Pacers for ever

[NotATrainspott]

If one of the Northern bidders comes up with the idea of bi-mode trains to replace Pacers it might not mean that they would actually end up on the same routes. There's no point putting an expensive bi-mode on either a mostly-unelectrified or a mostly-electrified route so it's entirely probable that these bi-modes would be used to replace other DMUs on routes around the country that could justify them, like TransPennine, with the freed-up DMUs being cascaded to replace the Pacers on routes like the Cumbrian Coast.

 

[tbtc]

I think the key word in there is 'Option'

That's it.

We get very excited about the wording of some proposals/ drafts/ suggestions, rather than waiting for the final decision/ wording.

Keeping non-compliant units in operation when coupled to compliant units has to be an option for post-2020. It's not a wonderful option, but it's realistic to at least have an option like that on the table (if only so that the winning bidder can boast about how they are going further than required to).

I'm sure that if one bidder can operate the franchise for £x whilst keeping Pacers and another can operate the franchise for £x whilst getting rid of Pacers then the latter will be the winner, but only fair that these things are costed.

I also think there needs to be a maximisation of electric trains on electric routes even where there is a strong business case for running through diesel trains

Agreed.

If we are as serious as we say we are about minimising/replacing Pacers then there are going to be some routes that get amended in line with where the wires end (to improve EMU useage).

And if Daft are on about leaving the TOC's to their own devices with regard to rolling stock how's that that going to work with a DMU cascade plan.

This is a problem - is it up to the free market to "solve" this "problem"? Or should the Government be stepping in? The railway can't decide whether the Government is there as referee (watching developments, ensuring people comply with the rules) or teacher (intervening, responsible for improving things).

I don't think it's a complete surprise. The electrification schemes aren't progressing at a rate where the Pacers can be replaced before the end of 2019 without a new DMU order

The problem is that (as discussed) we are electrifying hundreds of miles to replace 125mph stock (MML to Sheffield, GWML to Swansea) rather than tackling the shorter routes where we could free up the 75mph DMUs that we need to be ridding ourselves of.

For example, if the Government wanted to electrify ~a hundred miles around Sheffield then (instead of electrifying Sheffield to Bedford) it'd be better to fill in lots of gaps from Sheffield to Doncaster/ Moorthorpe/ Leeds via Barnsley, and similar other lines where 75mph DMUs provide big numbers of services (I always mention Warrington Central in these threads - it'd free up a lot of 75mph DMUs).

Basically, apart from the Valley Lines, we are wiring up the wrong kind of routes if we want to tackle the Pacer problem.

2. Extra capacity is needed on a lot of lines which aren't being electrified or even being considered for electrification. The Manchester-Chester via Altrincham, Buxton, Manchester-Southport and Manchester-Warrington via Liverpool lines are just a few examples

All of those doubled up 156s (that the 319s are replacing) will surely be available to enhance capacity on these lines though?

There's no suggestion of freed-up DMUs leaving northern England (post-electrification), as far as I am aware.

Pacers could be around for another 20 years. Could this mean a slowdown in electrification in the North/Northeast?

There's certainly no slowdown - if anything the recent announcements about Windermere/ Bolton to Wigan/ Hull suggest that we are going to get more than the CP5 proposals.

Once the "main" lines are done in CP5, it's going to be a lot easier to justify wiring shorter "branches", so I expect that could see all 1980s DMUs becoming redundant by the end of CP6 (April 2024).

However, that creates the problem that it's not worth building new DMUs today (which may be surplus to requirement in a decade - with enough 170s and the like to run lines that don't justify electrification by 2024), which is why a temporary extension to Pacer lifespan (provided that they are coupled to a compliant unit) seems to be at least an option for how we get through the start of the 2020s.

They'll quite obviously need some extensive refurbishments however if they are going to be used for at least another ten years. Although I'm no Pacer fan, I'm glad of this decision because it seems crazy that stock was going to be written off when we have such overcrowding in various parts of the UK. - They get people from A to B in no glamorous way but a disabled toilet in one of the cabs is also a good idea.

I agree.

People on here have all sorts of ideas for extending the life of HSTs and 442s (because they don't want to see stock withdrawn) - we have the same situation here where we may need to squeeze another five years out of a small part of the Pacer fleet.

Pacers aren't great trains, but (contrarary to Forum opinion) they do a reasonable enough job on the kind of unglamerous routes that would struggle for investment otherwise - whilst I'd rather travel on something more upmarket, they have a role to play for another few years.

 

[northwichcat]

If one of the Northern bidders comes up with the idea of bi-mode trains to replace Pacers it might not mean that they would actually end up on the same routes. There's no point putting an expensive bi-mode on either a mostly-unelectrified or a mostly-electrified route so it's entirely probable that these bi-modes would be used to replace other DMUs on routes around the country that could justify them, like TransPennine, with the freed-up DMUs being cascaded to replace the Pacers on routes like the Cumbrian Coast.

From what I understand (from the long term Network Rail rolling stock plan) any bi-mode trains that would be ordered would be for regional routes, which can justify the cost of new rolling stock. This would then allow trains like 170s to be cascaded down to local rural routes. However, when ordering bi-mode it would be noted that in the future they would likely be cascaded down to local rural lines which are unlikely to ever be electrified.

 

[Johnny_w]

I know some people get very angry when people make suggestions, so please don't shoot me down.

Isn't one of the major problems with pacers, in terms of ride, the single axle bogie?

Wouldn't a 'solution' be to pair up 143/144's, make the redundant cabs (as already raised) into DDA toilets,

but replace the bogie's and traction motors with a more modern twin-axle type of jobbie?

Would love to hear opinions and thoughts

JW

 

[northwichcat]

All of those doubled up 156s (that the 319s are replacing) will surely be available to enhance capacity on these lines though?

So is that 4 x 156s which are used on Liverpool-Wigan services in doubled up formation? Should we also include the ones used in single formation on Liverpool-Manchester Airport services?

(I always mention Warrington Central in these threads - it'd free up a lot of 75mph DMUs).

With the proposed truncation of Liverpool-Norwich at Nottingham and the proposal to run a Liverpool-Sheffield-Hull service instead of the current South TPE service, it doesn't make sense that Warrington Central isn't currently under consideration.

 

[ainsworth74]

Strikes me that there's a whole lot of waffle and not a lot of fact around this. We've got information from third hand which suggests that Pacers are due to stay and then other information saying that retirement is an option and yet other information that suggests it's being properly looked at.

Until something a bit more concrete emerges I think it might be best to hold off from either rejoicing or gnashing teeth!

 

[LateThanNever]

but a disabled toilet in one of the cabs is also a good idea.

Is that going to be so as to give a dramatic view of the station you've just missed - rather like the urinals in the 'Shard' where you face the vista and can see half of London whilst 'watering' your shoes?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Also what about the step you have at the doors, what are they going to do about them because in this day and age punctuality is the measurement of a TOC success and unless the step is got rid of , at unmanned stations it is up to the guard to deploy the ramp with no dwell time built in for this.

As far as I am concerned, this point of the step access, in particular, is still a matter that the Equality Act should be concerned with. Even if a non-complaint Pacer is conjoined to a class with compliancy, the step-access will mean the very people that the Equality Act is meant to protect will not be allowed to use these non-compliant units.

It is regrettable to see the majority of postings on this thread are more concerned with non-compliant units rather than the people for whom the Equality Act is meant to aid.

 

[rebmcr]

replace the bogie's and traction motors with a more modern twin-axle type of jobbie?

The single axles are not even bogie-mounted, they're attached directly to the chassis, which in turn is just the floor of the carriage with some walls bolted on. In addition to making bogie retrofitting pretty much impossible, their crashworthiness also suffers a particularly harsh degradation.

 

[Howardh]

Have a feeling that the minute pacers are de-commissioned, a group will buy one and provide a Penzance-Wick Pacer Appreciation Society trip so they can all spend 36 hours on it bouncing up and down, ear plugs in for the screeches and umbrellas to shelter from the rain pouring in through the roof!

Oh,and just for old-times sake, the bog will be blocked.

 

[talltim]

Northern's Random unit generator

That made me laugh!

 

[47802]

As far as I am concerned, this point of the step access, in particular, is still a matter that the Equality Act should be concerned with. Even if a non-complaint Pacer is conjoined to a class with compliancy, the step-access will mean the very people that the Equality Act is meant to protect will not be allowed to use these non-compliant units.

It is regrettable to see the majority of postings on this thread are more concerned with non-compliant units rather than the people for whom the Equality Act is meant to aid.

The Equality act is all very well and it is pushing towards the intended goals, but clearly it does come at a cost, especially if that cost means a complete replacement of a unit, it would seem to me that some infringements might be acceptable or working in conjunction with a another train which meets the requirements for a minority or trains

 

[DarloRich]

It is being suggested as an option not a promise. It is sensible to ask the bidders to look at and price options so that you have no nasty surprises a couple of years down the line. How long before someone suggest seeing if the Chinese can out together a cheap unit?

I can't believe this news!! I was longing for the day to wave bye bye to these units. What is going to be the cost to bring the units up to DDA compliant?

Less than it costs to buy a whole new fleet of trains with a limited life due to electrification, especially so if they run in a semi permanent formation with a non converted sister unit.

 

[NotATrainspott]

From what I understand (from the long term Network Rail rolling stock plan) any bi-mode trains that would be ordered would be for regional routes, which can justify the cost of new rolling stock. This would then allow trains like 170s to be cascaded down to local rural routes. However, when ordering bi-mode it would be noted that in the future they would likely be cascaded down to local rural lines which are unlikely to ever be electrified.

Indeed, and that is sort of what I was getting at. In their franchise bid, the companies bidding for Northern would suggest working with other operators and ROSCOs to set up such cascades, rather than suggesting that these bi-mode trains would be used on Northern itself. This would only be happening because of the need to expand capacity and ensure as much of the entire GB rail fleet is as TSI-PRM compliant as possible for the 2020 deadline. After that date, so long as there are enough DMUs to run the diminishing number of diesel diagrams it isn't as important to do these complicated stock acquisition deals. For the non-Northern TOCs the deals would also look to the future to see what would be a good idea - in particular, ScotRail wouldn't do too badly having its 170s replaced with bi-mode units when so many of its diagrams will be under considerable lengths of wires not long after the 2020 deadline with electrification of Fife.

As far as I am concerned, this point of the step access, in particular, is still a matter that the Equality Act should be concerned with. Even if a non-complaint Pacer is conjoined to a class with compliancy, the step-access will mean the very people that the Equality Act is meant to protect will not be allowed to use these non-compliant units.

It is regrettable to see the majority of postings on this thread are more concerned with non-compliant units rather than the people for whom the Equality Act is meant to aid.

However, the point of allowing the Pacers to continue is that they would be kept attached at all times to a compliant unit, with Persons of Reduced Mobility directed to the compliant unit. This isn't really any different to what happens on all trains today, if you think about it, because only a small number of carriages in a consist (whether LHCS or MU) have the necessary equipment for full TSI-PRM compliance. No one is arguing that every carriage in a train should have a disabled space and toilet, especially when we know what happens when such a thing exists - the Voyagers.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

However, the point of allowing the Pacers to continue is that they would be kept attached at all times to a compliant unit, with Persons of Reduced Mobility directed to the compliant unit. This isn't really any different to what happens on all trains today, if you think about it, because only a small number of carriages in a consist (whether LHCS or MU) have the necessary equipment for full TSI-PRM compliance. No one is arguing that every carriage in a train should have a disabled space and toilet, especially when we know what happens when such a thing exists - the Voyagers.

Because the Pacer fleet are not corridor-connected, will there be only a single member of train staff in each train who will have to perform the task of ramp access, passenger embarkation, ramp access. passenger disembarkation. I am thinking of the many unmanned Northern Rail stations that these units call at.

Have the trade unions made any statement as yet on the matter that this thread is dealing with.

 

[Clip]

Because the Pacer fleet are not corridor-connected, will there be only a single member of train staff in each train who will have to perform the task of ramp access, passenger embarkation, ramp access. passenger disembarkation. I am thinking of the many unmanned Northern Rail stations that these units call at.

Have the trade unions made any statement as yet on the matter that this thread is dealing with.

But this thread is created on only rumour and heresay and no saolid facts from what I can see so why should the unions make any announcement ?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

We are jumping to conclusions.
I am sure the ROSCOs have not received an order to life-extend Pacers.
They have probably had regulatory approval for a technical combination of compliant/non-compliant trains running in multiple after 2020.
No decision on Pacer upgrade or withdrawal will be made before the new franchise bids next year, which will include other rolling stock options.
What's described is just one OPTION.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But this thread is created on only rumour and heresay and no saolid facts from what I can see so why should the unions make any announcement ?

A pre-emptive strike.....or does that final word have certain other connotations ?

Incidentally, my spell-checker seems to feel that "hearsay" should be "heresy"...

 

[HSTEd]

We have to avoid encouraging order of bi mode regional units at all cost.

Once such things are ordered and proved in service I can guarantee the electrification programme will be abandoned to save money.

 

[Class 170101]

They'll quite obviously need some extensive refurbishments however if they are going to be used for at least another ten years. Although I'm no Pacer fan, I'm glad of this decision because it seems crazy that stock was going to be written off when we have such overcrowding in various parts of the UK. - They get people from A to B in no glamorous way but a disabled toilet in one of the cabs is also a good idea.

Wholeheartedly agree with this - common sense prevails.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't think it's a complete surprise. The electrification schemes aren't progressing at a rate where the Pacers can be replaced before the end of 2019 without a new DMU order. <snipped>If the new TPE franchise includes a Liverpool-Nottingham route and a Liverpool-Sheffield-Hull route then it would be a good franchise to have dual powered stock. XC would be another.

The Voyagers and Meridians were candidiates for this form of power plus also a capacity upgrade and it was baulked at as I remember.

 

[Class 170101]

Don't forget:

1. EMUs are less flexible. 50 x 4 car EMUs may not be able to replace 75 x 2 car DMUs despite being more vehicles (even assuming no capacity boost) as some of the quieter services on electrified routes will get extra capacity they don't need.

2. Extra capacity is needed on a lot of lines which aren't being electrified or even being considered for electrification. The Manchester-Chester via Altrincham, Buxton, Manchester-Southport and Manchester-Warrington via Liverpool lines are just a few examples.

3. Making units properly accessible will reduce capacity, while the 153s are unlikely to remain in single carriage formations so some lines will likely get longer diesel trains even if they aren't desperate for extra capacity.

Agree with these points too but I should add it would be possible to get 3 car EMUs - see 313s or newer 323s or even newer 380s on Scotrail. I guess it might be potentially possible to move 319s onto 323s diagrams subject to the timetable still working and move the 323s on to routes previously used by 2 car DMUs so the capacity increase is evenly spread.

 

[deltic08]

There's certainly no slowdown - if anything the recent announcements about Windermere/ Bolton to Wigan/ Hull suggest that we are going to get more than the CP5 proposals.



I should have known someone would come back with a clever reply after I used an inappropriate word. I should have used slippage or missed deadline instead of slowdown. NW electrification completion is already a year behind I understand as is GWML. This will have a domino effect on later projects in CP5 and 6 beyond 2020 and DDA compliancy.

 

[Class 170101]

Because the Pacer fleet are not corridor-connected, will there be only a single member of train staff in each train who will have to perform the task of ramp access, passenger embarkation, ramp access. passenger disembarkation. I am thinking of the many unmanned Northern Rail stations that these units call at.

Have the trade unions made any statement as yet on the matter that this thread is dealing with.

I don't see corridor connections as an issue. It is worse asking the guard to walk the full length of a nine or 11 car Pendolino, Mark III or Mark IV set or similar and ask them to assist with the ramp at unstaffed stations.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

It if wasn't for the nationwide shortage of DMUs Id say scrap the lot of them. With some of the branch lines that they run on, could them lines be converted to light-rail systems with trams or stock similar to the DLR?

If new orders of DMUs are needed could they be made so that as the lines get electrified it's physically possible to remove the engines and exhaust pipes and replace them with AC traction equipment without it being necessary for yet another new build (perhaps using traction motors instead of a mechanical connection

 

[daccer]

Is this not a bowler hat being tipped to the situation that afflicted FGW when faced with overcrowding and units being taken off them and placed in store at the behest of the Dft. I am sure the travelling public in the north would be in uproar if Pacers were withdrawn and overcrowding had not been dealt with.

This a tacit admission that electrification will probably not keep pace with the need for DMU replacement and as such DMU's will have to go on beyond their typical shelf life. There is also the minor issues of new services being introduced (isn't the Northern Hub meant generate 800 new services per day?) and the aspirations of local councils for new and improved links (Todmorden, Halton curves etc). I see interesting times ahead as a new DMU build is never going to happen and I don't see major investment going into older classes to life extend when they are basically written off assets.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The Voyagers and Meridians were candidiates for this form of power plus also a capacity upgrade and it was baulked at as I remember.

That isn't an intrinsic problem with bi-mode designs. The difficulty was that rewiring of the other carriages would have been needed for a pantograph/transformer car to be fitted, because the Voyagers/Meridians were designed to be diesel-only trains from the start. If a train is designed for bi-mode there obviously isn't a problem and even an electric-only train could be converted by fitting a diesel generator in place of seats and connect it to the DC power bus all new trains use.

If new orders of DMUs are needed could they be made so that as the lines get electrified it's physically possible to remove the engines and exhaust pipes and replace them with AC traction equipment without it being necessary for yet another new build (perhaps using traction motors instead of a mechanical connection

After you remove the diesel traction system there isn't much of a DMU left, especially since you would likely have to replace the bogies as well to fit in electric motors. If you use electric traction it then isn't difficult to wire the trains to allow electric-only operation as well, thus you end up with a bi-mode train like people have been discussing.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There's certainly no slowdown - if anything the recent announcements about Windermere/ Bolton to Wigan/ Hull suggest that we are going to get more than the CP5 proposals.
I should have known someone would come back with a clever reply after I used an inappropriate word. I should have used slippage or missed deadline instead of slowdown. NW electrification completion is already a year behind I understand as is GWML. This will have a domino effect on later projects in CP5 and 6 beyond 2020 and DDA compliancy.

NW electrification is on time and apparently on budget.
GW electrification is late and over budget - very bad news all round if it can't be recovered, because it might well impact other projects.
EGIP is progressing to some mysterious plan, but Transport Scotland seems happy with it.
The other big schemes are taking their time getting going (TP, MML and especially Electric Spine).
My fear is that NR will not have delivered enough before the tap gets turned off down the road somewhere after CP5 as "not value for money".
Five years to put up a handful of masts on GW is not promising.

 

[ainsworth74]

The other big schemes are taking their time getting going (TP, MML and especially Electric Spine).

To be fair those seemed to have been pretty much dumped on Network Rail by the Government with very little notice so it's not surprising really that it's taking a while for them to really get off the ground.

 

[Class 170101]

That isn't an intrinsic problem with bi-mode designs. The difficulty was that rewiring of the other carriages would have been needed for a pantograph/transformer car to be fitted, because the Voyagers/Meridians were designed to be diesel-only trains from the start. If a train is designed for bi-mode there obviously isn't a problem and even an electric-only train could be converted by fitting a diesel generator in place of seats and connect it to the DC power bus all new trains use.

I understood it also to be a political issue at the time as the bodies would be built in Belgium and not Derby and thus not safeguarding / creating British jobs at the height of the recession.

 

[fowler9]

This is purely a personal opinion but after reading posts by a few people arguing for bi modal units to be ordered, I think this is about as likely as Virgin Trains starting to run a Pullman service from the bottom of my garden to Liverpool Lime Street (About 4 1/2 miles).