Pacer Safety

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Lets say the new franchise/franchises start in 2014. The winning company then go through the procurement process. The trains are then built. The trains are then tested. The trains are gradually introduced into service. Realistically, can all of that be done within five years (for, say, 100 DMUs)? Because if Pacers have to be gone by the end of the decade then thats the "window" that we have.

My point was to highlight the matter in hand from 2008 onwards. To use the now-realistic date of 2014 , for the reasons that I made in my original posting, shows that six years prior to 2014 have been totally wasted when the tendering process could have started and matters proceeded from that point onwards. I am enough of a realist to realise why the present situation has occurred and the fait accompli has then ensued.

 

[zn1]

read with interest what is being said

the fact is this - pacers are easy maintenance, have a good availbility etc

hsts are easy maintenance easy to operate and they dont require the latest version of Micro****e windows in every operating orifice of the unit , they dont drink lots of fuel powering computers etc.

a pacer and the last batch of BREL units built dont use a lot of power or diesel, you turn em on, wait for the air and off you go,

i gather these days you have to power up and wait 10 minutes before you can go,thats if the computers running the train allow the driver to apply the power.perhaps that me being cynical, but then knowing what windows is like...

all Motorised vehicles need only one computer - the most powerful is the one that pulls and pushes the handles - that of a human..!!


I keep saying this - there is too much reliance on computers in transport and in life in general, all thats needed is one good sunspot or EM spike and the world stops- how much computing power in the average new car these days ? TOO MUCH !!

then you will be wanting "rubbish" like pacers !!

 

[WelshBluebird]

Because, if you take the present franchises that have Pacers (Northern, ATW & Greater Western), they were all negotiated on the basis of "steady state", meaning no growth with existing fleet.

It's a sad fact of life that on these routes, every additional passenger costs the tax payer a little bit more money and any new train that replaces an old one will cost the tax payer a lot more money.

Of course, that isn't really true.
Many of the routes that pacers are used on have seen large growth since the companies have taken them on. Despite what the franchises themselves say.

 

[sprinterguy]

My opinion is any new 172s or cascaded 166/165 units (all three of which are more 'outer-suburban' than 'regional express') in the Great Western 'west fleet' should be used on Cardiff-Taunton and more local services, with Cardiff - Portsmouth remaining 158 operated (with the crowded workings extended to 4-car at the earliest possible opertunity).

I'd very much like to see Pacers replaced mainly by means of electrification and new EMUs, which in most cases would cascade 150s or 17xs to replace pacers. Take the ValleyLines, a new fleet of updated, lightened, 377s would be the stock I'd suggest (keeps a UK train factory, just a shame it is owned by the Canadians). That would replace the 30 Pacers there, plus release a few 150s (8 for FGW to rid them of their last few Pacers).

There's a lot of good sense here. The best way to get Pacers withdrawn would be with an extensive electrification programme, but unfortunately, as you state, the current electrification programmes already announced take us up to nearly the end of the decade, so there's not much scope for increasing the amount of electrification undertaken by 2019.

And in the case of FGW, keeping the more suburban layout units, in the form of cascaded 165s or, rather unlikely, new 172s, on the more medium-distance routes and the 158s on the longest distance journeys would be a good idea. All of FGWs' Network Turbos are 90mph capable though.

FGW should lose its' eight 143s when/if 165s are moved over to the WestCountry following the Oxford/Newbury electrification, most likely to ATW to bolster their fleet I would wager.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

London Midland's 170s could be the next target, replaced by electrifying the services from Birmingham to Hereford, Rugeley Trent Valley and Shrewsbury (Aberystwyth would get it's hourly service but the trains would terminate at Shrewsbury).

There would be very little case for electrifying Birmingham to Shrewsbury and Hereford for the sole benefit of London Midland, especially when you consider that it would require a small fleet of additional EMUs. A number of other services operate over those routes as a section of their journey and wouldn't be able to make use of the OHLE as much of the rest of their journey is diesel only.

 

[Drsatan]

There would be very little case for electrifying Birmingham to Shrewsbury and Hereford for the sole benefit of London Midland, especially when you consider that it would require a small fleet of additional EMUs. A number of other services operate over those routes as a section of their journey and wouldn't be able to make use of the OHLE as much of the rest of their journey is diesel only.

I would suggest that the Snow Hill Lines along with the Chase Line should be electrified, starting with the Chase Line since most of its services are self-contained. Any 170s displaced could be sent to Northern and used on Blackpool - York and Hazel Grove - Preston services, which would allow 150s and 156s to strengthen services out of Manchester Piccadilly and Victoria. Next would be Stratford upon Avon to Worcester Foregate Street and Shrub Hill, allowing 172s to be cascaded as required. Snow Hill - Leamington Spa should be carried out in conjunction with electrification of the Chiltern Main Line (possibly under another Evergreen project) which would result in Chiltern having an all-electric fleet (bar Princes Risborough - Aylesbury)

 

[sprinterguy]

I would suggest that the Snow Hill Lines along with the Chase Line should be electrified, starting with the Chase Line since most of its services are self-contained. Any 170s displaced could be sent to Northern and used on Blackpool - York and Hazel Grove - Preston services, which would allow 150s and 156s to strengthen services out of Manchester Piccadilly and Victoria. Next would be Stratford upon Avon to Worcester Foregate Street and Shrub Hill, allowing 172s to be cascaded as required. Snow Hill - Leamington Spa should be carried out in conjunction with electrification of the Chiltern Main Line (possibly under another Evergreen project) which would result in Chiltern having an all-electric fleet (bar Princes Risborough - Aylesbury)

I'm certainly on board with the idea of electrifying the Chase Line. The Snow Hill lines would be a logical candidate for electrification if, fingers crossed, the Chiltern line was ever electrified.

I only think it'd be worth sending any cascaded 170s to Northern if an entire sub-fleet of the units could be released, such as the LM 172s if the Snow Hill lines were electrified about half way through their life span. Otherwise, Northern would only end up with a micro-fleet of units: The Chase line only requires four of LMs' 170s.

 

[Drsatan]

I'm certainly on board with the idea of electrifying the Chase Line. The Snow Hill lines would be a logical candidate for electrification if, fingers crossed, the Chiltern line was ever electrified.

I only think it'd be worth sending any cascaded 170s to Northern if an entire sub-fleet of the units could be released, such as the LM 172s if the Snow Hill lines were electrified about half way through their life span. Otherwise, Northern would only end up with a micro-fleet of units: The Chase line only requires four of LMs' 170s.

Ok, thanks for correcting me, I don't use LM services very frequently!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I only think it'd be worth sending any cascaded 170s to Northern if an entire sub-fleet of the units could be released

That sounds a nice change from the usual comment of "We'll send our unwanted 142's to Northern". :roll:

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Of course, that isn't really true.
Many of the routes that pacers are used on have seen large growth since the companies have taken them on. Despite what the franchises themselves say.

Statistics can't lie. The more people that are carried on UK railways, the higher the cost to the tax payer.

The TOCs' profit margins are static, so this must mean that more people means more subsidy.

If you replace a 60 seat DMU carriage that costs £4k a month to lease, with one that costs £8k a month to lease, it still only carries the same number of people, so where does the extra money come from?

 

[Schnellzug]

Of course, that isn't really true.
Many of the routes that pacers are used on have seen large growth since the companies have taken them on. Despite what the franchises themselves say.

Heavens, haven't some of the West Country branches supposedly seen something like 90% growth, so we're told?

 

[Lampshade]

Heavens, haven't some of the West Country branches supposedly seen something like 90% growth, so we're told?

I heard in the region of 200% hock:

 

[Schnellzug]

Statistics can't lie.

Can they really not? *looks at Mr. George Osborne, purveyor of Stastistics to the Nation about how well the Economy's doing*


Anyway, I don't understand economics [but neither does mr. George Osborne ], but it all seems completely unnecessarily complicated to me, why can't they (the Govt.) just give them enough to make up the difference between income and running costs, rather than all these immeasurably complicated agreements and so on and so forth? It would make things so much simpler.

 

[Greenback]

Statistics can't lie. The more people that are carried on UK railways, the higher the cost to the tax payer.

The TOCs' profit margins are static, so this must mean that more people means more subsidy.

If you replace a 60 seat DMU carriage that costs £4k a month to lease, with one that costs £8k a month to lease, it still only carries the same number of people, so where does the extra money come from?

We could re work the question a little.

We have a DMU that costs £4k a month to lease. It has already recouped it's initial cost 4 fold, and has at leats another 9 years left to work.

Ridership on the lines that the unit operates on has increased 75% since 2003.
Fares have increased on the route by an average of 5% a year since 2003. Rail staff wages have increased by the same amount.

How can subsidy not have increased?

Answers on a postcard please to Mr Mcnulty, DfT, London.

 

[Rhydgaled]

why can't they (the Govt.) just give them enough to make up the difference between income and running costs, rather than all these immeasurably complicated agreements and so on and so forth? It would make things so much simpler.

I'd expect it was because British Rail was privatised, and now everyone involved is out to make a profit.

Just re-nationalising the ROSCOs and giving the TOCs free leases on stock (and an amended franchise agreement to reflect the reduced cost to the TOC) would probablly cut the subsidy to the rail industry by £1bn. Of course that would mean the government would have to push through leglislation to make them hand the stock over. The government would also actually have to save up to buy rolling stock, rather than just using the ROSCOs as a kind of very-expensive loan (I think the capital cost of a 3-car 377 is roughly £3,300,000, let a ROSCO pay that for you and it will cost you (at a rough guess) £315,000 per year to lease, adding up to £9,450,000 over 30 years).

So it costs £6,150,000 more per unit over 30 years to lease rather than buy. With a fleet of 30 units, would that be £184,500,000 more than buying them yourself in the first place? Who to blame? John Major's government?

 

[tbtc]

Does it have to be though? The report quote in the OP merely mentions the industry plans for continuing the use of Pacers beyond their design life.

That looks to me as though the onus will be put on the TOC's to amend the Pacer fleet to ensure that they remain 'safe'. Presumably this will allow them to be used until new units are delivered and tested, rather than be removed by a cut off date?

You can keep the "make do and mend" for a few more years.

But the costs of DDA compliance (from 1 January 2020) are going to be prohibitive (no DDA toilet, no level access etc).

Some cosmetic things can be amended (bigger brighter destination screens etc), but I don't think that the new rules will be easy to get round by just repainting the handrails and making tweaks.

Just my opinion, of course
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So it costs £6,150,000 more per unit over 30 years to lease rather than buy. With a fleet of 30 units, would that be £184,500,000 more than buying them yourself in the first place? Who to blame? John Major's government?

I don't know the exact costs, but from what I've seen it suggests that a TOC with a fifteen year franchise would save a lot of money buying new units at the start instead of leasing them for fifteen years (maybe only half the expected life span).

Sounds daft. But then its not going to change any time soon...

 

[Greenback]

You can keep the "make do and mend" for a few more years.

But the costs of DDA compliance (from 1 January 2020) are going to be prohibitive (no DDA toilet, no level access etc).

Some cosmetic things can be amended (bigger brighter destination screens etc), but I don't think that the new rules will be easy to get round by just repainting the handrails and making tweaks.

Just my opinion, of course.

Out o finterest, how would the DDA rules affect trains without a toilet?

Could they just take the toilets out of a Pacer so that it would comply?

 

[yorksrob]

He defended both Pacers (and Voyagers) saying that if there was one type of train that had to be replaced, it was actually the HST. Now as my name suggests, I am a HST loyalist, but when I got home I realized he had a very good point. Whilst Pacers struggle on some track gradients and have been banned from certain lines, the process of replacing them is going to be tricky and in the current economic climate TOC's will want to keep their stock running, rather than investing sums of money in buying new trains. There is of course the Sprinter argument (as I say, my knowledge is limited ) so I won't delve into that, but this same driver showed me the cab of his Voyager then walked me over to the cab of a HST, and I could fully understand his reasoning when he said to me that it was actually the High Speed Trains that needed the boot.

Hmmm much as I usually prefer to defer to the professionals, I find your drivers arguments tougher to digest than a hunk of British Rail Moquette.

I dare say that if you compared the dashboard of a Pacer (or indeed any 30 year old train) it would look strikingly different to it's 21st century equivalent. The fact remains that not only do the HST's have new engines and interiors, but they are also sturdier than a lot of trains (not only are they Mk 3, but they effectively have a barrier vehicle at each end). I've heard corrosion mentioned in other threads, but the idea that some may be life extended to cover the South West Mainline suggests that these problems are far from terminal at this stage.

Alas, there is no easy way to cascade modern Inter-City stock to shorter distance routes, so Governments just have to bite the bullet and pay for replacements - even if that does involve a complicated cascade.

 

[swt_passenger]

Out o finterest, how would the DDA rules affect trains without a toilet?

They can still fail on stuff like having stepped access through the doorway, poor access for a wheelchair through the train to/from a wheelchair area, then there's lack of low level alarm points and comms, and audio visual announcements, door closing beeps, tactile open/close buttons etc etc. Accessible toilets are just the most visible item - they definitely aren't the only issue...

A few years back, there were serious possibilities that the 458s were going to have to be taken out of service because of the poor quality of the existing PIS displays - despite everything else about the trains being up to spec.

 

[Pen Mill]

I don't know the exact costs, but from what I've seen it suggests that a TOC with a fifteen year franchise would save a lot of money buying new units at the start instead of leasing them for fifteen years (maybe only half the expected life span).

Sounds daft. But then its not going to change any time soon...

The TOC is borrowing money from a Rosco who you would suppose is a specialist in the railway field.
If the asset has an agreed useful life of 30 years then I presume a "buy-back" or discount is included in the Rosco's leasing rate to reflect that the Rosco still has a leasable asset when it is returned.

The TOC is doing this because it can't afford the upfront capital outlay itself just like the government (any government) couldn't and can't.

Do you suppose that another form of lender would be able to provide funds cheaper ? I don't believe they could.

 

[HSTEd]

The TOC is doing this because it can't afford the upfront capital outlay itself just like the government (any government) couldn't and can't.

I have to disagree with this comment, if the government wanted to it could easily purchase a huge amount of new rolling stock, we are currently deficit spending to the tune of over a hundred billion pounds per year.
We wouldn't even notice a huge new rolling stock programme, and as they are tangible assets they would not "spook" the market to the same extent as spending it on social services might.

 

[Pen Mill]

I have to disagree with this comment, if the government wanted to it could easily purchase a huge amount of new rolling stock, we are currently deficit spending to the tune of over a hundred billion pounds per year.
We wouldn't even notice a huge new rolling stock programme, and as they are tangible assets they would not "spook" the market to the same extent as spending it on social services might.

Let's just pile up deficit spending then , Ireland,Greece,Spain,Italy,Bail-out spring to mind .

Inflation is heading for 5% , they can't afford it just like they can't afford new "pacers".

 

[tbtc]

Out o finterest, how would the DDA rules affect trains without a toilet?

Could they just take the toilets out of a Pacer so that it would comply?

Yeah, that'd be okay - in the way that London buses have lost their "via" points (which were too small to view for the visually impaired) - you can dumb down instead of making thing universal - I'm not saying I agree...

Alas, there is no easy way to cascade modern Inter-City stock to shorter distance routes, so Governments just have to bite the bullet and pay for replacements - even if that does involve a complicated cascade.

I wish someone had realised this fifteen years ago!

Many TOCs have introduced new "upmarket" stock on their "flagship" routes and then cascaded downwards - hence the 158s and 170s on short distance routes that they aren't intended on (Whifflet, Anniesland, Lymington, Chase etc).

In hindsight we should really have had an order of basic 75mph DMUs - instead of cascading 100mph units down the food chain

The TOC is borrowing money from a Rosco who you would suppose is a specialist in the railway field.
If the asset has an agreed useful life of 30 years then I presume a "buy-back" or discount is included in the Rosco's leasing rate to reflect that the Rosco still has a leasable asset when it is returned.

The TOC is doing this because it can't afford the upfront capital outlay itself just like the government (any government) couldn't and can't.

Do you suppose that another form of lender would be able to provide funds cheaper ? I don't believe they could.

Hypothetical, I know. But if Stagecoach know that they are going to be running a long term diesel franchise then they will get (say) twenty years out of a unit.

They already have arrangements with their bankers to spread the cost of new (bus) vehicles over the longer term, so that they don't need to shell out the full cost in one chunk.

So why not do the same with trains (if they can guarantee running a TOC long enough to pay off)?

At the moment companies like Stagecoach are paying bank rates to acquire buses and loan shark rates to acquire trains...

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Yeah, that'd be okay - in the way that London buses have lost their "via" points (which were too small to view for the visually impaired) - you can dumb down instead of making thing universal - I'm not saying I agree...

I don't think that you're right about this.The TSI is intended to be for Persons with Reduced Mobility (PRM) and covers a whole host of aspects, not least of which is accessibility to the train in the first place. I believe that the step arrangement on Pacers does not and could not comply with the TSI-PRM.

I wish someone had realised this fifteen years ago!

Many TOCs have introduced new "upmarket" stock on their "flagship" routes and then cascaded downwards - hence the 158s and 170s on short distance routes that they aren't intended on (Whifflet, Anniesland, Lymington, Chase etc).

In hindsight we should really have had an order of basic 75mph DMUs - instead of cascading 100mph units down the food chain.

Totally agree with this point.

Hypothetical, I know. But if Stagecoach know that they are going to be running a long term diesel franchise then they will get (say) twenty years out of a unit.

They already have arrangements with their bankers to spread the cost of new (bus) vehicles over the longer term, so that they don't need to shell out the full cost in one chunk.

So why not do the same with trains (if they can guarantee running a TOC long enough to pay off)?

At the moment companies like Stagecoach are paying bank rates to acquire buses and loan shark rates to acquire trains...

Absolutely right, which I believe is one of the Government's main motivations for introducing longer franchises, where there is more breathing space for the TOC to take risks, just as Chiltern and C2C did in the first round of franchising after privatisation.

 

[tbtc]

I don't think that you're right about this.The TSI is intended to be for Persons with Reduced Mobility (PRM) and covers a whole host of aspects, not least of which is accessibility to the train in the first place. I believe that the step arrangement on Pacers does not and could not comply with the TSI-PRM

Sorry, I don't think I explained myself very well there.

I was meaning to say that there are some things where Pacers could comply with disability/accessibility legislation by making things worse (e.g. no room for a disabled toilet, but they could get rid of all toilet provision, if you can't but a clear destination screen on the front cab then you could get rid of the small one - steps backwards, but ways round the laws)

However the step onto the train can't be easily got round - and I don't think that there would be any way to get round this (and far too expensive to solve it - you'd be better building new machines)

 

[Greenback]

I do think it would be better to buy new DMU's. I was just trying to be cynical and think of ways that DfT and the TOC's might try to avoid it!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

They can still fail on stuff like having stepped access through the doorway, poor access for a wheelchair through the train to/from a wheelchair area, then there's lack of low level alarm points and comms, and audio visual announcements, door closing beeps, tactile open/close buttons etc etc. Accessible toilets are just the most visible item - they definitely aren't the only issue...

Agreed. This is why I feel that any "relaxations" to the 2019 date are going to be very difficult to justify if these are brought before a Commission of Inquiry.

 

[HST Power]

I dare say that if you compared the dashboard of a Pacer (or indeed any 30 year old train) it would look strikingly different to it's 21st century equivalent.

When did the Pacers last get a refurbishment?

 

[142094]

When did the Pacers last get a refurbishment?

Last one up here would have been with Northern Spirit, and that wasn't much of a refurb.

 

[tbtc]

Last one up here would have been with Northern Spirit, and that wasn't much of a refurb.

Probably the 144s were the most recent, and that was a reasonable job (albeit only affecting a small number of the overall number of Pacers)

 

[tom1649]

When did the Pacers last get a refurbishment?

There are a handful of 142s which have never received any refurbishment. I believe they are referred to as 'The Oldham Five'. They are the ex-FNW ones which don't have the pink luggage racks. They do have new seat covers though.