Class 142 refurbishment?

[Greybeard33]

If refurbished 150s are cascaded to replace Pacers and 153s then the capacity reduction shouldn't be too much of an issue.

But then what about the lines that are currently 150-operated but will not be electrified by 2020 (e.g. Hazel Grove to Buxton)?

 

[WatcherZero]

Was on a 156 as opposed to the usual pacers on the Bolton line today, and while it flew on the faster 50+ sections my god did it noisily struggle with the under 30 sections like near Victoria.

 

[northwichcat]

But then what about the lines that are currently 150-operated but will not be electrified by 2020 (e.g. Hazel Grove to Buxton)?

In your post you implied new trains would need to be ordered as well so the 150s could be cascaded to replace Pacers and 150s and complaint trains with 23m carriages (maybe new builds) replacing the 150s as has happened in the LM area.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Was on a 156 as opposed to the usual pacers on the Bolton line today, and while it flew on the faster 50+ sections my god did it noisily struggle with the under 30 sections like near Victoria.

During leaf fall season I notice on the Mid-Cheshire line that 156s seem to be the best out of the 142s, 150s and 156s at not being affected too much by the slippery conditions.

However, it has been observed that DMUs on the Mid-Cheshire line need longer dwell times at certain stations to allow for passenger loadings increasing and the forthcoming May timetable change will allow for that.

 

[Greybeard33]

In your post you implied new trains would need to be ordered as well so the 150s could be cascaded to replace Pacers and 150s and complaint trains with 23m carriages (maybe new builds) replacing the 150s as has happened in the LM area.

In your preceding posts you had been discussing possible EMU cascades, so I was querying whether these would be able to cover for the prospective DMU withdrawals - I do not know the answer, but I would hope that the DfT has done the sums. I have seen no suggestion that DfT or the industry is contemplating new DMU procurement before 2020 - the reverse appears to be the case. Hence my earlier post suggesting that bustitution might be the 2020 stopgap solution pending more electrification!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Was on a 156 as opposed to the usual pacers on the Bolton line today, and while it flew on the faster 50+ sections my god did it noisily struggle with the under 30 sections like near Victoria.

Out of general interest, why should there be "under 30" sections near to Manchester Victoria when there was much track rationalisation was effected in that area.

 

[yorksrob]

In your preceding posts you had been discussing possible EMU cascades, so I was querying whether these would be able to cover for the prospective DMU withdrawals - I do not know the answer, but I would hope that the DfT has done the sums. I have seen no suggestion that DfT or the industry is contemplating new DMU procurement before 2020 - the reverse appears to be the case. Hence my earlier post suggesting that bustitution might be the 2020 stopgap solution pending more electrification!

As far as I am concerned, bustitution would be a totally unacceptable stop gap and I suspect the majority of rail travellers would agree. Any Government which allowed rolling stock to be towed off to the scrapyard without adequate replacements in place would become a laughing stock.

 

[northwichcat]

As far as I am concerned, bustitution would be a totally unacceptable stop gap and I suspect the majority of rail travellers would agree. Any Government which allowed rolling stock to be towed off to the scrapyard without adequate replacements in place would become a laughing stock.

I agree. However, I think if the government was to do they would disguise it.

Look at what happened when the WCML modernisation work was happening - huge sections of track closed 7 days a week for long periods. Virgin/First North Western/Central Trains/Silverlink could have had stock shortages while that was going on and the general public wouldn't have known.

 

[yorksrob]

I agree. However, I think if the government was to do they would disguise it.

Look at what happened when the WCML modernisation work was happening - huge sections of track closed 7 days a week for long periods. Virgin/First North Western/Central Trains/Silverlink could have had stock shortages while that was going on and the general public wouldn't have known.

I'm not sure that they could. Doubtless you could hide the odd missing unit or two in such circumstances, but whole classes missing without adequate replacements - particularly without major engineering works to hide behind.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I agree. However, I think if the government was to do they would disguise it. Look at what happened when the WCML modernisation work was happening - huge sections of track closed 7 days a week for long periods. Virgin/First North Western/Central Trains/Silverlink could have had stock shortages while that was going on and the general public wouldn't have known.

Would a Labour Government if elected in 2015, noting that they were in power until a few recent years ago, be mindful of their Northern political strongholds that are served by "The Pacer Fleet"....or had they had this matter on their radar when they were in power?

 

[yorksrob]

Would a Labour Government if elected in 2015, noting that they were in power until a few recent years ago, be mindful of their Northern political strongholds that are served by "The Pacer Fleet"....or had they had this matter on their radar when they were in power?

I'm not sure that they had the railways on their radar at all during their last tenure, except perhaps the last year or so.

 

[northwichcat]

I'm not sure that they had the railways on their radar at all during their last tenure, except perhaps the last year or so.

I'd say it was very much on their radar when Tony Blair was elected - major WCML work and numerous new classes of train being ordered many of which were British built.

I think things started to slow down around the time the new TPE and Northern franchise were awarded and then the plans that came after the class 185 order didn't fit together e.g. order of new DMUs proposed for Northern, FGW and TPE and an order of new EMUs proposed for Thameslink. However, the Thameslink 319s weren't set to be life expired and did not make a potential suitable replacement for the older EMU classes like the 313s or 507/8s which is then what made them look at electrification again.

 

[yorksrob]

I'd say it was very much on their radar when Tony Blair was elected - major WCML work and numerous new classes of train being ordered many of which were British built.

I think things started to slow down around the time the new TPE and Northern franchise were awarded and then the plans that came after the class 185 order didn't fit together e.g. order of new DMUs proposed for Northern, FGW and TPE and an order of new EMUs proposed for Thameslink. However, the Thameslink 319s weren't set to be life expired and did not make a potential suitable replacement for the older EMU classes like the 313s or 507/8s which is then what made them look at electrification again.

Well, I think you'd expect a couple of route modernisations in fifteen years or so. Same with rolling stock replacements.

 

[Silv1983]

Was on a 156 as opposed to the usual pacers on the Bolton line today, and while it flew on the faster 50+ sections my god did it noisily struggle with the under 30 sections like near Victoria.

It's hard to generalise really, as the units all behave very differently.
At high speed the 156 might seem to be flying with ease because the transmission is better and will gear up and go quiet. The 142s just keep revving to the max.

At lower speeds - the heavier 156 with its bigger engine will be noiser than a 142. Although I don't know how you would know if it was struggling or not at low speeds without seeing the power notcher, knowing the intended speed, and line gradients.

Unit performance is all very random I assure you!

 

[Greybeard33]

The longer the Pacers remain in service, with or without refurbishment, the greater the risk of an accident that will raise the crashworthiness issues up the political agenda. That could generate an unstoppable campaign for immediate withdrawal, regardless of the effect on services.

The media and public do not take a balanced view of rail safety issues vis a vis road transport. Remember the aftermath of Hatfield, Potters Bar and earlier accidents.

 

[yorksrob]

The longer the Pacers remain in service, with or without refurbishment, the greater the risk of an accident that will raise the crashworthiness issues up the political agenda. That could generate an unstoppable campaign for immediate withdrawal, regardless of the effect on services.

The media and public do not take a balanced view of rail safety issues vis a vis road transport. Remember the aftermath of Hatfield, Potters Bar and earlier accidents.

Crashworthiness issues compared to what - a bus

People will make allowances for their cars where they feel safe and cocooned. This is not the case for buses.

 

[WillPS]

As well as the Class 142s, it has been suggested on previous threads that the Class 153s and Class 155s cannot economically be made PRM-TSI compliant (77 trains, 84 carriages).

I thought the issue was that single-car 153s could not viably be brought up to scratch without being permanently re-coupled (as 155s). Unless the sagging is more of a problem?

 

[Surreyman]

I thought the issue was that single-car 153s could not viably be brought up to scratch without being permanently re-coupled (as 155s). Unless the sagging is more of a problem?

i think it is 'Alleged/Rumoured/Inside whispers' ref 'sagging' & issues around upgrading to 'DDA' standards.
Until the ROC/Qualified Engineer/Dft actually states that this is fact and what can and can't be done in engineering terms we should not assume anything.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The Disability Discrimination Act became law in 1995. The section that relates to rail travel provision has been well publicised in that time and the compliance date known. Yet we still are discussing the Pacer fleet problem in 2013 with no resolution in sight. The Disability Discrimination Act is something to have passed through both Houses and I wonder if there are any more items of legislation on other matters than that of transport where a time-period set for compliance is inherent that will also be seen to not having a resolution owing to the ineptitude of a Government department in ensuring the terms of that legislation are fully adhered to.

Are disabled people a particular section of the British population in "Northernland" that will have to suffer from legislation meant to aid and assist them which now seems to be actively militating against them on account of the required compliance not being met? I see much discussion in various media on this matter which seem far more concerned with the Pacer fleet and its inherent faults than the needs of the disabled community who are expected to use these units as a mode of travel in some of the large cities and towns in the North of England.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The Disability Discrimination Act became law in 1995. The section that relates to rail travel provision has been well publicised in that time and the compliance date known. Yet we still are discussing the Pacer fleet problem in 2013 with no resolution in sight. The Disability Discrimination Act is something to have passed through both Houses and I wonder if there are any more items of legislation on other matters than that of transport where a time-period set for compliance is inherent that will also be seen to not having a resolution owing to the ineptitude of a Government department in ensuring the terms of that legislation are fully adhered to.

Are disabled people a particular section of the British population in "Northernland" that will have to suffer from legislation meant to aid and assist them which now seems to be actively militating against them on account of the required compliance not being met? I see much discussion in various media on this matter which seem far more concerned with the Pacer fleet and its inherent faults than the needs of the disabled community who are expected to use these units as a mode of travel in some of the large cities and towns in the North of England.

Well, remember how long after the Clapham inquiry it took to remove Mk1-based stock from regular service on mainlines... and that was largely in the South, where apparently people are more important! :roll:

 

[northwichcat]

The Disability Discrimination Act became law in 1995. The section that relates to rail travel provision has been well publicised in that time and the compliance date known. Yet we still are discussing the Pacer fleet problem in 2013 with no resolution in sight. The Disability Discrimination Act is something to have passed through both Houses and I wonder if there are any more items of legislation on other matters than that of transport where a time-period set for compliance is inherent that will also be seen to not having a resolution owing to the ineptitude of a Government department in ensuring the terms of that legislation are fully adhered to.

Are disabled people a particular section of the British population in "Northernland" that will have to suffer from legislation meant to aid and assist them which now seems to be actively militating against them on account of the required compliance not being met? I see much discussion in various media on this matter which seem far more concerned with the Pacer fleet and its inherent faults than the needs of the disabled community who are expected to use these units as a mode of travel in some of the large cities and towns in the North of England.

Like I've said before the end of 2019 date was decided on because DMUs are supposed to have a 30 year shelf life without a major overhaul so the 159s or anything older were expected to either be withdrawn by 2019 or to have a major overhaul which would include DDA as part of it. Now even some of the 158s that have had recent overhauls like the EMT ones still lack some of the DDA requirements.

I don't know if you saw the news story this week about Thomson Airlines saying two disabled people can't travel together without a non-disabled companion for safety reasons which has sparked outrage with disability groups.

One thing that is also lacking in "Northernland" especially outside PTE areas is properly accessible stations. On my local line there isn't currently 1 station between Stockport and Chester which is complaint. Altrincham will become complaint as a result of a refurbishment program which is currently being undertaken. I'm not too sure about Knutsford - it lacks platform displays and a PA system/help points required but with regard to step free access between the ticket office and Chester platform it's possible but involves a long route via the road (long considering it's a 2 platform station) and also a steep gradient. And as for Northwich - you're only allowed to use the barrow crossing, which provides the only step free access to the Chester platform, if assisted by the station staff but the station is only staffed for around 6 hours a day. It's one station where the new TVM isn't a good substitute for longer staffing hours.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well, remember how long after the Clapham inquiry it took to remove Mk1-based stock from regular service on mainlines... and that was largely in the South, where apparently people are more important! :roll:

Didn't the actual accident report say something similar to the Winsford Pacer crash report in that ideally more crash worthy stock should be used but at the present time the stock can continued to be used subject to certain conditions?

Also I thought First North Western were one of the last operators of mk1 based stock with SWT being the very last.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

...

Didn't the actual accident report say something similar to the Winsford Pacer crash report in that ideally more crash worthy stock should be used but at the present time the stock can continued to be used subject to certain conditions?

I believe so, but there was still over 15 years before the trains were removed from frontline service- much like with DDA legislation withdrawal was not the 'only' option so I guess perhaps in both cases a lack of urgency was understandable... Especially when comparing the number of vehicles covered by said regulations.

FNW had a fair few 101s and Mk2 LHCS (which I think fell foul of CDL rules but not crashworthiness), and ATN had the 308s of course- but I think SWT had their slammers for a good while longer than both.

 

[northwichcat]

FNW had a fair few 101s and Mk2 LHCS (which I think fell foul of CDL rules but not crashworthiness), and ATN had the 308s of course- but I think SWT had their slammers for a good while longer than both.

FNW had the 101s until 2003* but then introduced a mk2 class 31 hauled set to cover for 2 x 158s which were subleased out which remained in operation until the new Northern franchise started in late 2004.

*They were due for withdrawal earlier but teething problems with the new 175s delayed their withdrawal.

SWT apparently withdrew all except 2 of their slam door trains by the May 2005 timetable change with the 2 remaining units being restricted to use on the Lymington Branch Line.

 

[yorksrob]

A 101 is essentially a Mk 1 vehicle, so would surely have the same crashworthyness as a southern slammer. 308's by contrast were mk 2's.

 

[tom1649]

308's by contrast were mk 2's.

308s were Mk 1s. 310s and 312s were Mk 2s.

 

[yorksrob]

308s were Mk 1s. 310s and 312s were Mk 2s.

Ah thanks, it must have been those I was thinking of !

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Didn't the actual accident report say something similar to the Winsford Pacer crash report in that ideally more crash worthy stock should be used but at the present time the stock can continued to be used subject to certain conditions?

After the Winsford crash with a Class 87 locomotive, I would be interested to know what these "certain conditions" were said to be. I would wonder what would be the affect of a Class 66 freight locomotive being in collision with a Class 142 Pacer would be like in 2013. I have referred to the Pacer bodyshells on other threads in the past.

 

[HSTEd]

As I recall the Clapham Junction Report said that Mark 1 vehicles were still reasonably safe and that attempting mass replacment would be effectively impossible.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

As I recall the Clapham Junction Report said that Mark 1 vehicles were still reasonably safe and that attempting mass replacement would be effectively impossible.

The second part of your quote that I have highlighted is about as typical of a Government sponsored "negative" statement that I am ever likely to see in print. Sir Humphrey Appleby of "Yes, Minister" would have been proud of the wording used..:roll: