8 years left for Pacers?

[O L Leigh]

I said refurbished 150s.

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

Pardon me, but I know what you said.

Besides, I was not suggesting that any Cl150 is fully DDA compliant but simply asking you a question. You were holding these units up as some sort of paragon of virtue and I wanted clarification. As it happens the information you have provided turns out to have underlined the point that these unit are not fully compliant either.

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is but the comparison would be like comparing two booking offices, one needs replacement doors and one was completely withdrawn by fire.

No it isn't.

You have in your mind an idea of the work YOU would do to make these units DDA compliant, but it doesn't mean that this is the work that will actually be required. You may wish to rebuild them from the solebar up, but what if it could be done in a less radical and more affordable way?

I didn't say the full Pacer fleet would be withdrawn as a result of it. We'd probably look at something like 30 Pacers being withdrawn as a result of North TPE electrification.

OK, so unless someone somewhere can magic up a replacement DMU to be in service across the Wales and the North of England inside the next 8 years (and there seems to be no signs of this at the moment), will you at least concede that the future for the MAJORITY of the Pacer fleet remains uncertain and that a number of these units will either be made DDA complaint or subject to a derogation in order to remain in service beyond 2020? Because that's all I'm saying.

Yes we might see them all swept away and I would love to think that there is a new generation of local/metro DMUs waiting in the wings, but I don't see it just yet. Hence, I am waiting to see.

O L Leigh

 

[Cliveblackpool]

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.

I have never complained about a Mk 3 coach, especially if I have a table seat!
The old Mk 1 compartment coaches - the sprung seats were dead comfy!

 

[Aictos]

If you all don't mind me asking as the Pacers have a basic bus body shell, is it possible for the same wheelchair ramps as fitted to Stagecoach Peterborough buses to be fitted to the 14X classes.

It would just mean removing the steps and having the ramp fold into the floor which is a good idea,

 

[northwichcat]

Pardon me, but I know what you said.

Besides, I was not suggesting that any Cl150 is fully DDA compliant but simply asking you a question. You were holding these units up as some sort of paragon of virtue and I wanted clarification. As it happens the information you have provided turns out to have underlined the point that these unit are not fully compliant either.

You said:

And these units are now fully DDA compliant...?

After directly quoting me saying

The ones that FNW refurbished only need new destination displays, new door controls, a PIS and a couple of minor tweaks.

So did I not make it clear that need work doing to make them DDA compliant but don't need a lot of expensive work doing? You're wording of the question and the underlining of the word 'fully' suggests not.

You have in your mind an idea of the work YOU would do to make these units DDA compliant, but it doesn't mean that this is the work that will actually be required. You may wish to rebuild them from the solebar up, but what if it could be done in a less radical and more affordable way?

In reality you know that for DMUs that will be 35 years old and were built to a low budget in the first place won't be getting millions of pounds to make them DDA complaint.

OK, so unless someone somewhere can magic up a replacement DMU to be in service across the Wales and the North of England inside the next 8 years (and there seems to be no signs of this at the moment), will you at least concede that the future for the MAJORITY of the Pacer fleet remains uncertain and that a number of these units will either be made DDA complaint or subject to a derogation in order to remain in service beyond 2020? Because that's all I'm saying.

The current Northern and FGW franchises expire well before the Dec 2019 deadline so replacements would relate to the future franchises.

There is evidence that Pacers won't be kept in service beyond 2019 - TfGM and Network Rail say they won't be for DDA reasons, Philip Hammond (when he was Transport Secretary) said that only minor DDA infringements would be permitted after 2019. Who has said they may continue beyond 2019?

 

[O L Leigh]

We shall see.

O L Leigh

 

[northwichcat]

Coupling a 142 to say a 153 etc?

Someone previously claimed that DfT said an accessible train attached to a non-accessible train will not comply.

Are there many wheelchairs using the overcrowded services?

If any train is too full it's the first to board who get priority.

DDA should allow any disabled user within reason should be allowed to travel on any train service.

 

[jon0844]

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.

I can see many more years in a 313 (or 315) and the refurbished 313s on Southern or the 508s show that this can be done well.

I really don't think the Pacers deserve such attention, but agree that you don't need to buy new stock in all cases. That's why it was so odd that Bombardier in Derby didn't see fit to bid/offer to refurbish (properly, not new seat covers and flooring) the many trains that can run for many more years without trouble - or certainly no more trouble than a Bombardier train with all of its quirks.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

The Pacers are life expired (in reality now) by the time they get to 2019 they will be totally worn out (they are not far off already) as someone who works on them on a regular basis the Repair books get filled out quicker and quicker, they will last to 2019 (just) but no longer

 

[142094]

If any train is too full it's the first to board who get priority.

I don't think I've ever seen a wheelchair on a service which is packed to the rafters, but indeed I've seen people moved from the fold-up seats on certain 142s if a wheelchair needs to board.

 

[stuartmoss]

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


O L Leigh

Then would you laugh at GMPTE? Because the line from Wikipedia is correctly referenced to them as follows:

Rail Programme Director, GMPTE (15 October 2010). "Reforming rail franchising consultation - response". Greater Manchester Integrated Transport Authority (GMITA). The document is here: http://www.gmita.gov.uk/download/3203/item_08_response_to_the_rail_franchising_consultation

I would say that Wikipedia have got it spot on, on this occasion. Don't forget the pages are maintained by people with knowledge and passion for the subject areas, and whilst the myth is that it is not editorially controlled, I can assure you that it is - and much tighter than some newspapers are.

See the bullet point third from the bottom of page 6.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I would say that Wikipedia have got it spot on, on this occasion. Don't forget the pages are maintained by people with knowledge and passion for the subject areas...

And can be spammed by any of the other 6bn people on Earth...

 

[stuartmoss]

And can be spammed by any of the other 6bn people on Earth...

Again, I do realise that, but I'm pretty sure that editors receive updates for all pages that they are responsible for. I don't want to take this thread off-topic but I was merely trying to point out the the source on this occasion seems reliable enough to me.

 

[O L Leigh]

The editors do not ensure factual accuracy and certainly cannot by relied upon to vet the sources. Their job is merely to see that articles meet the desired standards and mark up any that appear to be inadequately supported by independent sources. If someone contributes an article and quotes selectively in order to introduce bias this will not be picked up by the editors. Plus they cannot prevent inaccurate information sneaking through because they are not experts on the topics they edit.

Bear in mind that anyone can contribute information to Wikipedia and that it is largely peer-reviewed.

O L Leigh

 

[tbtc]

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 don't think that there will be that many units freed up - the Manchester/ Liverpool/ Blackpool electrification will free up a couple of dozen units, the Manchester - York electrification will free up fewer, but in both cases the "saved" trains will be needed for capacity enhancements, and the "saved" units will be mainly the wrong type (e.g. 185s, rather than Pacers).

Really to eliminate Pacers we need to focus on the kind of frequent routes where they are allocated to (Cardiff Valleys, Manchester Wigan etc).

However I don't think that we can electrify sufficient routes by 31/12/19 to eliminate Pacers (as well as improve capacity), so some new basic DMUs will be required (by "basic" I mean 75mph, designed for shortish/quieter journeys)

 

[Mattmatt]

At the risk of causing controversy; I travel on these Pacers on a daily basis; they are truly shocking, even some with refurb seats, the sooner they go the better! Cost cutting was the reason they came out, lets not have them for another 20 years with cobbled together ramps to get wheelchairs & buggies in them. It brings a smile to my face when i see the odd 150, as i know i'll get a half decent journey into town!

Sorry but they have to go!

 

[northwichcat]

I don't think that there will be that many units freed up - the Manchester/ Liverpool/ Blackpool electrification will free up a couple of dozen units, the Manchester - York electrification will free up fewer, but in both cases the "saved" trains will be needed for capacity enhancements, and the "saved" units will be mainly the wrong type (e.g. 185s, rather than Pacers).

Really to eliminate Pacers we need to focus on the kind of frequent routes where they are allocated to (Cardiff Valleys, Manchester Wigan etc).

However I don't think that we can electrify sufficient routes by 31/12/19 to eliminate Pacers (as well as improve capacity), so some new basic DMUs will be required (by "basic" I mean 75mph, designed for shortish/quieter journeys)

It will actually be the same units freed up twice in some cases with 185s freed up from the North West electrification being used to add capacity to North TPE (and hopefully South TPE in replacing the 2 car 170s with 185s), then EMUs replacing 185s on North TPE.

185s are not Pacer replacements but if you look outside the box they would make good units for services like Buxton-Manchester and then the 150s/156s on that line currently can replace the Pacers. Calder Vale is another obvious 185 route, which has just about every Northern DMU operating on it.

With regards to new DMUs if Bombardier can offer a good price for new 172s and offer good after sales support then that's probably the best option. Designing a completely new DMU class would likely cost more, while the only other 'recent' DMU order was for 185s would be too expensive even if the production line could be restarted.

 

[Rhydgaled]

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.

I agree that Pacers would almost certainly be very close to life-expired by 2020, and due to that I am inclinded to believe wikipedia that Pacers cannot be ecconomically made to comply in this case. However, a derogation is not as impossible as the wiki article seems to assume, according to this post.

Pardon me, but I know what you said.OK, so unless someone somewhere can magic up a replacement DMU to be in service across the Wales and the North of England inside the next 8 years (and there seems to be no signs of this at the moment), will you at least concede that the future for the MAJORITY of the Pacer fleet remains uncertain and that a number of these units will either be made DDA complaint or subject to a derogation in order to remain in service beyond 2020? Because that's all I'm saying.

I personally hope most of the Pacers can be replaced by a mix of electrification of the routes they operate and cascaded Sprinters from other newly-electrified routes. However, I concede that making the 2020 deadline (esspecially if you also want more trains in total in the new fleet) is highly likely to require some extra DMUs as well (although, if a second rapid electrification train like the GWML one (which apparently is to be capable of over 150 miles per year) is brought in for TPE north, then direct or indirect replacment by electrification of ALL Pacers is certainly possible).

The Welsh Pacer fleet can be killed off entirly by extending GWML wires to Swansea and the ValleyLines and introducing 377-like units, which could spare enough 150s to replace FGW's last few Pacers.

If the government is going to use it's power to provide a derogation, I hope they do this for the IC125 fleet to raise money for full Pacer replacment, rather than extending the Pacer's life by derogation and doing an expensive compliance refurb on the IC125s. I'd rather have compliance refurb for IC125s AND being rid of Pacers by 2020 though.

If we have to have new DMUs, then 172s would be good provided they are not missued by putting them on regional express services as has happened with 170s. If you want to put the new DMUs on express services and cascade stuff like 150s down, could Derby produce a true regional-express Turbostar (with a 175-like door-arrangment and gangways between units like a LM 172's, but compatible with Sprinters rather than 172s)?

 

[Nym]

I went through the cascades before for how many units get freed up by each route electrification. If I'm thinking right...

(Lets actually have some maths, rather than pure guesswork!)

Chat Moss:
3 x 156 (Airport - Liverpool L St)
3 x 156 (Stalybridge - Liverpool L St)
2 x 15x / 14x (Liverpool L St - Warrington BQ)

7 - 8 x 185 (Already needed at TPE)

St Helens C
4 - 6 x 142 (Wigan - Liverpool)
4 x 150/156 (LSP - Blackpool N)

Bolton & Chorley
6 x 150/142 (Preston - Hazel Grove)
5 - 6 x 14x/15x (Victoria - Blackpool N)
2 x 150 (All Shacks Bolton, if you do a small re-cast)

4 x 185 (Airport - Blackpool N)

Lancs Triangle gives: ~32 DMUs for NT and ~12 for TPE

With TPE diverting services over the Chat Moss, something will be needed on the Semi Fast over the CLC that is lost.

TPE North Core (With hacking up the timetable):

16 - 22 x 185

2 x 150/156 (Victoria - Huddersfeild)
4 x 150/153/155 Diagrams (Huddersfeild - Leeds via Dewsbury)
2x 158 (York - Leeds Slow)

TPE North to NCL, Midds and Hull, & Selby Links, & via Castleton diversion:

All 185s not used on TPE S and TPE NW and all TPE 170s will be freed up

So a spare pool of 35 185s and 9 170/3s

Then:
2 DMU (Hull - York)
2 - 3 DMU (Selby - Leeds part of the Grand Tour)

The odd Hull - Doncaster via Selby path.

4 x Class 180
1 x HST Diagram

With the allocation I did for the 185s as:

11 diagrams Cleethorpes - Liverpool Lime Street via CLC, Piccadilly, Stockport, Hope Valley, Sheffeild & Doncaster, diverting the current Cleethorpes - Airport service to Liverpool Lime St via the CLC, in the same path, the timings add up.
12 units for the Airport - Lakes & Airport Southport services, joining the services between Airport and Bolton for portion working, freeing a C. Manchester path for the hourly service up to Scotland via Chat Moss.
10 units for the Calder Valley services, ?some extended via the cord to Airport (As required by Northern Hub)
8 units for the Blackpool North - Scarbrough (Extended from York) services.
1 unit for an additional Scarbrough - York shuttle

And if linespeeds for locos can be improved...
3 or 4 units for Buxton - Manchester.

If everything runs in 3 car formation, thats 46 units allocated, 3 maintenance spares and 2 standby spares.

An alternative could be to use the trubostars on Southport - Airport or Buxton - Manchester in place of 185s, the former needing to not be joined to Lakes services, the latter meaning no trackwork would be needed as the 170s can use the SP limits that 185s cannot.

All of the routes I have mentioned would retain the 185s 1st class seating and be branded as 'Northern Citylink' or something similar and retain the same 'express reigonal' service levels, with seat reservations etc.

If the 170s are allocated to Buxton, it gives an extra 4 units for strengthening elsewhere (or Southport for that matter) and theres some pretty peakey services that could use an extra four carriages.

So in total, we're freeing up about 23 DMU from the TPE N / NW, and 40 - 45 from Northern with all the electrification if we have all TPE branches done. So if you add in the extra capacity needed by then, we're proberbly looking at having about 51 pacers being able to go to Rotherham and never return. So thats half of Northern's fleet.

Leaves say, 50 at Northern and 38 at other operators.

In some ambitious proposal within the current GW electrification, if GW get HT's 180s, that will displace some more turbos, and if sense dictates the electrification of the thames valley branch lines, then there should be enough turbos to kick off FGW's pacers, and displace some of their 150s over to ATW, but it will still leave some if you need additional capacity.

Next up, we need a scheme to release DMUs, in a politically popular way, the Cardiff Valleys frees up about another 40 from what I've been told (if you also include Swansea)

So lets say theres 20 - 30 left to find, the Scottish Electrification should cover that if they don't throw their toys out of the pram and actually give some units up...

 

[Chris125]

There isnt going to be some kind of Pacer crisis in 2019 because politicians would never allow one; those left will simply be derogated or have their use restricted until electrification cascades enough replacements.

Chris

 

[ukrob]

Everyone is talking about DDA, but hasn't that been superceeded by a European requirement? The government can't simple extend the deadline or make exceptions if this is the case (which I think it is).

 

[tbtc]

I went through the cascades before for how many units get freed up by each route electrification. If I'm thinking right...

(Lets actually have some maths, rather than pure guesswork!)

TPE North to NCL, Midds and Hull, & Selby Links, & via Castleton diversion:

2 DMU (Hull - York)
2 - 3 DMU (Selby - Leeds part of the Grand Tour)

The odd Hull - Doncaster via Selby path.

4 x Class 180
1 x HST Diagram

Where have you seen that Hull/ Middlesbrough/ Castleford etc are getting electrified? Or is that guesswork?

 

[Nym]

This is doing numbers for guesswork, Network Rail stated they'd like the diversions done is Hull is done, and the ECML diversion via Pontefract to boot.

If you don't include the TPE N Extensions, you can still use the previous maths, just knock off the 170s from the plan for Hull - Manchester / Leeds and use an XC service to get to Middlesbrough, the Scarbrough situation remains the same.

Just applying some numbers to something that has a realistic chance of happening to try and demonstrate that even if we have a 'best case' TPE N Electrification, we're still nowhere near killing pacers.

If the TPE Electrification is retracted to the core, it will free up 5 less DMU from Northern (Hull - Selby - York), (Leeds - Selby) and the TPE Hull diagrams, so thats essentially the 9 turbostars with TPE. (If we want non-stupid capacity levels) Middlesbrough can get served by XC rather than TPE for their hourly and send 2tph TPE to NCL, 1 to York (Still extending the Calder Valley service to Scarbrough and adding the hourly shuttle).

So the 185 allocation list, possibly barring the Southports (Due to strengthening other services, maybe, although it could still fit) would still hold.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Everyone is talking about DDA, but hasn't that been superceeded by a European requirement? The government can't simple extend the deadline or make exceptions if this is the case (which I think it is).

Superceeded yes, but not by an EU requirement as far as I know.

The link I posted above says:

The Disability Discrimination Act has be repealed and replaced by the Equality Act 2010. The new Act contains provisions for the Secretary of State to exempt rail vehicles 'by exemption order' if he or she so choses

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

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?

The ramped entrance to the airport-bound platform at Heald Green station was deemed not to be DDA compliant when refurbishment was required and the entire unit has been dismantled, a temporary (non-DDA compliant) access has been installed and work is now proceeding on a new custom-built structure that will be fully DDA compliant. I am unsure of the costings on this one particular item, but I should imagine it is considerable.

 

[142094]

Superceeded yes, but not by an EU requirement as far as I know.

The Equality Act is really just one massive bit of legislation encompassing every other Act (including DDA, and other forms of discrimination).

 

[northwichcat]

However, a derogation is not as impossible as the wiki article seems to assume, according to this post.

Reading that section in full, my interpretation is that if an exception order is granted it is only for certain disability omissions or specific purposes, opposed to just saying non-accessible trains can be used after Dec 2019.

For instance, he/she might say:
* A train with only a non-compliant toilet can be used on metro style services
* Special excursion trains don't need to meet the requirements
* Non accessible trains can be used for a brief period to provide extra capacity in the summer holidays or to cover for a temporary shortage instead of cancelling services.

There doesn't seem to be provision for the transport secretary to say that Pacers can continue in regular public service on any route in their current condition. However, going back to my earlier suggestion of putting 144s on LO Metro services, providing all the platforms are suitable for the extended ramp and that some modifications are made then that may be allowed but keeping them on the Penistone line and Hope Valley stoppers shouldn't be allowed.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Some DDA regs just take the p*ss :roll:
If a toilet is not DDA compliant,
the train will comply if the toilet is removed!

 

[tbtc]

Just applying some numbers to something that has a realistic chance of happening to try and demonstrate that even if we have a 'best case' TPE N Electrification, we're still nowhere near killing pacers

I agree with the point that we aren't going to electrify enough before the end of the decade (to get rid of Pacers), but your "anti guesswork" post contained a fair few assumptions regarding what it would be nice to electrify (e.g. Castleford).

I like realism, I like speculation, but we need to be careful not to mix the two

 

[Nym]

I agree with the point that we aren't going to electrify enough before the end of the decade (to get rid of Pacers), but your "anti guesswork" post contained a fair few assumptions regarding what it would be nice to electrify (e.g. Castleford).

I like realism, I like speculation, but we need to be careful not to mix the two

Well, like I said, if you drop Castleford and have electrification only running to York, the numbers remain broadly valid, since doing Castleford and Hull will allow only the release of Hull, York & Selby service DMU (14).

And in the Network Rail Electrification Doccies, thats what is specified as TPE (N), if it does only go to York, then Midds can have an XC in lieu of a TPE, and the cascade list (optimised for pacer removal) still stands as valid.

The main difference between the two being the release of 4 more DMU within Northern and the 9 Turbostars at TPE if Hull is wired, but the increase in capacity, as is written above, is needed too. (Oh and the 4 180s at HT and can go down to GW, cascade turbos and help get rid of pacers down there)

 

[swt_passenger]

Everyone is talking about DDA, but hasn't that been superceeded by a European requirement? The government can't simple extend the deadline or make exceptions if this is the case (which I think it is).

Yes you're right. The DDA was the all-embracing Act - and it called up the detailed regulations to support the requirements of that Act which were the 'Rail Vehicle Acessibility Regulations' - RVAR. So it was more correct to say that a particular class did not meet the RVAR regs.

The recent change for all heavy rail, brought in by the Equality Act 2010, which superseded the DDA, has been to mandate the EU wide rules that are defined by the 'Persons of Reduced Mobility - Technical Standards for Interoperability', PRM/TSIs. However light rail systems will continue to rely on our own RVARs. As far as I can see the deadline for conformance remains I Jan 2020.

Roger Ford explained some of this in December's MR, including the point that in some areas it is easier to conform to PRM/TSIs than RVAR, which is obviously advantageous for some stock. So the new EU rules don't necessarily mean more hoops to jump through, just slightly different ones...