Pacers have a future.

[tbtc]

I do not believe that the majority of the electorate considers the need for level access to trains as high a priority as the need to defeat Nazi Germany in 1944. Suppose we had waited for level access landing craft!

I doubt that those beaches were wheelchair accesible for a start

 

[Haydn1971]

I'm guessing that you are an engineer (and not someone responsible for budgets)?

As an engineer of 25 years experience, yes, I do look after the money as well as the engineering - sorry to disappoint you, but please try not to be so patronising. Engineering projects are mostly budget led, however necessity to deliver often gets pushed ahead of cost, with a specific date for completion - Major sporting events like the Olympics being a prime example of throwing everything at the problem to meet the date - imagine the egg on high ranking politicians had the games facilities not been completed on time. They were completed, by throwing money and resources at the problem, not through good planning.

lots about if's but's and maybes...

Whilst there are lots of these, what is clear is that some stock is at the end of its usable life and needs replacement rather than throwing good money after bad at making a half hearted attempt to extend the life. Some stock still has 10-15 years life left and worth spending money on, just in the same way as its worth putting a new exhust on a 10 year old car, but less worthwhile on a 15 year old car.

Easy to say "scrap everything and build hundreds of new trains", but hard to actually justify.

Actually I never said this, I said we needed to start getting rid of the oldest stock, starting with the Pacers by throwing £100m at the problem.

Your a bright chap and know full well that £100m isn't going to allow us scrap everything and build 100's of new trains, but will start a process that will allow 25-33% (off the top of my head) of the current fleet to be replaced with new over the next 15-20 years, with the remaining 66-75% of the current DMU fleet being eased out of service when or if appropriate. The whole process needs to be fluid, considering a long timescale ahead, ensuring adequate new stock comes into use and that manufacturers are able to service the demands for all types of multiple unit.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...but not at many others. And this work at Rotherham is taking a couple of years not one weekend!

Excuses excuses... There are no valid excuses here except closed Victorian attitudes of walking over people that are less able than others.

But resource priorities are controlled by politicians and "politics is the art of the possible". I do not believe that the majority of the electorate considers the need for level access to trains as high a priority as the need to defeat Nazi Germany in 1944.

The politics has to follow the legislation - sadly, this is why so many misguided politicians want to leave the European Union, so we don't get bogged down if these incidentals like equality, but conveniently forget how interwoven we are as a nation with legislation, standards and laws to just step out of the EU.

Suppose we had waited for level access landing craft!

How old are you ? Will you need a wheelchair soon ? Perhaps you never had to struggle with a child's buggy ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I doubt that those beaches were wheelchair accesible for a start

Hopefully you will never have the pleasure of relying on a wheelchair. Actually, no, lets meet up and put you in one for a day so you can experience first hand what society feels about your self worth.

 

[Greybeard33]

The politics has to follow the legislation - sadly, this is why so many misguided politicians want to leave the European Union, so we don't get bogged down if these incidentals like equality, but conveniently forget how interwoven we are as a nation with legislation, standards and laws to just step out of the EU.

The legislation is enacted by politicians, at both the national and the EU level. In this case they have deemed it reasonable (see the PRM-TSI Section 4.1.2.21) to require wheelchair users throughout the EU to suffer the on-going inconvenience of negotiating a boarding ramp of slope not exceeding 18% (10.2 degrees) when boarding or exiting a mainline train. This applies to new high speed lines as well as the legacy 19th Century ones. Since you clearly feel so strongly about this issue, I suggest you make the appropriate representations to the European Commission and European Parliament.

Incidentally the 2020 deadline for modification of pre-existing vehicles to comply with the PRM-TSI is a UK national requirement (see the RVAR 2008), not an EU one. As far as Brussels is concerned, we can carry on using unmodified Pacers until the bailing wire and duct tape run out.

 

[Haydn1971]

Notwithstanding the above, how long before there is a test case using the clearly conflicting Manual Handling Operations Reglations - all law is subject to change, just because something is lawful now, doesn't mean it won't become unlawful with an appropriate action against an employer.

In simple terms, a not unusual 100kg wheelchair and passenger (12.5st person in a 20kg chair - 100kg nicely rounded) would require 7.5kg of force to push that 100kg up a ramp at 5 degrees - double that angle to the current "train standards" and you more than double the force required to push someone up the ramp. This 10 degree ramp would be above the HSE recommendation of 7kg for a female and 10kg for a male. Adding in "rough ground" for example a lip to a ramp can add a further 10% on the required force for pushing something up a ramp. Puttng a not unusual 16st person in a chair and suddenly you have a claim from your employees. All this is contained within HSE guidance on risk assessments covering Manual Handling at Work.

 

[HSTEd]

Simple, provide a block and tackle with a winchblock to staff.

You can pull the wheelchair up the ramp in reverse by winding it up.
Even make it electric powered by a cleaning equipment socket if you want.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Simple, provide a block and tackle with a winchblock to staff. You can pull the wheelchair up the ramp in reverse by winding it up. Even make it electric powered by a cleaning equipment socket if you want.

Would the HSE approve the risk assessment for this method that you state ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In simple terms, a not unusual 100kg wheelchair and passenger (12.5st person in a 20kg chair - 100kg nicely rounded) would require 7.5kg of force to push that 100kg up a ramp at 5 degrees - double that angle to the current "train standards" and you more than double the force required to push someone up the ramp. This 10 degree ramp would be above the HSE recommendation of 7kg for a female and 10kg for a male. Adding in "rough ground" for example a lip to a ramp can add a further 10% on the required force for pushing something up a ramp. Putting a not unusual 16st person in a chair and suddenly you have a claim from your employees. All this is contained within HSE guidance on risk assessments covering Manual Handling at Work.

You state the matter very well indeed in your posting, in which I have highlighted a most relevant point.

 

[Haydn1971]

Thank you Paul

Thankfully I don't get involved in the practical side of project risk assessments, my involvement usually is to list higher level project risks such as "unknown structure construction" or "risk of acceptance of departures from standards" etc

However, having a parent who is 18st who is permenently in a wheelchair due to an amputated leg - I've become fully aware of the issues that face mobility impaired people on a daily basis - I've also become aware of just how hard it is for a strong 6ft 4 chap like myself to push the aforementioned parent around a place like Sheffield, the problems that a simple 10mm kerb check (none standard but very common) can have on a standard wheelchair. Lifting a 20kg dead load of a wheelchair into the boot of a car isn't as easy as it sounds either and exceeds the HSE recommendations for "employees" yet I'm stuck with that one as I can't get around it simply.

 

[Greybeard33]

Thank you Paul

Thankfully I don't get involved in the practical side of project risk assessments, my involvement usually is to list higher level project risks such as "unknown structure construction" or "risk of acceptance of departures from standards" etc

However, having a parent who is 18st who is permenently in a wheelchair due to an amputated leg - I've become fully aware of the issues that face mobility impaired people on a daily basis - I've also become aware of just how hard it is for a strong 6ft 4 chap like myself to push the aforementioned parent around a place like Sheffield, the problems that a simple 10mm kerb check (none standard but very common) can have on a standard wheelchair. Lifting a 20kg dead load of a wheelchair into the boot of a car isn't as easy as it sounds either and exceeds the HSE recommendations for "employees" yet I'm stuck with that one as I can't get around it simply.

I empathise with your personal difficulties, since my father was wheelchair-bound towards the end of his days, and in years gone by I had to struggle with a buggy while also trying to control an older infant. Nevertheless, I still think the Manual Handling regulations are largely a red herring in respect of the subject of this thread.

Your calculation assumes that a single railway employee has to push the wheelchair up the ramp unaided. However, at an unmanned station it is likely that the wheelchair user would have had to ascend a 5 degree ramp (1 in 12, the international standard for the acceptable gradient of short fixed ramps in public places) to reach the platform. This implies that s/he either has a powered chair, or has sufficient strength to propel a manual chair up the slope, or has a travelling companion to push. In each of these cases the guard would potentially have some assistance in getting the chair up the ramp on to the train.

At larger stations there are likely to be dispatchers on hand to assist the guard.

The HSE figures you quoted are guidance, not a legal limit, and in any case apply to sustained pushing, with higher guideline figures for a short impulse. What the regulations do require is for the employer to carry out a risk assessment, as part of its duty of care to the employee. If this identifies a problem, there are various options open to the TOC to mitigate the risk, short of wholesale replacement of rolling stock (e.g. training and procedures). I am sure there must be many other Manual Handling issues on the railway.

Pacers have higher floors than most other suburban units, but there are more modern units that also have high floors, e.g. Class 390 Pendolinos and Class 22x Voyagers. For operations at the few stations where the platforms are not wide enough for a Pacer ramp, or there are other accessibility issues, the TSI permits an individual station to be non-compliant, provided that there is another station stop within 30km that is fully accessible.

This link gives an interesting explanation of the issues around reducing stepping distances between train and platform.

 

[Haydn1971]

Thank you re your empathy... As you know, it's hard work !

A few small points, the standard ramp into a carriage mentioned above is 10 degrees, which is more than twice that of the standard 1:12 ramp permitted under building reglations.

Whilst the Manual Handling Operations Regulations do not explicitly quote figures, the best guidance available would be sensibly be deemed to be from the governments key body on safety matters, that being the HSE, who publish guidelines that would form the basis of any case made before a court of law. To simply gloss over this as a red herring would in my opinion be reckless and most likely lead to the person ignoring the guidance gripping the brass bar in court.

We digress on this one, essentially, in that whilst yes, we could spend money on the Pacers, is it worthwhile when modern solutions are available that will outperform the early 80's stopgap solution in just about every area. We don't even know for sure just how much the refurb would cost, especially when you consider the per seat costs of the refurbished Pacer vs a nice new 20/23m long DMU !

 

[tbtc]

we could spend money on the Pacers, is it worthwhile when modern solutions are available that will outperform the early 80's stopgap solution

As explained, any increase in DMU capacity may only be a "stopgap" measure, since we'll probably have enough DMUs in 2025 (assuming CP6 is similar to the plans for CP5).

Around half of the 94 142s in service could be replaced by electrification of the local services around Cardiff (Valley Lines, Ebbw Vale, Maesteg) - either directly or by replacing 150s that can replace 142s. Add on electrification of other 75mph routes ("Lancashire Triangle" etc) and the 156s freed up with Central Belt electrification later this decade and the gap narrows further.

Since a new DMU coach could cost up to two million pounds, that's a lot of money to spend for maybe five years of use. If Pacer coaches can be refurbished significantly cheaper than that then I'm interested.

 

[Haydn1971]

As explained, any increase in DMU capacity may only be a "stopgap" measure, since we'll probably have enough DMUs in 2025 (assuming CP6 is similar to the plans for CP5).interested.

...and as explained to you, it's not about increasing DMU numbers, but getting rid of stock that's unfit for service - We have no certainty that DMU's won't be required in the future, nor any certainty over numbers - repeating your view doesn't make it correct, just different to mine and numerous others. The Pacers are small, uncomfortable and falling apart at the seems, just like the oldest 150's that also need casting onto the scrap heap.

Since a new DMU coach could cost up to two million pounds, that's a lot of money to spend for maybe five years of use. If Pacer coaches can be refurbished significantly cheaper than that then I'm interested.

That's clearly nonsense, you wouldn't retire a DMU after five years use, you would retire the older 14x units first, working through the older 15x units as we progress through the 2020's, dropping the older trains first as we progress onwards - any DMU's brought into use now would still be in use in the 2030's and beyond.

 

[tbtc]

...and as explained to you, it's not about increasing DMU numbers, but getting rid of stock that's unfit for service - We have no certainty that DMU's won't be required in the future, nor any certainty over numbers - repeating your view doesn't make it correct, just different to mine and numerous others. The Pacers are small, uncomfortable and falling apart at the seems, just like the oldest 150's that also need casting onto the scrap heap.

That's clearly nonsense, you wouldn't retire a DMU after five years use, you would retire the older 14x units first, working through the older 15x units as we progress through the 2020's, dropping the older trains first as we progress onwards - any DMU's brought into use now would still be in use in the 2030's and beyond.

Spending hundreds of millions on stock that will only be needed for a handful of years is a very expensive way to run a railway. Even if you withdraw other serviceable units first, you're still building new trains just to scrap others shortly afterwards.

We've got enough white elephants in this country as it is because of our short term obsessions.

 

[Haydn1971]

Spending hundreds of millions on stock that will only be needed for a handful of years is a very expensive way to run a railway. Even if you withdraw other serviceable units first, you're still building new trains just to scrap others shortly afterwards.

No, it's called keeping the railways fit for purpose - As I said above, new stock wouldn't be used for a handful of years, it would have a full and long lasting life carrying passengers in a comfortable, efficient manner, meeting current requirements for access, keeping passengers warm/cool (delete as appropriate) using modern power units and riding on something not giving the ride quality of a skate board.

We've got enough white elephants in this country as it is because of our short term obsessions.

Or perhaps due to actions taken by people outside of the arcane industry trying to do the job of the DfT in trying to drag the railways kicking and screaming into a modern era ?

 

[HSTEd]

No, it's called keeping the railways fit for purpose - As I said above, new stock wouldn't be used for a handful of years, it would have a full and long lasting life carrying passengers in a comfortable, efficient manner, meeting current requirements for access, keeping passengers warm/cool (delete as appropriate) using modern power units and riding on something not giving the ride quality of a skate board.

The new stock may have a full life.
But you still scrap units that would not have been scapped otherwise.

100 units built, 100 units scrapped prematurely.

You have wasted 100 units.

Or perhaps due to actions taken by people outside of the arcane industry trying to do the job of the DfT in trying to drag the railways kicking and screaming into a modern era ?

No, due to actions of people outside of an arcane industry who are very comfortable spending other people's money.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Why should the railway be dragged into the modern era??? It should want to go their itself.
We don't want to run the risk of the railways becoming a relic. They need to be fit for the future.

 

[HSTEd]

Why should the railway be dragged into the modern era??? It should want to go their itself.
We don't want to run the risk of the railways becoming a relic. They need to be fit for the future.

And they will be, five years later than they would be if we built all those new diesel units.
When the electrics arrive.

 

[YorkshireBear]

And they will be, five years later than they would be if we built all those new diesel units.
When the electrics arrive.

I don't consider diesel units to be the modern world. So IMHO DMU orders would not provide us with a railway for the 21st century, that is in the hands of the EMU. Electric is the future.

 

[Haydn1971]

I don't consider diesel units to be the modern world. So IMHO DMU orders would not provide us with a railway for the 21st century, that is in the hands of the EMU. Electric is the future.

Fair point and i suspect most people would agree, electric is where we want to be. Although there is some doubt over the benefit of erecting OHLE on some routes, thinking specifically the highland / far north routes. However getting to that time is still a long way off - probably three, even four decades away, so in the mean time, something needs to be done to meet the growing demands of the rail network where EMU's are not going to be practical for a long time. The immediate needs of the huge Crossrail and Thameslink projects are (almost) agreed, we still have a further need for new EMU's - as some of the stock being displaced has a limited shelf life of 10-15 years at most. I'm really quite staggered at this ideology that EMU's are going to save the day, when in reality, all that's going to happen is that DMU's are going to be displaced by 1000's of older EMU's with a new coat of paint, recovered seats and all the inherent issues that come with running 30 year old stock :-/
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The new stock may have a full life.
But you still scrap units that would not have been scapped otherwise. 100 units built, 100 units scrapped prematurely.

Do you honestly believe that the Pacers shouldn't be scrapped ?

 

[MattRobinson]

I agree with Yorkshire Bear, here: the solution is to vastly increase the amount of electrification in the UK.

Perhaps the solution is to briefly return to loco hauled trains? Build/refurbish a decent number of carriages, diesel locomotives and DVTs and run them until we have electrified, then move over to electric locomotives. Introduce EMUs when the DMUs become life expired.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

[HSTEd]

I agree with Yorkshire Bear, here: the solution is to vastly increase the amount of electrification in the UK.

Perhaps the solution is to briefly return to loco hauled trains? Build/refurbish a decent number of carriages, diesel locomotives and DVTs and run them until we have electrified, then move over to electric locomotives. Introduce EMUs when the DMUs become life expired.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

So then we have insane numbers of newbuild locomotives sent to the scrapline after a handful of years service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do you honestly believe that the Pacers shouldn't be scrapped ?

No, they will be scrapped when feasible.

But the money you propose spending on replacement vehicles (130 Pacers is going to need 260 carriages at minimum to replace them one to one) would, in my opinion, be better spent on further expediting the electrification programme by assembling a new HOWT and associated electrification team, to allow plans in the pipeline to be carried forward faster.
With careful selection of routes I imagine you can eliminate the Pacers and even the 20m sprinters entirely with relatively little additional work (using the Cl315 and 313 fleets freed by new Thameslink/Crossrail/MerseyRail stock).

 

[tbtc]

As I said above

...but...

repeating your view doesn't make it correct

Sorry, it's bad for me to repeat myself, but fine when you do it?

new stock wouldn't be used for a handful of years, it would have a full and long lasting life

The new stock may have a full life.
But you still scrap units that would not have been scapped otherwise.

100 units built, 100 units scrapped prematurely.

You have wasted 100 units

I agree with HSTEd - building hundreds of millions of pounds worth of new trains for the sake of up to five years use and then prematurely scrapping older serviceable trains seems a very short term approach - the kind of thinking that has got this country into enough messes.

there is some doubt over the benefit of erecting OHLE on some routes, thinking specifically the highland / far north routes/QUOTE]

I'd agree, but the numbers are so trivial - a couple of units on the Heart Of Wales Line, maybe half a dozen north of Inverness, a handful for the West Highland, one or two for Blaenau Ffestiniog... it's a trivial amount in the grand scheme of things

I agree with Yorkshire Bear, here: the solution is to vastly increase the amount of electrification in the UK

My view is that once we've wired the remaining "main lines" in CP5 (London to Swansea, London to Sheffield, Glasgow to Edinburgh, Liverpool to York etc) then CP6 will see a lot of the gaps filled in between main lines, which will see 75mph DMUs replaced (e.g. once the main Transpennine line is wired, the Calder Valley line looks do-able in CP6 - plenty Pacers and Sprinters there).

So once we get to the middle of the next decade, the need for DMUs comes down considerably - whilst CP5 may only replace half of the Pacers, we'll be able to scrap hundreds of DMUs after CP6.

Which begs the question - do we patch up the existing 75mph stock for another five years of work or do we spend hundreds of millions building new DMUs (to replace Pacers) for the sake of a five year spike?

Previously my opinion was that we'd need more basic 75mph DMUs (since it looked like all Pacers would have to be withdrawn after 2019), but the noises about being able to upgrade Pacers and follow-on electrification has changed my mind.

 

[Haydn1971]

I've noticed that many routes in my area are being run with doubled up Pacers, four carriages, there are also a handful of triple units. Perhaps there are alternative ways forward, however I've not seen anything that clarifies one way of the other.

In other threads I'm reading about 2-4% annual growth figures, whilst I accept that we have a few flurries of EMU purchasing every so often, I've yet to see anything of merit that outlines a clear cascade of EMU's onto newly electrified lines and would love to see something outlined that considers growth, committed electrification, EMU's that will be cascaded, DMU/EMU's that will be scrapped and so on. Documentation from the DfT and ATOC doesn't appear to have a clear understanding, which is why I have little faith in people blindly claiming we won't need new DMU's

 

[The Ham]

Why should the railway be dragged into the modern era???

Do we have a suitable Loco for doing that?

 

[Haydn1971]

Which begs the question - do we patch up the existing 75mph stock for another five years of work or do we spend hundreds of millions building new DMUs (to replace Pacers) for the sake of a five year spike

Whilst you do keep repeating yourself with the same statements, I do take the effort to explain my reasoning.

You appear to have a blind faith in electrification, the current situation is that whilst there is a lot of mainline electrification planed over the next 10 years, there remains massive mileage gaps in the non mainline network and given the growth on use, the age of some EMU's being offered up as cascades, the uncertainty of even the planned work (until boots are on the track) and the poor condition of the Pacers and older Sprinters, there remains a difference of opinion between my realistic and painful experience of dealing with the DfT over the last couple of decades and your bright eyed confidence.

I'm afraid we are just going to have to respectfully disagree on this matter and I will look forward to the next order of DMU's

 

[sprinterguy]

I don't consider diesel units to be the modern world. So IMHO DMU orders would not provide us with a railway for the 21st century, that is in the hands of the EMU. Electric is the future.

According to current policy, 30-40 year old EMUs being touted as "new" rolling stock, and 30 year old DMUs being patched-up more and more as they get older and older awaiting pie-in-the-sky electrification schemes that might never happen, is the vision for the future of your supposed "21st century railway".

What should have happened is that over the past five years or so, while the option was there, we should have seen a new build of suburban DMUs for the major conurbations; focusing on Bristol/Cardiff, Manchester/Liverpool and Leeds. The most part of the class 142 Pacer fleet could have been withdrawn and capacity could have been increased in line with growing passenger demand: Then as electrification spread, the new DMUs would cascade to begin to replace the oldest Sprinter fleets in the 2015 - 2025 period, allowing 30-40 year old Sprinters to be withdrawn. The new trains would then go on to live full and happy lives providing modern facilities and standards of comfort on the provincial and rural lines that can never be expected to receive electrification within the 30-35 year lifespan of a typical DMU.

But no, what we are to receive instead is the minimum of additional capacity provided at the last possible moment when the existing trains are filled to bursting point as deadlines for electrification slip further and further back, leaving the same old ageing diesel stock to fill the void between reality and the so-called "promised land" of electrification for many years to come.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm afraid we are just going to have to respectfully disagree on this matter and I will look forward to the next order of DMU's

Hear hear!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why should the railway be dragged into the modern era??? It should want to go their itself.

But it doesn't, does it? The railway industry is an archaic organisation that demonstrates an aggressive stubbornness to change the way it does things at every turn. If any other industry took half a decade to respond to an unprecedented rising demand for it's services, as seems to be standard in the railway industry, I think that it would be widely seen to be failing!

 

[Haydn1971]

Thank goodness - some common sense

 

[YorkshireBear]

Sprinterguy in regards to DMU order I agree completely that it should have been made 5 years ago. But it wasnt and I dont think the economics for doing it now stack up. No electrifcation deadlines have slipped to my eyes. Compqre leasing costs for a 150 and a 172... Thats the main problem.

 

[yorksrob]

I see a couple of issues here.

Whilst Sprinterguy is undountedly correct that the railway takes an inordinate amount of time to respond to growth compared to other industries, the problem is that the investment doesn't always result in increased revenue. How do you respond if noone's going to pay for it.

Also, I think the stop start nature of rolling stock procurement is also at fault to an extent. We need a steady level of production in the background. Dare I say it - splitting up rolling stock manufacture from the wider industry was a mistake.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Am I wrong in my assumption that the majority of those forum members who are FOR the retention of the Pacer fleet after the DDA final date are from areas where they do not have to suffer from the indignity of travelling in these on a regular basis ?

 

[YorkshireBear]

Paul you know whrre I am from.
However I am not for it... I just do not see an alternative UNLESS goverment step in purchase them take the commercial risk and increase subsidy. But I am pretty much 99% certain they will never do this. I would love it if they surprised me.