNG = Liquefied Natural Gas.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Are foot crossings DDA compliant?

Knowing the DfT probably not...

They'll probably turn round and say that Snaith with it's 500pax/annum needs a new platform because the current one's ramp is too steep.

 

[O L Leigh]

I have just read this on the Pacer page on Wikipedia.

*Laughs uncontrollably*

I've highlighted your mistake.

Who says they can't be made DDA compliant? Being based on bus technology it shouldn't be too hard to modify them. OK a disabled loo and space for wheelchair passengers will probably cost a few rows of seats, but the doors are wider than on some Sprinter classes and the interior layout is much more open well with fewer obstructions too.

O L Leigh

 

[northwichcat]

Who says they can't be made DDA compliant? Being based on bus technology it shouldn't be too hard to modify them. OK a disabled loo and space for wheelchair passengers will probably cost a few rows of seats, but the doors are wider than on some Sprinter classes and the interior layout is much more open well with fewer obstructions too.

Maybe we should have a sticky thread on DDA compliance relating to Pacers because we keep getting to the same point.

Pacers need an extended ramp to allow wheelchairs to board. The extended ramp is not versatile enough to allow a wheelchair user to board/alight a Pacer at any station.

Now there are two solutions to this:
1. Rebuild platforms as required - a very expensive solution considering the age of the Pacers and that they are the only trains that would benefit from this work.
2. Rebuild the saloon to remove the double step and make the height of the floor on the saloon similar to that of the Sprinters - again very expensive.

Therefore, the overall conclusion is that it's non-economically viable to make Pacers DDA compliant. Porterbrook have also decided that it's non-economically viable to make 153s DDA compliant unless they are reformed in to 2 or 3 carriage units.

The toilet is another Pacer issue. It would need to be moved down to the end of the train due to the door positions and to allow wheelchair users to be positioned near the toilet. Now people point out frequent short 'metro' services don't need toilets, which is correct. However, they aren't currently used on frequent 'metro' services. To get around this the LO 172s have toilets installed and are swapped with the some of the 144s, which could then have their toilets removed and then that problem is solved.

 

[jon0844]

I think the Pacers have had a fairly good run and should be replaced, even if they could be modified in some way.

Besides my joke about Bombardier, I would have thought a number of 172s would be ideal. But, you can be sure there will be loads of teething problems.

 

[O L Leigh]

Pacers need an extended ramp to allow wheelchairs to board. The extended ramp is not versatile enough to allow a wheelchair user to board/alight a Pacer at any station.

Now there are two solutions to this:
1. Rebuild platforms as required - a very expensive solution considering the age of the Pacers and that they are the only trains that would benefit from this work.
2. Rebuild the saloon to remove the double step and make the height of the floor on the saloon similar to that of the Sprinters - again very expensive.

These are not insurmountable problems.

Positioning the unit correctly along the platform to avoid obstructing the ramp could be one option. Alternatively, if you want to spend some money, one set of doors each side could be equipped with a folding power-operated lift to get folk in wheelchairs down the modest height onto a platform. You could even replace a section of floor with a built-in ramp that removed the second step and made it possible to use conventional ramps. None of these options require the wholesale rebuilding of either trains or stations.

The toilet is another Pacer issue. It would need to be moved down to the end of the train due to the door positions and to allow wheelchair users to be positioned near the toilet.

Yes it probably would, but again that's not an insurmountable problem.

Therefore, the overall conclusion is that it's non-economically viable to make Pacers DDA compliant. Porterbrook have also decided that it's non-economically viable to make 153s DDA compliant unless they are reformed in to 2 or 3 carriage units.

Well I guess we shall have to wait and see. None of the options I've presented are prohibitively expensive.

It does make me laugh somewhat that people are so keen to sweep these units away. Yes they are getting old now, but then so are plenty of other classes of train which have no immediate prospect of replacement. The honest truth is that we don't know what the future holds for them and none of us know what plans the ROSCOs and TOCs have. We are assuming that these units cannot be made DDA compliant because we don't know for certain. Personally I don't see too many problems and actually think that they make a better base for compliance than some of the Sprinter classes that are held to be superior.

Lets wait and see.

O L Leigh

 

[northwichcat]

Positioning the unit correctly along the platform to avoid obstructing the ramp could be one option.

I don't think you understand the problem properly. Some platforms aren't deep enough (I'm defining depth as a horizontal line between the edge of the platform the track side and the other end of the platform) to allow the extended ramp to be used. I'm not referring to platforms like 13 and 14 at Piccadilly where in places there are buildings which make it narrower than in others but a narrow platform throughout.

Making these platforms deeper could involve compulsory land order purchases and expensive construction.

Yes they are getting old now, but then so are plenty of other classes of train which have no immediate prospect of replacement.

People are so keen to get rid of Pacers because they give an abysmal ride quality and the fact that a lot of people travel on them for an hour or more at a time - not the 10 minutes that some people seem to think. We have units older than Pacers in the North West, in the form of 507s and 508s - these provide a much better ride quality than Pacers. We also have 150s that are slightly older than Pacers - again these provide a better ride quality plus they have slightly more capacity so with the growth in passenger numbers replacing 142s first makes a lot of sense.

We are assuming that these units cannot be made DDA compliant because we don't know for certain.

While you laughed at the suggestion that Pacers being withdrawn for DDA compliance reasons because Wikipedia said so, it is actually something that TfGM and Network Rail have dismissed as non-economically viable. Network Rail's plans for North TPE electrification actually mention it being a way of withdrawing non-complaint DDA Pacers.

actually think that they make a better base for compliance than some of the Sprinter classes that are held to be superior

Really? Have you seen any of the refurbished 150s? The ones that FNW refurbished only need new destination displays, new door controls, a PIS and a couple of minor tweaks. That's probably about 5% of the cost of what's needed for the 142s.

 

[WestCoast]

It does make me laugh somewhat that people are so keen to sweep these units away. Yes they are getting old now, but then so are plenty of other classes of train which have no immediate prospect of replacement. The honest truth is that we don't know what the future holds for them and none of us know what plans the ROSCOs and TOCs have.

Now the issue of Pacers comes up time and time again (I travel on Pacers every day, so I hear it all the time), and while certain forum members may cherish their 'quirkiness', from the various comments I hear, the general public don't like them at all. I have never heard so much whinging about any other train class.

People aren't keen to remove them from service because of their age, it's because of their general quality (and poor suitability for longer routes). They were not designed for busy commuter services. They were never intended to remain in service for so long, and 2020 seems like an appropriate retirement date to me.

 

[O L Leigh]

I don't think you understand the problem properly.

Yes I do, which is why I made suggestions such as sloping floors and even power-operated lifts to remove the need for extended ramps being used. Clearly there are no issues with the standard ramps used on other classes of train, so if Pacers can be modified to use a standard ramp there is no need to lower the floor of the entire train.

Really? Have you seen any of the refurbished 150s? The ones that FNW refurbished only need new destination displays, new door controls, a PIS and a couple of minor tweaks.

And these units are now fully DDA compliant...? Surely they also need a disabled loo and space for wheelchairs. I will admit that it's been some years since I was last on a Cl150 but I don't recall there being any such provision on these units.

That's probably about 5% of the cost of what's needed for the 142s.

That's a figure plucked from the air with no means of substantiation whatsoever.

While you laughed at the suggestion that Pacers being withdrawn for DDA compliance reasons because Wikipedia said so, it is actually something that TfGM and Network Rail have dismissed as non-economically viable. Network Rail's plans for North TPE electrification actually mention it being a way of withdrawing non-complaint DDA Pacers.

I did laugh at Wikipedia being quoted as an authoritative source because the very notion is laughable.

I actually think that it would be a good thing to start thinning out the Pacer fleet, but I'm not naive. Even at it's fullest extent, how is the TPE electrification scheme going to release enough DMUs to see off the entire Pacer fleet AND create capacity across the network?

I'm still firmly in the "wait and see" camp. Unlike yourself, I can see ways in which a Pacer can be made DDA compliant and think that it's likely we shall see at least some of the fleet made so while the rest go for razor blades. But we just don't know, do we.

O L Leigh

 

[GM078]

Is it remotely possible they could get a derogation from the requirements? Though as pointed out they'd probably be life expired by that point anyway.

 

[northwichcat]

And these units are now fully DDA compliant...? Surely they also need a disabled loo and space for wheelchairs. I will admit that it's been some years since I was last on a Cl150 but I don't recall there being any such provision on these units.

I said refurbished 150s. The 150s refurbished by FNW have an accessible toilet and a designated wheelchair bay. However, they don't have the accessible door controls, the bright destination displays or the PIS.

The ATW refurbished units have the wheelchair space and the right door controls but lack the accessible toilet.

Which refurbished units are you thinking of? The ex-LO 150s that had some seats removed and new seat covers maybe?

That's a figure plucked from the air with no means of substantiation whatsoever.

Yes it is but the comparison would be like comparing two booking offices, one needs replacement doors and one was completely withdrawn by fire.

I actually think that it would be a good thing to start thinning out the Pacer fleet, but I'm not naive. Even at it's fullest extent, how is the TPE electrification scheme going to release enough DMUs to see off the entire Pacer fleet AND create capacity across the network?

I didn't say the full Pacer fleet would be withdrawn as a result of it. We'd probably look at something like 30 Pacers being withdrawn as a result of North TPE electrification.

 

[142094]

the general public don't like them at all. I have never heard so much whinging about any other train class.

What you'll often find is:

1) People complain for no reason at all
2) People who complain about Pacers will also complain about any other form of traction
3) People complain in the hope of getting some sort of new investment (that may not even affect their journey).

Asking views of passengers should always be taken with a pinch of salt.

For example I could say that a lot of people complain about Voyagers.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Coupling a 142 to say a 153 etc?
Are there many wheelchairs using the overcrowded services?