Northern rolling stock changes post electrification

[Islineclear3_1]

There hasn't been a Selhurst allocated 319 in 5 years.

That's what I thought but some of the Southern green units still carry SU stickers on the cab ends!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That's what I thought but some of the Southern green units still carry SU stickers on the cab ends!

It would be even more alarming if 75C was displayed...

 

[deltic08]

That won't work.

There's around 6 x 2 car 156 diagrams that'll be switching to 4 car 319 diagrams over the next 18 months. Are you proposing those 2 car 156s can run services currently operated by 4 car 142s?

Also how are you proposing to deal with overcrowding on routes not being electrified?

Alright, one Pacer scrapped for each cascaded 319 is still a good deal.

I understand Scotrail is giving up some 156 units from May 2015 to help Northern with overcrowding.

 

[Jonny]

Alright, one Pacer scrapped for each cascaded 319 is still a good deal.

Sorry, but a pacer is better than nothing. How about nothing scrapped, and not cascaded (apart from within Northern Rail to their Newcastle hub)

 

[Beveridges]

If you are trying to suggest that these 319's won't be *much* better than Pacers and 150's you must be mad.

 

[Beveridges]

Sorry, but a pacer is better than nothing. How about nothing scrapped, and not cascaded (apart from to within Northern to their Newcastle hub)

The scrapping of the Pacers is urgent. They are uncomfortable, slow, underpowered, low quality, small, dangerous in an accident. Whats more they give many Drivers back pain, even permanent back injury after prolonged use.

They need to go sooner rather than later. 2020 is much later than desired.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The Equality Act 2010 appears one that Governmental exceptions can be made to the detriment of those it was intended to aid, in order to achieve financial savings. I refer to the matter of the Pacer fleet.

 

[Grumpy]

The scrapping of the Pacers is urgent. They are uncomfortable, slow, underpowered, low quality, small, dangerous in an accident. Whats more they give many Drivers back pain, even permanent back injury after prolonged use.

They need to go sooner rather than later. 2020 is much later than desired.

Why do you say "slow, underpowered"? What are you comparing them with? They have a better power/weight ratio than all the Sprinters .

Similarly "dangerous in an accident". How many hundreds of millions of passenger miles since they were introduced and how many casualties?

And with regard to "small", that might not be a bad thing if they meet the need of the particular service.

The earlier poster is right, better a Pacer than no train or crammed standing room only

 

[Leylandlad]

The scrapping of the Pacers is urgent. They are uncomfortable, slow, underpowered, low quality, small, dangerous in an accident. Whats more they give many Drivers back pain, even permanent back injury after prolonged use.

They need to go sooner rather than later. 2020 is much later than desired.

That's a polite opinion Bevy...

Dreadful things. They would have been Con Demned years ago had they operated darn sarth. Had the misfortune to travel on one both ways from Leyland to Oxford Road last month.

In fairness though, they were "pioneered" in an era when it was that's the only train your line can afford...take it or leave it :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why do you say "slow, underpowered"? What are you comparing them with? They have a better power/weight ratio than all the Sprinters .

Similarly "dangerous in an accident". How many hundreds of millions of passenger miles since they were introduced and how many casualties?

And with regard to "small", that might not be a bad thing if they meet the need of the particular service.

The earlier poster is right, better a Pacer than no train or crammed standing room only

This one maybe

1999 accident[edit]
Winsford (1999) rail crash
Details
Date 23 June 1999
Location Winsford
Country England
Rail line West Coast Main Line
Cause SPAD due to human error
Statistics
Trains 2
Deaths 0
Injuries 31
List of UK rail accidents by year
On 23 June 1999, a Virgin Trains electric express train from London Euston to Glasgow Central ran into an empty four-carriage Pacer unit, injuring 31 people. The express had been travelling at about 110 mph (180 km/h), but driver Roy Eccles noticed the Pacer on the line and was able to decelerate to about 50 mph (80 km/h) at the time of impact. Eccles was awarded a medal for his prompt action, which averted a much more serious accident. The driver of the Pacer train helped passengers from the Glasgow Central train despite his injuries. The Pacer had passed a signal at danger and run through a set of points, coming to a stand on the line on which the express was approaching. Its rear cab was destroyed in the crash along with a section of the passenger accommodation, and the coach bodies were displaced from their underframes. The incident report[5] stated that the accident was most likely to have been human error of the Pacer driver as the investigation showed no faults with either the signalling system or the brakes of the Pacer train.

Had those 142s been occupied the casualties would have been huge. The railway as a whole got lucky that day.

 

[Class172]

Don't know if this has already been posted:

Northern Franchise : https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/northern-franchise-2014-prospectus
TPE Franchise : https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/transpennine-express-franchise-2014-prospectus

It appears a few routes could be changing hands:

From TPE to Northern
• Manchester Airport to Blackpool North
• Oxenholme to Windermere
• Lancaster to Barrow-in-Furness
• York to Scarborough
• Doncaster to Cleethorpes

From Northern to EMT
• Cleethorpes to Barton-on-Humber

From EMT to TPE
• The Nottingham – Liverpool portion of the existing East
Midlands Trains Norwich – Liverpool service

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Similarly "dangerous in an accident". How many hundreds of millions of passenger miles since they were introduced and how many casualties?

Good point- No-one has ever been killed in an accident whilst travelling on a pacer, whereas one passenger has been killed in a Pendolino accident. So I suggest that every current Pendolino service be replaced by a 142/143/144. (high-backed seating=1st class!)

Seriously though, travelling by rail is far far more safe than travelling by road, even if we still had 101s and 308s. Any one of us would have to be extremely unfortunate to be involved in a rail collision (obviously those forum members who work on the railways will have more of a risk, particularly drivers, being at the 'sharp end') and as signalling technology is improved, risk of collisions will decrease further.
If any of us are unlucky enough to be involved in an accident though, I for one would rather it be on board a real train, rather than something based on a bus design that is no longer in use on the roads!

Pacers were forced upon the North (and SouthWest/Wales) in the 1980s because the bigwigs in the capital said "it's that or nothing.". That the same argument is still being used today is quite frankly ridiculous. :roll:

Bring on the 319s, please!

 

[Class83]

Northern franchise consultation Docs state 3 319s from December rising to 14 by the end of the current franchise. Doesn't state if the leases will extend beyond the current franchise, but implies elsewhere that new trains are too expensive for Northern.

deltic08, Scotrail give up units without getting new ones, surely there would be a better chance of one of the London ToCs handing over some?

 

[Beveridges]

Why do you say "slow, underpowered"? What are you comparing them with? They have a better power/weight ratio than all the Sprinters .

Similarly "dangerous in an accident". How many hundreds of millions of passenger miles since they were introduced and how many casualties?

And with regard to "small", that might not be a bad thing if they meet the need of the particular service.

The earlier poster is right, better a Pacer than no train or crammed standing room only

Underpowered compared to any EMU or a modern DMU.

The 150s/156s - despite having a worse power to weight ratio than 142s - somehow perform better with slightly better top end acceleration and when climbing hills a 156 can be doing 65mph in places a 142 would be doing 55mph.

 

[Grumpy]

That's a polite opinion Bevy...


This one maybe

1999 accident[edit]
Winsford (1999) rail crash
The Pacer had passed a signal at danger and run through a set of points, coming to a stand on the line on which the express was approaching. Its rear cab was destroyed in the crash along with a section of the passenger accommodation, and the coach bodies were displaced from their underframes. The incident report[5] stated that the accident was most likely to have been human error of the Pacer driver as the investigation showed no faults with either the signalling system or the brakes of the Pacer train.

Had those 142s been occupied the casualties would have been huge. The railway as a whole got lucky that day.

Sorry but the simple fact is that whilst you quote 31 injuries, they weren't on the Pacer. The Pacer's safety record is excellent. It's no point saying the casualties would have been huge-that's simply speculation on your part. If the Virgin express had instead run into a Sprinter the casualties could have been huge.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Pacers were forced upon the North (and SouthWest/Wales) in the 1980s because the bigwigs in the capital said "it's that or nothing.". That the same argument is still being used today is quite frankly ridiculous. :roll:

Bring on the 319s, please!

I thought BR were saying the PTE's should take the Class 210's. The PTE's had to meet the cost of their local services and were appalled at the likely cost of the 210. They demanded something cheaper and hence the Pacers and then Sprinters. That's how the Pacers came to be mainly allocated to the Northern conurbations-they were the only services when there was any public scrutiny of costs and income, and hard decisions had to be made.

 

[fowler9]

If Londons commuters had to use a Pacer they wouldn't exist.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If Londons commuters had to use a Pacer they wouldn't exist.

The Pacers...or the London commuters ?

 

[AM9]

If Londons commuters had to use a Pacer they wouldn't exist.

If there were routes into London that were lightly loaded enough for Pacers and that's all that was available, then they would be used just the same as elsewhere. London commuters just want to get to work, it's just that there about 1 million of them every day and all the pacers in the world could not cope with the volume.
To use something that has similar dimensions and capacity to a Pacer (although less of it sitting), look at the DLR in London. They are quite bouncy even though they have articulated bogies. To get the high volume passenger throughput, they need to be automatically controlled and electrically powered. Some of them are over 23 years old (about 2 years younger than the oldest 319s) and are still expected to run a full service every day.

That's why 700s are being engineered for maximum passenger volume. They are probably no more comfortable than the 319s, just a bit more standing space and able to work on ATP to enable them to cram the core with such short headways. So the Northern routes receiving them will be getting trains that are at least 6 years younger than the oldest in full use in London, i.e. the very similar class 455s.

 

[fowler9]

If there were routes into London that were lightly loaded enough for Pacers and that's all that was available, then they would be used just the same as elsewhere. London commuters just want to get to work, it's just that there about 1 million of them every day and all the pacers in the world could not cope with the volume.
To use something that has similar dimensions and capacity to a Pacer (although less of it sitting), look at the DLR in London. They are quite bouncy even though they have articulated bogies. To get the high volume passenger throughput, they need to be automatically controlled and electrically powered. Some of them are over 23 years old (about 2 years younger than the oldest 319s) and are still expected to run a full service every day.

That's why 700s are being engineered for maximum passenger volume. They are probably no more comfortable than the 319s, just a bit more standing space and able to work on ATP to enable them to cram the core with such short headways. So the Northern routes receiving them will be getting trains that are at least 6 years younger than the oldest in full use in London, i.e. the very similar class 455s.

I don't think many of the population outside the government are screaming for all the job creation to be in London, nor for all of the infrastructure creation to be focused on squeezing more people in. I certainly don't want Londons cast off buses and trains running my new improved services as some kind of sop.

 

[Geeves]

I think the problem these days is fact that many services that 142s operate are at the total other end of spectrum of 'lightly loaded' and are so full, that people are being left behind on the platforms! They are running on major commuter runs between the majority of the Norths largest and busiest cities, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield.

theres really very little jointed rail left in the NW at least so I think you can retire the nodding donkey tag here . Very nice run down the fast lines on WCML between Preston and Wigan NW... yes it will break into one million pieces if it crashes but its smooth

 

[AM9]

I think the problem these days is fact that many services that 142s operate are at the total other end of spectrum of 'lightly loaded' and are so full, that people are being left behind on the platforms! They are running on major commuter runs between the majority of the Norths largest and busiest cities, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield.

theres really very little jointed rail left in the NW at least so I think you can retire the nodding donkey tag here . Very nice run down the fast lines on WCML between Preston and Wigan NW... yes it will break into one million pieces if it crashes but its smooth

The point of my comment about DLR and 455 stock is to dispel the myth that all London stock is nearly new. The following MKIII coach designs are still in full service with no clear replacement plans yet:
317, 319, 321, 442, 455 & 456.
They date from 1981 to 1992 and are all* worked very hard alongside newer stock. They have to run at full linespeed to keep short headways and are maintained to have low incidences of breakdowns. Don't forget, much of the London commute load is carried by the underground which still runs with stock as old as 1973 with all the same reliability pressures. In such a large and complex transport system (in the greater 'London' sense) the main aim is to move a very large number of people from home to work with the minimum of issues. Most of those people do not get hung-up about where the trains come from, (there have been cases of London trains being extended with coaches from outside the region although not recently), nor are most of them that concerned whether the doors are at the ends or 1/3-2/3, or even 2+2 or 2+3 seating. Their main concern is to get to work, and usually on the busiest trains, a seat is a welcome addition.
There have been a few programmes on TV here (I'm not sure if they were broadcast nationally) about the working of London's trains including the tube, the buses and the traffic. It would be a pity if those who have little or no knowledge of current London rush-hour travel could not see these programmes.
I'm sure that where demand has increased outside the capital, existing stock is proving inadequate. Cascading large numbers of reasonably modern stock to supplement/replace the existing types will prevent passengers being left on the platform or reduce the crush. I imagine that the majority of passengers in the north would prefer more of anything reasonable to travel on rather than obsess about having something that had been used by another area.
One area where I do have sympathy for the users of overcrowded provincial lines is that even where good stock such as the 319s are available, the TOC only leases the bare minimum of stock to run. Unfortunately that is a direct result of privatisation. For years, Thameslink had some peak hour diagrams that ran with a single 4 coach unit when even 8 coaches were inadequate. Southern were using some of the original Thameslink dual voltage units on DC only services south of the river, - they even removed the pantographs making loaning back for Thameslink use difficult. That did upset the locals!

* some 317s are off lease because the TOC doesn't want to pay the ROSCO's prices, - another privatisation benefit.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

If there were routes into London that were lightly loaded enough for Pacers and that's all that was available, then they would be used just the same as elsewhere.

Ideal for West Ealing-Greenford after Crossrail then...

 

[61653 HTAFC]

... The following MKIII coach designs are still in full service with no clear replacement plans yet:
317, 319, 321, 442, 455 & 456.
...

Then what's this thread for then? Has anyone told Siemens there's no plan to use those 700s they're building?

 

[northwichcat]

theres really very little jointed rail left in the NW at least so I think you can retire the nodding donkey tag here .

I don't think you can. 142s bounce a lot when going over the farmer's crossings between Northwich and Knutsford.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Good point- No-one has ever been killed in an accident whilst travelling on a pacer, whereas one passenger has been killed in a Pendolino accident. So I suggest that every current Pendolino service be replaced by a 142/143/144. (high-backed seating=1st class!)

I imagine a lot more 'minor' injuries have been obtained on Pacers than on Pendolinos.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

* some 317s are off lease because the TOC doesn't want to pay the ROSCO's prices, - another privatisation benefit.

I don't think it's just the leasing costs that's the issue. Northern are reluctant to train crews on any new type of traction so close to the end of their franchise.

 

[Grumpy]

"If there were routes into London that were lightly loaded enough for Pacers and that's all that was available, then they would be used just the same as elsewhere. London commuters just want to get to work, it's just that there about 1 million of them every day and all the pacers in the world could not cope with the volume".

I thought the original idea of the Pacers was to achieve cost savings by sharing components already in use in the road industry (primarily the bodies) and simpler, lighter, running gear (i.e. the adapted freight chassis). I don't think loadings are really an issue-they had wide bodies with 2+3 seating and , as many on here can confirm, can pack in standees.

A Pacer needn't have been built as a 2 car unit-you could have had any combination of coaches, non-driving as the 144 centre cars, to give the length you required, and instead of diesel engines had 3rd rail traction. Would have been just the job for peak hour services south of London. Instead millions more wasted on Electrostars and Siemens units that spend most of their lives parked up.

 

[Clip]

I think the problem these days is fact that many services that 142s operate are at the total other end of spectrum of 'lightly loaded' and are so full, that people are being left behind on the platforms! :

Oddly enough - a bit like I was at Norwood Junction this morning trying to get a fast one to the Bridge, it was choc-a-block. I have no idea if that is a frequent thing on the 0716 or not.


Whilst granted the Pacers have been around much longer than they should have been the clamour to have brand new fresh off the line trains for every region in Britain is just funny, well it will be if thats what you want because youll have to pay for them and then what a waste of the old trains if you are only going to scrap them after 20 - 30 years. Waste of money.

 

[fowler9]

Oddly enough - a bit like I was at Norwood Junction this morning trying to get a fast one to the Bridge, it was choc-a-block. I have no idea if that is a frequent thing on the 0716 or not.


Whilst granted the Pacers have been around much longer than they should have been the clamour to have brand new fresh off the line trains for every region in Britain is just funny, well it will be if thats what you want because youll have to pay for them and then what a waste of the old trains if you are only going to scrap them after 20 - 30 years. Waste of money.

If you are worried about the Pacers going to waste then you are welcome to them.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If you are trying to suggest that these 319's won't be *much* better than Pacers and 150's you must be mad.

They'll be a huge step up from a Pacer. They're crash-worthy, for one thing. All this talk of "nobody has died on a Pacer" is more through luck than anything else; the two big crashes (Winsford and Lime Street) thankfully both involved ecs moves.

This picture at Lime Street (not mine) shows just how little crash protection these trains offer.

The MkI slam-door trains were scrapped because of their non-existent crash protection, but nobody can put their hand on their heart and say the Pacers offer much more.

I'm not so sure about them being much better than a 150, though. They don't have engines under the floor and they have more carriages, which is great news. But the 319s have the same bodyshell and seats as the 150, so they have the same problems with legroom and visibility out of the windows.

 

[northwichcat]

Whilst granted the Pacers have been around much longer than they should have been the clamour to have brand new fresh off the line trains for every region in Britain is just funny, well it will be if thats what you want because youll have to pay for them and then what a waste of the old trains if you are only going to scrap them after 20 - 30 years. Waste of money.

DMUs are supposed to have a 25-30 year shelf life, which was the basis for the December 2019 deadlines for accessibility and use of trains with toilets which dump waste on to the tracks. So if the Pacers and 150s could be scrapped today it should not deemed to be a waste as they would have lasted as long as they were originally designed for.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not so sure about them being much better than a 150, though. They don't have engines under the floor and they have more carriages, which is great news. But the 319s have the same bodyshell and seats as the 150, so they have the same problems with legroom and visibility out of the windows.

In the case of the former FNW 150s with Northern the 319s have an older style seat design than the 150s. Although the refurbished type are still lacking in leg room - really they tried to cram too many seats on trains with only 20m carriages and since the 1980s the average height and weight of a British person has increased.

 

[Beveridges]

The 319s won't have that loud thunderous engine that 150s have and they are getting a refurb so a better interior and air conditioning. Plus acceleration will be far better.

 

[Clip]

If you are worried about the Pacers going to waste then you are welcome to them.

I was more alluding to people moaning about getting the 319s or any others cascaded up north, admittedly I didnt make this clear or no point about it at all.. These vehicles are still usable and whilst they are still usable, after a nice refresh I see no reason why they shouldnt be used elsewhere.