Northern Pacers?

[northwichcat]

[/B]
I thought I had made it clear that I did not think the timescales were achievable.

Just read your previous post again and yes you did say it wasn't realistic but you went on to list how you thought Pacers could be eliminated if they were, which seemed a bit of a strange thing to do.

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.

I imagine there are few National Express coaches that were built before 2006 still in service on NE routes.

As I have pointed out previously the end of 2019 date was set because it was seen as the life expiry date of the 158s and 159s unless they had life extension work based on a 30 year shelf life for DMUs without life extension work. If the life extension work was done then DDA compliance would be done at the same time.

If a life extension program was going to done for 142s and 150s it should have already been done 3 or so years ago followed by 143s and 144s, with 153s, 155s and 156s being done around now and 158s and 159s being done around 2015. The longer it's left the less economically viable it becomes.

you would need 2 per unit - one each side and it would be very expensive

I think it would need to be 4 per unit to be properly complaint, if a door fails you can't leave someone stranded on the train!

 

[tbtc]

Could you permanently couple a non-DDA Pacer to an upgraded DDA-compliant 150?

Would that get round it?

 

[ainsworth74]

Could you permanently couple a non-DDA Pacer to an upgraded DDA-compliant 150?

Would that get round it?

As far as I'm aware the requirement is that the train (so not the individual units/vehicles) that is operating the service has DDA compliant accommodation. So I'd suggest that you could get around it by doing that.

 

[tbtc]

As far as I'm aware the requirement is that the train (so not the individual units/vehicles) that is operating the service has DDA compliant accommodation. So I'd suggest that you could get around it by doing that.

I've seen it suggested many times that 153s be coupled permanently to 156s, but not Pacers being attached to DDA compliant stock - it'd certainly take a lot of pressure off.

 

[MCR247]

A lot of pressure - would it? Northern would effectively be losing quite a bit of their fleet..?

 

[tbtc]

A lot of pressure - would it? Northern would effectively be losing quite a bit of their fleet..?

In terms of whether we can have a DDA compliant railway by 1 January 2012 (whilst dealing with rising demand), yes.

If a 142+150 combination would comply then that would provide more capacity than only having Sprinters (given that there are a number of routes where a two coach Sprinter couldn't cope).

Obviously Pacers need replacing eventually, but this would give a bit of breathing space to enable that to happen slowly.

 

[ainsworth74]

In terms of whether we can have a DDA compliant railway by 1 January 2012 (whilst dealing with rising demand), yes.

Well we're stuffed in that case seeing as the deadline was apparently nine months ago!

 

[tbtc]

Well we're stuffed in that case seeing as the deadline was apparently nine months ago!

That's not the first time I've typed 2012 when I meant 2020!

 

[150001]

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=

LM could get them; share similar parts and they could be used to supplement the current 172s or replace the 153s. At the moment the 153s can't have their gangway connection fitted up due to it being a older type. The 172s would be no use on the Marston Vale as the 172s are too long. But if two 153s could be released off by some 172s then they could be coupled up and work it. I see your idea here now; may as well keep similar units together.

 

[Bevan Price]

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. .

I doubt that TOC's would want 221 / 222 classes on 170-type duties. They are too fuel-hungry and would increase operating costs. Also, some platforms would be too short for 5 coach trains. One solution might be to re-engine some of the 221/222's with lower powered engines (say 350 to 400 hp), and also reducing them to 3 coach sets with the centre coach unpowered.

 

[WatcherZero]

For wheelchair and disabled toilets access yes its on a percentage of train length so you could get round it like that, you would still have to do all the other measures though like for the visually impaired buttons, contrasting colours, signage, etc..

 

[northwichcat]

The 172s would be no use on the Marston Vale as the 172s are too long.

IIRC 172s do have SDO so they can be used without platform lengthening.

What are passenger numbers like on Marston Vale? If they are rising then platform lengthening may be a viable option.

 

[MCR247]

I doubt that TOC's would want 221 / 222 classes on 170-type duties. They are too fuel-hungry and would increase operating costs. Also, some platforms would be too short for 5 coach trains. One solution might be to re-engine some of the 221/222's with lower powered engines (say 350 to 400 hp), and also reducing them to 3 coach sets with the centre coach unpowered.

No because a 3 coach 22x wouldn't have enough capacity.