Northern Pacers?

[tbtc]

I too have heard that they cannot be made 'DDA' compliant but Roger Ford (Modern Railways has hinted that now maybe they can?)

I guess anything could be made compliant, the question is how much money you want to throw at it? And since the Pacers will be knocking on thirty five years by the deadline, how many more years could a refurb squreze out of them?

GW electrification/Crossrail/Thameslink/Midland Main Line/TPE/North West electrification/South Wales electrification/EGIP

A huge amount of money to spend on improvements. Sadly some routes with lots of local DMUs aren't being electrified yet (like the Snow Hill lines, GOBLIN).

In terms of Pacer replacement:

GW electrification - Mainly about HST replacement. It will free up most of FGWs 165/166s (some required for the North Downs line to Gatwick plus the Greenford branch. 165/166s can replace Pacers/ 150s further west (though there are only a few 143s down there) - assuming all Thames Valley branches are done

Crossrail
Won't make much difference to DMU numbers, other than helping the Thames Valley 165/166s

Thameslink
No DMU replacement

Midland Main Line
Mainly about HSTs and 222s. The only DMUs freed up would be the hourly Ivanhoe service from Leicester to Nottingham (though this currently runs through to Lincoln). The Sprinter routes (Matlock line, Mansfield line etc) aren't being wired in CP5.

TPE North
Electrification from Liverpool to York will free up a lot of 185s, butthere's only an hourly local service on the line from Manchester to Huddersfield and from Huddersfield to Leeds (142, 144, 150 etc), so slim pickings for Pacer replacement

North West electrification
Some Pacer replacement, but you'd need to tackle bits like Wigan Wallgate, Warrington Central etc to really get to the Pacers.

South Wales electrification
This is the best one for Pacers, since the Valley Lines are full of Pacers (and 150/153s)

EGIP
Will free up 170s mainly- electrification to Alloa/ Dunblane etc has been put back though, so may take a while

Passenger numbers are still growing

They are, which will mean a balancing act between using freed up DMUs to enhance capacity (like the plans for FSR to use spared 170s for additional Glasgow - Arbroath services, rather than "lose" them down south).

The "Bristol Metro" plans will require a number of extra DMUs too. Plus some Northern Hub plans would need plenty of extra DMUs... where do you draw the line between using spared DMUs to replace Pacers versus using spared DMUs to run new/longer services?

 

[Tracked]

Before the 322s arrived, if there weren't enough EMUs then the Doncaster trips tended to get a three coach 158 rather than a Pacer. But, in Northern-world, anything was possible I suppose (I never saw a Pacer though)...

I did, last summer there were 3 car 144's operating on a couple of sundays

 

[Surreyman]

No it isn’t. There are plenty of rural routes and probably even regional ones that are unlikely to ever see electrification, and certainly not within the lifespan of a new DMU. There are still plenty of opportunities for new DMU fleets.

Widely quoted that in the rail technical press that the ROSCOs will not buy anymore DMUs (at least for the foreseeable future) reasons;
1 Rising price of Oil.
2. Ongoing electrification (not just CP5)
3. Will not spend money on an asset that may not have a guaranteed end user in the future.
Source - Modern Railways.
Lifespan of a DMU - 30+ possibly going on 40 years with refurb.
An ongoing rolling programme of electrification over time will see cascades with the oldest classes i.e 14X and 15X being withdrawn first.
It is going to be many years before the 17xs/18xs need to be withdrawn.
The Network Rail electrification document details route priorities, obviously it will have to be phased in over years(decades!) for reasons of funding and construction timescales.

 

[yorksrob]

And that's one of the many reasons why it was such a bad idea to try and let banks run rolling stock policy.

 

[150001]

The 170s won't be able to keep up with the 142s timing. The 170s will be fine as a replacement for 156s or 158s but not for the 150s or Pacers.

 

[tbtc]

The 170s won't be able to keep up with the 142s timing. The 170s will be fine as a replacement for 156s or 158s but not for the 150s or Pacers.

The argument that "modern DMUs like 175s and 185s will last for another thirty years, so they can replace Pacers and cover the remaining DMU lines" doesn't work because these 100mph trains will be slower at Pacer duties than Pacers are.

Some DMUs with good acceleration are needed to replace Pacers - 170s etc are not the answer.

 

[Donny Dave]

The argument that "modern DMUs like 175s and 185s will last for another thirty years, so they can replace Pacers and cover the remaining DMU lines" doesn't work because these 100mph trains will be slower at Pacer duties than Pacers are.

Some DMUs with good acceleration are needed to replace Pacers - 170s etc are not the answer.

If more 185s than expected are released by North TPE (and various extensions) electrification, then some can be re-deployed on Manchester - Buxton*, therefore freeing up a number of 15x to replace pacers.

No need to worry about 185s acceleration, as they go off like a the proverbial of a shovel. It's 170s that are the problem. They are fine at 90-100mph, it's just getting them there, as I believe (open to correction) they are the slowest accelerating DMU in use today.

*Assuming TPE and Northern are merged in the next franchise.

 

[tom1649]

If they are, they should make up their minds quickly so that something can be done about the seating on the 142's.

I like the bench seats, much more sociable than having those high backed affairs. The view out of the windows is better too. As you can tell I have a bit of a seat obsession.

 

[yorksrob]

I like the bench seats, much more sociable than having those high backed affairs. The view out of the windows is better too. As you can tell I have a bit of a seat obsession.

The bus seat ones are better than the Merseyrail ones but whenever I'm on a bus seat Pacer I always feel as if I've got an audience lined up in front of me

I admit, I prefer to hide away - (I've never really got over the end of compartment travel TBH :cry. The inward facing Richmond seats on the 143's and 144's are nice and secluded and they have plenty of leg room as well.

Also, the Pacers do end up on some long old runs !

I've no objection to bench seating - but only EPB/Thumper style

 

[150001]

So what will the future hold for the 170s? The only solution as I keep saying is a Bi mode. The Pacers aren't that bad; rode on many with FGW when on holiday there and apart from one section of track around Topsham, they were fine. Going along the main line to Dawlish in 142001 was smooth as well. My only complaint would be the window height and the bench seats.

 

[northwichcat]

The argument that "modern DMUs like 175s and 185s will last for another thirty years, so they can replace Pacers and cover the remaining DMU lines" doesn't work because these 100mph trains will be slower at Pacer duties than Pacers are.

Some DMUs with good acceleration are needed to replace Pacers - 170s etc are not the answer.

According to a GMPTE report which pre-dated the 172s being introduced a 170 would be able to do the slow section of the Mid-Cheshire line a minute or so faster than a Pacer can. (pdf link below) The faster sections between Navigation Road and Manchester and between Mouldsworth and Chester were not looked at as they were outside of the scope of the report as the report was to look at the use of tram-trains between Greenbank and Manchester via Sale.

http://www.mcrua.org.uk/chairmansbl...2/08/Altrincham-Greenbank-Report-REDACTED.pdf

170s may get criticised for poor acceleration but Pacers seem to struggle a lot more than Sprinters. When a Sprinter leaves Altrincham for Manchester on time it usually arrives a couple of minutes early at Edgley Junction and has to wait for it's path between Stockport and Manchester. With a Pacer that is rare and if it's held it's almost always because it's missed it's path or because an Intercity service is running late.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Pacers aren't that bad; rode on many with FGW when on holiday there and apart from one section of track around Topsham, they were fine.

So what about the people who do journeys like Southport to Wigan every day and have to put up with very poor ride quality all the time, not just for one day on holiday. People on holiday are usually quite happy to ride vintage vehicles without modern suspension - some even pay extra for the privilege.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Widely quoted that in the rail technical press that the ROSCOs will not buy anymore DMUs (at least for the foreseeable future) reasons;
1 Rising price of Oil.
2. Ongoing electrification (not just CP5)
3. Will not spend money on an asset that may not have a guaranteed end user in the future.
Source - Modern Railways.
Lifespan of a DMU - 30+ possibly going on 40 years with refurb.

Widely reported in the North that PTEs are looking at both diesel and bi-mode tram-trains and heavy trams, which would replace some Pacers and 150s.

Do you remember cars that used leaded petrol? The cars didn't all need to be scrapped when leaded petrol was withdrawn, they either use a substitute fuel or were re-programmed. Greener alternatives for diesel and petrol fuel have already been looked at so it's likely a green substitute for diesel will be produced at some point.

An ongoing rolling programme of electrification over time will see cascades with the oldest classes i.e 14X and 15X being withdrawn first.

The fact remains there will NOT be enough electrification completed by the end of 2019 to allow all the 142s to be withdrawn, never mind 143s, 144s and 150s.

The Network Rail electrification document details route priorities, obviously it will have to be phased in over years(decades!) for reasons of funding and construction timescales.

The same Network Rail who produced another document specifying future rolling stock orders which would be required, including a number of DMUs?

Network Rail also said in that electrification document that under normal circumstances it is not viable to electrify a line unless there is an off-peak frequency of at least 2tph. So if, for instance, Buxton to Hazel Grove is to be electrified initially there will need to be more DMUs used on that line to prove an increased frequency works before the electrification cost can be justified.

 

[Surreyman]

The fact remains there will NOT be enough electrification completed by the end of 2019 to allow all the 142s to be withdrawn, never mind 143s, 144s and 150s.


The same Network Rail who produced another document specifying future rolling stock orders which would be required, including a number of DMUs?

Network Rail also said in that electrification document that under normal circumstances it is not viable to electrify a line unless there is an off-peak frequency of at least 2tph. So if, for instance, Buxton to Hazel Grove is to be electrified initially there will need to be more DMUs used on that line to prove an increased frequency works before the electrification cost can be justified.[/QUOTE]

My 'back of a fag packet' calculation indicates that there would be just enough DMUs to cascade and replace the Pacers if all the electrification schemes were completed by say Summer 2019, I don't believe that timescale is realistic.
So, either: -
1. Pacers can be made DDA compliant (And the DFT & the ROSCOs are aware of this).
or
2. Pacers can't be made DDA compliant and current electrification schemes/new EMUs won't be ready in time for 31/12/2019 deadline.

It has been hinted (Modern railways) that Dft could issue a special "Derogation' i.e the Pacers can stay in service for say another 2 years or so after the DDA deadline.
My personal view is that the UK should have been pursuing a long term ongoing programme of electrification since the 1950s.
Hopefully the economic argument has now been won and there won't be a need for anymore DMUs (or self powered units!) for at least 20 years.
For you DMU fans out there, I notice that no one has mentioned that Tfl are making noises about ordering a small batch of 3/4 car DMUs to replace existing units on Goblin line?

 

[northwichcat]

My 'back of a fag packet' calculation indicates that there would be just enough DMUs to cascade and replace the Pacers if all the electrification schemes were completed by say Summer 2019,

Really? A back of a fag packet calculation for something that's quite complex.

How many of the Northern Hub and other proposals for additional services are included on your 'back of a fag packet' calculation?

What approximate passenger growth figure have you allowed between now and 2019?

Have you allowed for 153s being in to 2 carriage trains or centre carriages when they are being made DDA complaint and replacing the current single carriage operations with a 2 carriage unit? (Porterbrook have said that making single carriage trains DDA complaint isn't economically viable.)

What assumptions have you made about TPE routes after electrification with Middlesbrough, Hull, Barrow and Windermere not part of the electrification plans? Even if the diesel services from those places terminate the the first electrified station they will still require a number of the TPE DMUs, as will South TPE.

----

North West and Thames Valley electrification and extra EMUs was seen as mainly capacity and service enhancements with maybe scope to get rid of a small number of Pacers (say around 20.)

Valley Lines electrification would replace the ATW Pacers but if the 153s are reformed then they'll be very few (if any) 150s available to cascade as a Pacer replacement in the Northern area.

North TPE electrification will release something in the region of 30 DMUs.

Being generous that's 80 Pacers withdrawn and over 70 still in need of replacement.

I notice that no one has mentioned that Tfl are making noises about ordering a small batch of 3/4 car DMUs to replace existing units on Goblin line?

Which isn't a viable option in itself. It would need to be tagged on to a larger order, which is how they got a small batch of 172s in the first place.

Now if the new Northern franchise orders 70 x DMUs as Pacer replacement in 2014, then DfT can tag on 8 extra units for LO.

 

[150001]

I understand they aren't the best things Pacers but they seemed OK in Devon. I wasn't riding it just for Pacers, hoping for 150s really. I agree with jcollins that no way is the electrification going to get rid of the Pacers and Sprinters.

 

[tbtc]

My 'back of a fag packet' calculation indicates that there would be just enough DMUs to cascade and replace the Pacers if all the electrification schemes were completed by say Summer 2019, I don't believe that timescale is realistic.
So, either: -
1. Pacers can be made DDA compliant (And the DFT & the ROSCOs are aware of this).
or
2. Pacers can't be made DDA compliant and current electrification schemes/new EMUs won't be ready in time for 31/12/2019 deadline

The off peak requirement on the Valley Lines is for thirty three diagrams. Due to the number of doubled up units and spares/ peak extras you'd save over forty with electrification. Plus Maesteg/ Ebbw Vale/ Swanline and you're knocking on fifty.

However one point that doesn't always get mentioned in these discussions is that to convert all of the Sprinters to DDA compliance you'd need to take them out of service for a while (weeks per unit?) which would be a tight timescale in itself.

 

[150001]

Thats true; well pointed out. Also interestingly enough, Hitachi have changed the design of their AT100E. Bought the Modern Railways mag and one of the ads has a large computer impression of the A100E and it looks excellent. It has a more sloping front and reminds me actually of a modern 150 equivalent, apart from the three sets of doors. Looks like Hitachi are ready to fight for the multiple unit orders when they finally come now. I could take a pic and upload to save the money.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

There is an acute shortage of DMU's. Northern rail still only putting on a 2 car pacer although it is high season and crowds going to Pleasure Beach.
Logically I can't see them pensioning off any 142's in a hurry, or I hope not!
http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/n...sengers-trapped-in-packed-carriages-1-4881931

 

[Yew]

However one point that doesn't always get mentioned in these discussions is that to convert all of the Sprinters to DDA compliance you'd need to take them out of service for a while (weeks per unit?) which would be a tight timescale in itself.

Maybe we could see some short mk2 rakes to cover for sprinters in refurb. Maybe on routes that use paired sprinters (liverpool norwich maybe?) to allow two units to be done simeltaneously?

I suppose if the process where streamlined at first, and sufficient manpower appiied, they might be able to do it on sundays

 

[Rick1984]

158+ pacer what a combination!

 

[150001]

I think sometimes there is too much focus on London. London gets the London Overground lines, Crossrail, potentially an extension to the Northern line, the S stock, 378s and 172s. There needs to be more focus on smaller but important lines like this one in the news article.

 

[Surreyman]

Really? A back of a fag packet calculation for something that's quite complex.

How many of the Northern Hub and other proposals for additional services are included on your 'back of a fag packet' calculation?

What approximate passenger growth figure have you allowed between now and 2019?

Have you allowed for 153s being in to 2 carriage trains or centre carriages when they are being made DDA complaint and replacing the current single carriage operations with a 2 carriage unit? (Porterbrook have said that making single carriage trains DDA complaint isn't economically viable.)

What assumptions have you made about TPE routes after electrification with Middlesbrough, Hull, Barrow and Windermere not part of the electrification plans? Even if the diesel services from those places terminate the the first electrified station they will still require a number of the TPE DMUs, as will South TPE.

----

North West and Thames Valley electrification and extra EMUs was seen as mainly capacity and service enhancements with maybe scope to get rid of a small number of Pacers (say around 20.)

Valley Lines electrification would replace the ATW Pacers but if the 153s are reformed then they'll be very few (if any) 150s available to cascade as a Pacer replacement in the Northern area.

North TPE electrification will release something in the region of 30 DMUs.

Being generous that's 80 Pacers withdrawn and over 70 still in need of replacement.



Which isn't a viable option in itself. It would need to be tagged on to a larger order, which is how they got a small batch of 172s in the first place.

Now if the new Northern franchise orders 70 x DMUs as Pacer replacement in 2014, then DfT can tag on 8 extra units for LO.

Ok, Back of a Fag packet here we go (could be long and tedious)
I don't pretend to know the exact number of diagrams or the % engineering spares, so I will err on the conservative side.
Clockwise around the UK all schemes CP5 through to 2019.
Great Western/Crossrail. 45 class 165/166 cascaded, 8 -143 replaced, 37 DMU cascaded.
South Wales. 15 -142, 15- 143 replaced by new/cascaded EMU, 15 class 150 cascaded.
Midland mainline, new Electric trains ordered - replace HSTs and 27class 222 - cascaded, probably reformed and replace 170s at Cross Country,(or other) which in turn are cascaded etc.
Bedford - Oxford electrification probably displace no more than 2 DMU.
North West/TPE, Electrification, assume new EMU - TPE, 319s for NW, NW displaces 10 DMU.
EGIP - revised/reduced Electrification Glasgow - Edinburgh/Glasgow - Cumbernauld only, +1 for Paisley canal line - total DMU dispaled/cascaded 12
Total DMU cascaded = 103, total 142 + 143 at Northern = 102.

I have excluded TPE as i assume displaced 185s will 'beef up' existing services. Have disregarded class 180 at FGW(displaced by IEP).
Ref class 153 - valid point but it is considered an economic issue not an engineering one.
Very happy for anyone to correct my figures if they have real/more accurate
info.
I concede that I have not taken much account of future growth(but then have the wonderful Dft outside of London and main lines? - arguably TPE gets a big boost in capacity and 4 car 319s increase capacity at Northern).
Would repeat that while the numbers are potentially there, the timescales are not(even if all the work was bang on time - which it won't be).
The question remains - Can Pacers be made DDA compliant? - Has anyone heard anything more?

 

[150001]

There are 29 170s at XC so they could be displaced by 27 222s plus maybe two from West coast as the 221s are being replaced by the new "mystery" units. So the 170s there could go to Northern although they would require re gearing or something doing to improve the acceleration. If anything could be done to improve it then the 170s would be perfect. Comfortable and modern, plus reliable.
Now there are 45 150s with FGW (including 001 and 002) which would go north replacing 45 142s. Plus 15 (or more as they have 31) from ATW you get 60 units. If we add into this 10 displaced units from NW wires you get 70. This wouldn't shift all 79 142s but nearly all of them. Then of course if the 221s or 222s could move to XC and replace the 29 170s then these 170s would give 99 units, replacing all of the 142s and virtually all of the 144s. You'd need three more units and these could come in the form of the 3 150s from London Midland. There are three still at LM due to the short platforms on the Marston Vale line; when the electrification is done on that line as part of the route to Oxford these 150s are going to be moved of course. This would give 102 units for Northern replacing exactly all 102 Pacers.

The only issues with this is that the 170s need work on acceleration (shame they don't have the driveline and engine of the 172s with LM and that the 222s or 221s may go to Great Western to work to Penzance. However that wouldn't require all of the 221s and if these could get to XC it would leave XC with a uniform fleet of Voyagers. Of course this may not completely solve overcrowding it solves the Pacer issue.

 

[MCR247]

222s would be wasted on the likes of Birmingham to Leicester. The XC 170 routes dont need IC stock

 

[Manchester77]

If TfL want new dmus for gospel oak to barking would the very small fleet of dmus that London overground be able to get cascaded over to northern rail or somewhere?

 

[150001]

New DMUs for Tfl, is that because TFL actually want to own them as I read in my Overground book that 378s are bascially there for life, under a different contract, whilst the 172s are owned by Angel. The 172s at LO would probably go to FGW actually. There are eight 143s there and eight 172s with LO. So really I'd see it being more sensible to remove the Pacers from GW and they could, sorry Northern, go north for a few years to add some much needed capacity.

 

[northwichcat]

I concede that I have not taken much account of future growth(but then have the wonderful Dft outside of London and main lines? - arguably TPE gets a big boost in capacity and 4 car 319s increase capacity at Northern).

There was supposed to be an order of over 200 diesel vehicles for extra capacity at Northern, TPE and FGW to be in service by the end of 2012. This was replaced by the electrification and 319 cascade idea meaning the 319s would only supply around 140 replacement carriages, in addition to the extra capacity. However, we then need to consider that 4 car EMUs are less flexible than 2 car DMUs. You can't have 2 x 2 car DMUs on Liverpool-Manchester in the morning peak, take one unit out of service for maintenance and then return it to service for the evening peak, you'd need spare 4 car units to switch units around during maintenance. So the 140 extra would replace around 35 x 2 car units, not 70 x 2 car units. Allow for passenger growth between 2012 and 2015 (when all the 319s will be ready) and that 35 x 2 car units may have reduced to 20 or less.

 

[tbtc]

There was supposed to be an order of over 200 diesel vehicles for extra capacity at Northern, TPE and FGW to be in service by the end of 2012. This was replaced by the electrification and 319 cascade idea meaning the 319s would only supply around 140 replacement carriages, in addition to the extra capacity

That was just the initial electrification plan though (e.g. Manchester to Blackpool via Chat Moss, no mention of Bolton/ Huddersfield/ other "northern" lines)

 

[185]

Well maintained, they were a reliable unit. Now they have been left to rot for 8-9 years.

Years back, I worked an RRNE one doing 82mph on the East Coast ML under it's own power (allegedly), really smooth ride. Also covered for a Northern Spirit Transpennine Express job in 2000 with one, York-Liverpool-Leeds after a 158 died on me.

 

[northwichcat]

New DMUs for Tfl, is that because TFL actually want to own them as I read in my Overground book that 378s are bascially there for life, under a different contract, whilst the 172s are owned by Angel. The 172s at LO would probably go to FGW actually. There are eight 143s there and eight 172s with LO. So really I'd see it being more sensible to remove the Pacers from GW and they could, sorry Northern, go north for a few years to add some much needed capacity.

Like I pointed out earlier you can't really justify a new order for 8 trains.

Unless the order is for more 172s I would guess at LM getting the LO 172s, and losing their Sprinters to FGW, who in turn would lose their 143s to ATW.

That was just the initial electrification plan though (e.g. Manchester to Blackpool via Chat Moss, no mention of Bolton/ Huddersfield/ other "northern" lines)

I'm only referring to North West electrification releasing around 20 Pacers. As I said in an earlier post I'd expect North TPE to release around another 30, giving a total from Northern electrification schemes of 50 Pacers withdrawn after extra capacity is allowed for. However, at the moment we don't know what electric stock will be running through Huddersfield or exact time scales. Surreyman has optimistically said it will all be done by Summer 2019 but based on the time scales for North West electrification and the fact that North TPE electrification is a CP5 scheme which won't start before 2014 at the earliest that is indeed optimistic.

 

[Surreyman]

Like I pointed out earlier you can't really justify a new order for 8 trains.

Unless the order is for more 172s I would guess at LM getting the LO 172s, and losing their Sprinters to FGW, who in turn would lose their 143s to ATW.



I'm only referring to North West electrification releasing around 20 Pacers. As I said in an earlier post I'd expect North TPE to release around another 30, giving a total from Northern electrification schemes of 50 Pacers withdrawn after extra capacity is allowed for. However, at the moment we don't know what electric stock will be running through Huddersfield or exact time scales. Surreyman has optimistically said it will all be done by Summer 2019 but based on the time scales for North West electrification and the fact that North TPE electrification is a CP5 scheme which won't start before 2014 at the earliest that is indeed optimistic.

I thought I had made it clear that I did not think the timescales were achievable.
Just idly pondering on what could be done to make Pacers DDA compliant, (the new correct term is RSVAR), I freely admit to having next to no knowledge of the technical requirements.
but here's a thought, the consensus as I understand it, is that the steps up into the vehicles are the problem and that wheelchair ramps have to be at a minimum angle of slope.
National Express have fitted all their new coaches from about 2006 with wheelchair lifts fitted in the front entrance.
I wonder if the same could be done to Pacers? - you would need 2 per unit - one each side and it would be very expensive, anyone know/guess the cost? would be 140 x 2, maybe less as some (South Wales) could be replaced before 2020.
Personally I would like to see them all scrapped but the the Dft may have other ideas.