Pacer replacement contract ... any news?

[sprinterguy]

You have picked up on most of the probable issues with all of those identified DMUs directly aiding Pacer replacement, but here's my generally pessimistic view that is unfortunately often borne out by actual DfT decisions:

There is no need to order a single DMU to replace the class 142.

One Northern Train Driver has had the brains to ask the right FoI questions and found over 100 DMUs 'going spare'.

Heres a snippit of an email of his thats doing the rounds:

26 class 150 vehicles currently going of lease from London Midland. See http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/dft-f0007261

It is reported that London Midland are currently looking at retaining some of their 150s, so it's questionably whether all of these units would end up at Northern.

Electrification will save 40 DMU vehicles from TransPennine and 76 from Northern Rail. See: http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/dft-f0007441

As you rightly say, Transpennine will most likely not be giving up the 185s freed up by electrification, as they are required for strengthening other TPE services. However the 32 units out of Northern Rails' fleet that will be freed up is definitely good news and is almost exactly the same size as Newton Heaths' 142 fleet. The problem is that additional capacity will still be needed on Northerns' remaining diesel routes above that provided by the arrival of LMs' 150s (Perhaps unless they received all the unallocated LM 150s).

Electrification of the Great Western Mainline will save around 40 diesel units. See: http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/dft-f0007353

That suggests that the 36 class 165/1s will be available for cascade elsewhere. It's good to see some details as such, thanks for the link.

Thirty six 2 and 3 car units is quite a lot if they are all cascaded to the Bristol and West Country area. That should definitely see the replacement of FGWs' eight 143s (I predict that they'll move to ATW to join the rest of the fleet there) and could well lead to the cascade of Sprinter units to other operators. FGW has its' own overcrowding issues as well, so I'd hope that less carriages than have been driectly replaced are moved elsewhere.

Until the full beneficial effects of the LM 150 cascade have been experienced, it's difficult to say how many trains the cascaded 165s could release: I'd say, though I'm not suggesting that this is the most desirable arrangement, that FGW could comfortably lose its' eight 143s, five 2 car 158s and ten 3 car 158s in exchange for twenty 2 car 165s and sixteen 3 car 165s around the West Country.

Electrification of Edinburgh-Glasgow will save 15 class 158s and 17 class 170 units. See: attached

I'm doubtful as to whether Scotrail would release any Sprinters freed up by electrification until they have a sizeable number going spare. There'll be an additional requirement (Not a huge one admittedly) for units to operate the Borders railway as well. Scotrail seem to have a much better knack of holding onto rolling stock as additional capacity than many of the English TOCs do.

Fingers crossed though that completion of the currently authorised stages of the Scottish electrification programme sees a number of Sprinters trickling down into English hands.

I am in agreement with you that there is no need to order a single new DMU to replace the Pacer fleet, and not just the 142s, but only with the authorisation of further electrification works above those already authorised.

By the end of the next five years I would like to see a lot more four carriage Sprinter (and Pacer, in the areas where they operate: So looking at Valley Lines and Northern) formations operating for a much greater portion of the day where demand requires it. Which, if demand for rail travel is to continue to increase, will be in a lot of places.

 

[northwichcat]

Electrification will save 40 DMU vehicles from TransPennine and 76 from Northern Rail. See: http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/dft-f0007441

Electrification of the Great Western Mainline will save around 40 diesel units. See: http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/dft-f0007353

Electrification of Edinburgh-Glasgow will save 15 class 158s and 17 class 170 units. See: attached

That's a total of around 120 units, excluding the TransPennine vehicles and there is only 94 class 142 units in existence.

You can't compare vehicle numbers like that. A 3 car 185 or 4 car 319 could only replace one Pacer as a 4 car 319 can't run two services at once and then join up for a later service like Pacers do all the time.

While this solves the problem of class 142’s there is also the problem of over crowding

Considering the LM 150 cascade and Thameslink EMU cascade was to replace a proposed DMU order for Northern, FGW and TPE the overcrowding is a key point especially as passenger numbers have continued to rise.

 

[tbtc]

There is no need to order a single DMU to replace the class 142.

One Northern Train Driver has had the brains to ask the right FoI questions and found over 100 DMUs 'going spare'.

Heres a snippit of an email of his thats doing the rounds:

26 class 150 vehicles currently going of lease from London Midland. See http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/dft-f0007261

Electrification will save 40 DMU vehicles from TransPennine and 76 from Northern Rail. See: http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/dft-f0007441

Electrification of the Great Western Mainline will save around 40 diesel units. See: http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/dft-f0007353

Electrification of Edinburgh-Glasgow will save 15 class 158s and 17 class 170 units. See: attached

That's a total of around 120 units, excluding the TransPennine vehicles and there is only 94 class 142 units in existence.

While this solves the problem of class 142’s there is also the problem of over crowding, I cant see TPE giving up 40 vehicles when its got its own capacity problems, nor can I see the Scots giving up the 3-car class 170’s (on a different note, there is even gauging issues with the class 165’s effectively 'keeping them' in on the Great Western ) but I can see a 3-car class 170 replacing and allowing a 2-car class 156 to become available and I can see a 3-car 165 replacing a 2-car class 158 around Bristol, both of which increase capacity and frees units that can be sent to the North of England and even a 2-car class 158 has more seats than a class 142. See:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....ft.gov.uk/foi-responses/2010/06/f0006577.pdf/

Pass this on to anyone you think can help, while there’s no reason for the 142s to last longer than the current electrification program, I cant help but think unless we do something, they will.

Feel free to use any of this information as you see fit as I believe that the next Northern Franchise is a once in a generation chance to get rid of these machines.


That showes you can replace all the 142s and still have something left over to boost capacity. There is still the question of the 143s & 144s, but one step at a time.

Does sound interesting, but I think there's some fudging of figures by the DFT when talking about "diesel vehicles"/ units etc - are we talking trains or coaches here?

Since some of the Paddington - Oxford services are HST run, are they counting one freed up HST as equivalent to one train, or eight coaches?

The LM 150s are known about, and (as I understand it) aren't going to replace a single Pacer when they arrive at Northern/ FGW (I think the only train which will be "withdrawn" is the FGW loco-hauled service?). We need capacity more than we can afford to withdraw Pacers.

Its certainly a start, but we still need more electrification if we aren't going to build new DMUs.

 

[BestWestern]

The LM 150s are known about, and (as I understand it) aren't going to replace a single Pacer when they arrive at Northern/ FGW (I think the only train which will be "withdrawn" is the FGW loco-hauled service?). We need capacity more than we can afford to withdraw Pacers.

Its certainly a start, but we still need more electrification if we aren't going to build new DMUs.

The FGW loco hauled sets have, sadly, already ceased. The LM 150s, if and when they eventually arrive, should replace the hired-in ATW class 150 units (2 per day) and the hired-in SWT 158 (1 per day), plus releasing class 142 units from Exeter for transfer back to Northern. There will be a net gain in vehicle numbers, I don't recall exactly how many but nothing enormous, nine vehicles rings a bell. Every little helps!

 

[sprinterguy]

The LM 150s are known about, and (as I understand it) aren't going to replace a single Pacer when they arrive at Northern/ FGW (I think the only train which will be "withdrawn" is the FGW loco-hauled service?).

The FGW loco hauled turns were withdrawn following the arrival of the eight 150/1s from London Overground. The 150s arriving at FGW from LM will replace seven class 142s which are moving back to Northern, as well as, AFAIK, the two remaining hired-in ATW 150 diagrams: So Northern actually gains Pacers from the LM cascade rather than losing any! Additonally, if FGW only receive the nine class 150s originally destined for them from LM, then it represents no gain in additional carriages for FGW, only a gain in seating capacity.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Since some of the Paddington - Oxford services are HST run, are they counting one freed up HST as equivalent to one train, or eight coaches?

Hopefully, a reshuffle of diagrams will mean that through the gain of five class 180 Adelantes on the Cotswolds route and the redeployment of HSTs on longer distance Paddington to Worcester and Hereford services in place of any remaining Network Turbo duties will mean that only 165s and 166s will be displaced by the Oxford electrification.

We need capacity more than we can afford to withdraw Pacers.

Its certainly a start, but we still need more electrification if we aren't going to build new DMUs.

I completely agree with both those statements.

 

[tbtc]

The FGW loco hauled turns were withdrawn following the arrival of the eight 150/1s from London Overground. The 150s arriving at FGW from LM will replace seven class 142s which are moving back to Northern, as well as, AFAIK, the two remaining hired-in ATW 150 diagrams: So Northern actually gains Pacers from the LM cascade rather than losing any! Additonally, if FGW only receive the nine class 150s originally destined for them from LM, then it represents no gain in additional carriages for FGW, only a gain in seating capacity.

Thanks for clarifying. Hard to keep up with - wish the DFT did a flowchart!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hopefully, a reshuffle of diagrams will mean that through the gain of five class 180 Adelantes on the Cotswolds route and the redeployment of HSTs on longer distance Paddington to Worcester and Hereford services in place of any remaining Network Turbo duties will mean that only 165s and 166s will be displaced by the Oxford electrification

That would make sense - on one level its a bit strange that there are eight coach services from London to Oxford, but only three coach ones from London to Worcester/Hereford (via Oxford)...

...I guess thats good use of stock for busier services, and these things are never simple, but...

 

[sprinterguy]

Thanks for clarifying. Hard to keep up with - wish the DFT did a flowchart!

Given the increasing length of the Word document that I'm using to keep abreast of the latest developments in the current Sprinter cascade, I feel that such a flowchart would be horrifically complicated!

 

[northwichcat]

So Northern actually gains Pacers from the LM cascade rather than losing any!

But Northern will lose 4x156s to EMT as soon as they can release them (EMT had timetabled in the 13:52 Liverpool-Notingham extension to Norwich for May 2011 but it's been postponed until EMT get the extra 156s), plus Northern will lose the 3 subleased 180s.

Additonally, if FGW only receive the nine class 150s originally destined for them from LM, then it represents no gain in additional carriages for FGW, only a gain in seating capacity.

The 142s at FGW were already additional units themselves. They were only subleased to cover a refurbishment program but FGW were able to keep them on as extra units.

Thanks for clarifying. Hard to keep up with - wish the DFT did a flowchart!

Or even a Gantt Chart showing the critical paths. (They'll be a lot of them!)

 

[tbtc]

Or even a Gantt Chart showing the critical paths. (They'll be a lot of them!)

Agreed!

 

[sprinterguy]

But Northern will lose 4x156s to EMT as soon as they can release them (EMT had timetabled in the 13:52 Liverpool-Notingham extension to Norwich for May 2011 but it's been postponed until EMT get the extra 156s), plus Northern will lose the 3 subleased 180s.

Yep, which means that Northerns' ratio of Pacers to everything else won't really get any better.

 

[YorkshireBear]

ALl very good ideas and points. But personally, to meet the 2020 deadline for pacers and keep carrige numbers in line with growth i do not think we can electrify and cascade quick enough to replace them. I think even if it isn't the biggest order of DMU's we are going to need one. I'm thinkin order 3 car 172's to replace on a unit-unit basis ( not carrige to carrige) 143s and 144s and we might be able to cover 142s and capcity with the rest.

 

[BestWestern]

What is needed is perhaps a very simple, lightweight 'Pacer for the 21st century' affair, rather than the usual heavy expensive mainline stuff. Just a thought, but in line with the current cost-cutting proposals and suchlike, perhaps it might be possible that some branch lines might be downgraded to 'tram-train' operation, allowing light rail vehicles to be purchased from 'off the peg' designs, and freeing up some Sprinter stock for cascade elsewhere, with the remaining heavy rail branches switching to exclusive Pacer operation using the sets which weren't replaced. Might work!

 

[KingBBoogaloo]

While we can all sit here and discuss what may or may not happened to the DMUs that are freed up by electrification, has anyone thought about standing up and fighting to make sure they are used to replace the Pacers?

An earlier comment made reference to whether or not Scotland would release any spare Sprinters, considering they have a number of Northerns class 158s, I would bloody hope they do, but unless people start fighting for them I doubt Scotland will.

Instead of sitting here talking about the million and one possible permutations of how the DMUs freed by electrification could be used, why not use that time and energy to get on the backs of the politicians and PTEs who will sign the next Northern franchise off and make sure that the replacement of the Pacers is part of the next contract. The best bit is, if the replacement of the Pacers are part of the next franchise none of us would have to worry our weary minds about how to do it. It would be the problem of those bidding.

Railfuture Northwest have already picked up that Drivers email and the FoI information, so have other Rail User Groups and this is a good place to start campaigning. These groups were instrumental if fighting the planned cuts that were going to be part of the Northern Review and can be instrumental again.

 

[TEW]

The 142s at FGW were already additional units themselves. They were only subleased to cover a refurbishment program but FGW were able to keep them on as extra units.

The 142s weren't additional vehicles, they had to replace the 12 158s lost to Northern at the same time. 12 158s lost to Northern with 12 142s in their place. 5 of those 142s went back after 11 months.

The LHCS on FGW was to allow extra unit diagrams to replace trains run by XC and SWT, so not additional.

The ATW 150s and the SWT 158 were additional units, but only to allow three car 158s to be formed.

 

[northwichcat]

The 142s weren't additional vehicles, they had to replace the 12 158s lost to Northern at the same time. 12 158s lost to Northern with 12 142s in their place. 5 of those 142s went back after 11 months.

FGW's 158 fleet consisted of 12x2 car ex-Wessex units plus 4x2 car ex-CT units subleased from Northern i.e. 16 in total. They now have 16x158s in total, which are mainly the former TPE units with better engines. So where's this net loss in 158s?

FGW have also since received 8x150s from London Overground.

Therefore the 142s are now additional units whether or not they were at the time of originally taking them on.

 

[KingBBoogaloo]

On another note can people read the information in the links as they are asking questions that are already answered in the FoI requests.

 

[TEW]

FGW's 158 fleet consisted of 12x2 car ex-Wessex units plus 4x2 car ex-CT units subleased from Northern i.e. 16 in total. They now have 16x158s in total, which are mainly the former TPE units with better engines. So where's this net loss in 158s?

FGW have also since received 8x150s from London Overground.

Therefore the 142s are now additional units whether or not they were at the time of originally taking them on.

FGW had for a period the 12 Wessex units alongside the 20 other 2-car units (several Wessex /7s and TPE /7s), this period was around a year IIRC. They required these due to the loss of 150s to ATW and the CT 158s and a few 153s. The number of TPE 158s was roughly similar to the other units lost. The 12 158s were then swapped for 142s with Northern.

150121 and 150127 were provided for extra capacity around the same time, 142s have far less capacity than 158s.

The 6 Overground 150s replaced the two LHCS diagrams, and 2 ATW 150s.

 

[northwichcat]

The 12 158s were then swapped for 142s with Northern.

Any extra 158s Northern got went to their Neville Hill depot, this released the 156s at the Neville Hill depot to the Newton Heath depot, which allowed 12x142s to be put in to warm storage at Blackpool sidings. They were put there in Spring 2007 and only appeared in service with FGW at the December 2007 timetable change. There was around a 6 month gap between Northern getting the last of the extra 158s and the 142s being used by FGW, so it can't have been a like for like swap as you're making out.

The 142s were only subleased from Northern until November 2008 when they should have all been returned. However, due to issues at FGW DfT allowed them to extend the sublease for 7 of the units and Northern had to take on 180s to fill the requirement DfT gave them to plug the gap on Manchester-Preston caused caused by DfT axing the 2 hourly Manchester Airport-Windermere route and madking TPE run Manchester-Scotland using 185s instead of the Voyagers used previously.

 

[TEW]

FGW had all the Wessex 158s until December 2007. Were they the ones which went, originally temporarily, to Scotrail?

 

[northwichcat]

FGW had all the Wessex 158s until December 2007. Were they the ones which went, originally temporarily, to Scotrail?

Could it be that Northern originally took on some of the TPE 158s (which were being released from 2006 onwards) and then the units were swapped so that Northern finished up with some of the Wessex Trains units instead?

 

[TEW]

I couldn't find any links to a newspaper article, but I found this old thread from another forum.
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=251.0
This talks about the loss of 12 158s and speculation about what would replace. Eventually of course it turned out to be 142s.

 

[northwichcat]

I couldn't find any links to a newspaper article, but I found this old thread from another forum.
http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=251.0
This talks about the loss of 12 158s and speculation about what would replace. Eventually of course it turned out to be 142s.

That says "The 158s [that are going north] were on short-term hire to us - the leasing company has obviously found another home for them."

I think it's referring to the non-Wessex units reaching the end of the short-term hire but FGW managed to keep hold of the non-Wessex units and release the Wessex 158s instead, as how could 158s that had been there since the days of Wessex Trains have been on a short term lease?

It should be noted that Northern did not get all of the 30 extra 158s quoted.

From what you've said and that link it sounding to me like DfT originally decided that FGW could have extra 158s when the TPE units were released but then decided FGW didn't have the greatest need for them so said they had to hand them back at the end of a short term lease. However, when FGW complained they were told they still couldn't keep them and were offered 142s, which I remember the West Country media quoting that they were 30 years ago and made it sound like they'd been in storage for years and weren't still being used on the UK network.

 

[TEW]

If FGW didn't have the need for them, they wouldn't have been replaced. I think originally they were kept on a short term lease to cover capacity problems, and then it was decided that they would be moved off FGW to long term lease with Northern. That left FGW without 12 trains they needed, hence the 142s.

 

[Batman]

Out of the current number of 290 pacers, how many are 2 car and how many are 3 car?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Out of the current number of 290 pacers, how many are 2 car and how many are 3 car?

290!!!!! wow were in deep trouble.......

i think 10 144s are three car all in yorkshire, rest of the 142/3/4 fleet are 2 car

 

[ainsworth74]

290!!!!! wow were in deep trouble.......

Just so it's clear that's the total number of vehicles not units

Still it's a lot of units...

 

[tbtc]

Just so it's clear that's the total number of vehicles not units

Still it's a lot of units...

This is the problem with the current trend for "double counting" in press releases (see also the way that the same "seats" are counted over and over again in press releases)

 

[YorkshireBear]

Just so it's clear that's the total number of vehicles not units

Still it's a lot of units...

I knew it was vehicles quoted

It was meant to be sarcastic hard to transfer that on here.

Ofc it is still about 120 units which is insane....

 

[TEW]

This is the problem with the current trend for "double counting" in press releases (see also the way that the same "seats" are counted over and over again in press releases)

The double counting problem is counting new vehicles as additional but then also counting cascaded vehicles as additional. It doubles the figure for net additional carriages. Of course everything is quoted as vehicles not units as it makes the numbers bigger and look more impressive.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The double counting problem is counting new vehicles as additional but then also counting cascaded vehicles as additional. It doubles the figure for net additional carriages. Of course everything is quoted as vehicles not units as it makes the numbers bigger and look more impressive.

It would be the same if we were discussing Mark IV coaching stock. Each carriage is a specific carrier of passengers and can give the total amount of passenger capacity per carriage whether it be 2-car, 3-car, 4-car or 5-car units being discussed.