Pacers have a future.

[jopsuk]

You forget the main driving factor in moving old stock to the north. No MP wants to run into consitutents on a daily basis moaning about their trains only have 8 wheels and are packed...

The MPs in the south east have constituents whining that their train (with 3+2 seating) has 64, 80 or 96 wheels and is rammed full... posts like your show no understanding of the reality of commuting in the former NSE area.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Please not this again...

I have said this before and I will say it again. There are RailUK forum members who reside in the area of the Northern Rail franchise who have become so inured with the acceptance of the Pacer fleet, that they do not see them now for what they really are any more and actually seem to be fully accepting of the reasons for keeping them for what seems to be best described as by the term...."in perpetuity".

Does the term "Stockholm Syndrome" ring a bell with anyone..

 

[Buttsy]

The MPs in the south east have constituents whining that their train (with 3+2 seating) has 64, 80 or 96 wheels and is rammed full... posts like your show no understanding of the reality of commuting in the former NSE area.

<---- As my location states, I live in the former NSE area and I fully understand the reality of commuting in that area as I do it every weekday. The comment was a 'tongue in cheek' explanation of why the south gets better trains following the comments by those from north of Birmingham who have the misfortune to use Pacers daily. Imagine the increased whining if their current HST or 6 car 165 was replaced by 2x2 car Pacers.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The MPs in the south east have constituents whining that their train (with 3+2 seating) has 64, 80 or 96 wheels and is rammed full.

Would these same commuters be better pleased to be in the Pacer fleet which is "rammed full" instead of their current rolling stock?

A take on an old saying..."If you've never travelled by Pacer, you haven't lived"...

 

[jopsuk]

<---- As my location states, I live in the former NSE area and I fully understand the reality of commuting in that area as I do it every weekday. The comment was a 'tongue in cheek' explanation of why the south gets better trains following the comments by those from north of Birmingham who have the misfortune to use Pacers daily.

you did a rather convincing impression

 

[rebmcr]

I have said this before and I will say it again. There are RailUK forum members who reside in the area of the Northern Rail franchise who have become so inured with the acceptance of the Pacer fleet, that they do not see them now for what they really are any more and actually seem to be fully accepting of the reasons for keeping them for what seems to be best described as by the term...."in perpetuity".

Does the term "Stockholm Syndrome" ring a bell with anyone..

Having been along the length of the mid-Cheshire line in Pacers for 3 return journeys in one memorable week when a Chester client's servers were feeling particularly poorly, and several times on the first/last Hope Valley line service all the way to/from Sheffield in order to staff weekend events on time, I can attest that they are well and truly on my Naughty List (although their runs along the Chat Moss line have somewhat lessened unpleasantry, in comparison).

Even when I was a small child, maybe 6 or 7 years old, I remember thinking it was unfair that my local Dean Lane service got those rickety old trains (little did I know they're as young as I), when I'd seen whooshing modern trains — with those snazzy new BT Phonecard payphones — on other lines!

 

[RobShipway]

I live within the old NSE area and have travelled along the Ebbw Vale line from Cardiff Central on a pacer few times, but I think the arguments here need to be put into perspctive.

When the likes of the pacers where introduced, the NSE area for the most part where still using 30 - 40 year old EMU/DEMU trains which did not get replaced until the 1990's starting with the Class 165's and then with the London, Tilbury & Southend line (Now C2C) getting the class 357's in 1999.

On the basis of the above, then the pacers would not be replaced until 2025 as long as they still meant disability acts etc..

 

[yorksrob]

Tonbridge-Hastings, East Grinstead and Eastleigh-Fareham, which I'd say would have been completed or at an avanced stage of planning by then, making such DMU replacement obsolete.

1986, 1985 and 1988 If I recall. there was also Tonbridge - Redhill, but that was quite late in about 1991.

 

[tom1649]

As a regular user of the Hope Valley line in the late 90s and early 2000s I used to hope a 101 would turn up rather than a 142 as at least the heating usually worked and the springy seats provided some comfort. Occasionally you'd get a nice view out the front of the cab too if the driver left the blinds up. Despite being 30 years older the 101s were nicer trains to travel on than the units that replaced most of them in the 1980s.

 

[Gareth]

I'm led to believe that Pacers were designed to run on rural branches, with a 20 year design life. The problem is, they've been and are being used on busy commuter services and have even been used for longer distance operation from time to time, all over a period of 25+ years now.

Surely the electrification projects and cascading of superior diesel stock should ensure that at least the 142s can finally retire by 2020?

 

[tbtc]

On the other side of the same coin, have you not also said in the past that Sheffield also had "more than enough of those" when referring to the current fleet Pacer allocation to services to and from Sheffield ?

They're not great trains, I'm not pretending otherwise. The only Pacer I have a soft spot for is 142067 (the first train I took my lad on), other than that they could be carved up tomorrow.

But, realistically, that's not going to happen. Since I expect that CP6 will see decent follow-on electrification scheme around the lines wired in CP5, I can't see any justification for a big order of new DMUs (since we'll have sufficient DMUs come 2025).

If that means keeping Pacers on the rails until 2024 (inc costs of making them accesible) then that's a price I can pay.

Not ideal, sure, but trying to be realistic.

I'd say if anyone can come up with a reasonable, cost-effective and DDA- & Emissions-compatible diesel unit in the next few years, there may still be a market for it...

The trouble is that nobody seems to be interested in doing this other than the Chinese and Bombardier - both of which have political considerations...

Sending the PEP stock to South Wales would likely be only a stop gap measure. It's only the same as 308s being sent up to West Yorkshire in the 1990s and although it was pre internet days I don't remember many complaints about that. Despite the aged rolling stock usage did increase quite dramatically with the sparks effect coming into play.

I don't know what the obsession with age is. It is the quality that is important. I don't think there's much dispute that a refurbished 313 will be an improvement over a 142.

Why is it certain that they'll be suffering from "chassis fatigue" anyway? Is there any evidence of this?

It's a good job certain forum members don't live on the Isle Of Wight. Seeing 75 year old rolling stock in revenue earning service must seem like quite an injustice.

Rolling stock ageism is all the rage it seems.

I agree with you - we were able to use older EMUs for the first few years on the North Berwick branch, the Airedale line, the Wharfdale line etc as a way of justifying the costs of electrification. Its a bit like moving into a brand new house but having second hand furniture for a year or two whilst you get to grips with things.

Demanding new EMUs for newly electrified lines would presumably make projects too expensive to justify. However, get old EMUs in, let the passenger numbers rise (since there's generally a capacity increase and a more reliable timetable), get an idea of predicted passenger numbers and you can then order the right EMUs for the job.

Look at the Airedale line - it saw Pacers replaced by three coach 308s replaced by three coach 333 extended to become four coach 333. Trying to justify a jump from a Pacer to a brand new four coach EMU may have made it unaffordable. However, (after a few years with 31*s) we may be seeing younger EMUs in Cardiff, Manchester etc in the medium term.

Also, bear in mind that the surplus of EMUs around London over the next decade is one of the reasons for the electrification schemes elsewhere - the availability of these EMUs kickstarts improvements elsewhere.

 

[hwl]

being worked on:
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...ork\Working Group 6 - Electrification Refresh

1. A new DMU order would have to be a decent size in order to get any manufacturer interest (to recovery necessary development work).

2. The leasing companies (see London Overground 172 discussions) don't want to invest in expensive new DMUs that might push older DMU they own off the network earlier with ongoing electrification or pushing the leasing rates they get down.

3. (as Ham has pointed out a work in progress) A clear long term electrification plan is needed so the long term demand for DMUs can be seen. Unfortunately more won't be ordered for short periods where demand exceeds supply.

4. Increased service levels above existing on routes to remain DMU operated (at least for a while) would increase the probability of an order

5. More frequent DMU cascades between routes, services and franchises as lines are electrified will need probably mean a new DMU will be a go anywhere 172 style rather than with end doors.

6. If FGW or successors go for new EMUs for Reading, Oxford services etc then will be an incentive to electrify more as there will be plenty of older cheaper EMUs available.


Crude financial logic would suggest that electrification proceeds at a steady pace roughly in line with the medium/long term rate that DMUs life expire.

As there is so much uncertainly at the moment, I can't see any new orders until after the next election, the long term electrification plan, most franchises are re-let (especially Northern on a growth mandate and more electrification taking place during most others (i.e. except all electric ones) and the actual CP6 HLOS published, so 2018?

 

[tom1649]

Exactly, the 308s were a vast improvement over the Pacers they replaced. You could actually get warm and comfortable on them and they'd take you to your destination relatively quickly!

 

[Haydn1971]

Does the term "Stockholm Syndrome" ring a bell with anyone..

Like it

 

[HSTEd]

Surely the electrification projects and cascading of superior diesel stock should ensure that at least the 142s can finally retire by 2020?

If we had had an electrification programme like the 1980s one running continuously in the background since they were introduced..... then yes they would have gone by 2020, if not already.

But we didn't so attempting to make up some time is going to lead to overshoot.

EDIT:

How many Pacers can we kill without electrification by sending more EMUs to the Manchester area?

I seem to recall a significant number of entirely under-the-wires diagrams by diesel units?

And an example of how tiny additions to existing electrification can get significant numbers of diesel diagrams converted to Pacers.... roughly 9km of double track equivalent between Hyde North and Rose Hill Marple gets you the half hour Rose Hill service, which needs three units.
So 6km of single track electrification per unit, which is roughly £9m.

You can have £9m and 80m of train (Cl315 - so £112.5k/m) or £4.5m at minimum for 69m of train (Cl172, so £65k/m).
Once you include the operational benefits I think the electrification comes out the cheaper option even fi you only assume the Class 315 lasts a single decade as opposed to three for the turbostar.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If I recall. there was also Tonbridge - Redhill, but that was quite late in about 1991.

The Tonbridge to Redhill line was electrified by the use of the 750V DC 3rd rail system in 1993.

 

[tbtc]

How many Pacers can we kill without electrification by sending more EMUs to the Manchester area?

I seem to recall a significant number of entirely under-the-wires diagrams by diesel units?

Not many - there are certainly some individual services (like there are on SWT around Portsmouth/ Southampton), but few all day duties (assuming no 323s long-term unfit and no Manchester United match on - that requires a few 323s to shuttle football fans).

There are certainly plenty of lines around Manchester that would be "quick wins" to electrify, like the Rose Hill example that you've quoted.

 

[northwichcat]

If we had had an electrification programme like the 1980s one running continuously in the background since they were introduced..... then yes they would have gone by 2020, if not already.

In the 1980s passenger numbers were dropping. Hence, why cheap to build Pacers were ordered and studies in the feasibility of further electrification projects was not really something on the agenda.

You may recall from other threads and rail literature that GMPTE wanted a fleet of dual powered 210s, which would have allowed for further electrification projects, instead of Pacers and 150s but the Conservative government of the time said no.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not many - there are certainly some individual services (like there are on SWT around Portsmouth/ Southampton), but few all day duties (assuming no 323s long-term unfit and no Manchester United match on - that requires a few 323s to shuttle football fans).

There are certainly plenty of lines around Manchester that would be "quick wins" to electrify, like the Rose Hill example that you've quoted.

I reckon 3-4 Pacers could be cascaded to other lines for extra capacity (not killed) if extra EMUs were available. The lack of 323s does mean frequently DMUs fill in for 323s in the off-peak, as well as running some electrified peak services.

One of the booked peak time Pacer workings is a Crewe-Manchester Oxford Rd service that's booked for 2 x Pacers and I understand is overcrowded. (2 x Pacers provides 200-240 seats compared to up to 284 on a 323.)

 

[tbtc]

In the 1980s passenger numbers were dropping. Hence, why cheap to build Pacers were ordered

This is why I'm unconvinced about buying a lot of new DMUs for the sake of a five year "peak" - we're still paying the price of (1980s) short term thinking

 

[HSTEd]

I'm probably going to get in trouble for this.

But how about refurbishing/rebuilding ex-Merseyrail 507/8s (when the replacement plan comes along) and deploying them in place of the 376s on Southeastern?
4 3-car units replacing 2 5-car units, as I understand it it is supposed to go to 12 car operation anyway.

These being more modern 5-car units they have Pantograph wells, which make them more useful in connection with modern electrification.

 

[dubscottie]

You may recall from other threads and rail literature that GMPTE wanted a fleet of dual powered 210s, which would have allowed for further electrification projects, instead of Pacers and 150s but the Conservative government of the time said no.

A dual power 210 was never proposed.

The 210's were able to haul class 317's dead and were wired to do such.

A plan was proposed for the MML.. 317 to bedford and then it would be "towed" by the 210 to Nottingham etc...

A 210 hauling dead 317 al la 4REP and TC style.

 

[yorksrob]

The Tonbridge to Redhill line as electrified by the use of the 750V DC 3rd rail system in 1993.

Near enough

 

[northwichcat]

This is why I'm unconvinced about buying a lot of new DMUs for the sake of a five year "peak" - we're still paying the price of (1980s) short term thinking

Not sure I understand your argument. Once the Pacers are replaced the 150s, 153s, 155s, 156s, 158s and 159s will all need replacing in the following 10 years so an order of 200 or something like the class 172s certainly wouldn't be short term thinking but an order large enough to replace all the Pacers and Sprinters would be.

As you've said yourself many times before there isn't anything really suitable to cascade down on to the local routes that don't get electrified.

With Network Rail declaring lines with 1tph aren't usually suitable for electrifying with a few possible exceptions for short sections like Windermere-Oxenholme, you'll need more DMUs to enhance services like Chester-Warrington-Manchester and Buxton-Manchester to prove that the higher frequency can be justified ahead of more electrification work.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A dual power 210 was never proposed.

According to the book ‘Rail Centres: Manchester’ by Stanley Hall they were proposed by GMPTE but the government at the time dismissed the proposals as being too expensive.

 

[Buttsy]

As you've said yourself many times before there isn't anything really suitable to cascade down on to the local routes that don't get electrified.

There have been examples in the past where an engine has been removed from a unit (one is reminded of the de-rating of the Met Cam 'twins' and Calder Valley units) so that the power supplied is more suited to the use the unit is put to. Would not a 3 car 185 with 1 engine be sufficient for, say, the Mid Cheshire or Lincolnshire lines? Or a 2 engined one sufficient for the Gunjnislake branch?

 

[YorkshireBear]

I imagine engines will be removed from the 185s over the coming years as they get cascaded. Thinking completely out of the box can we not build a few new DMU carriages and fit some spare 185 engines underneath them Then we don't need new engines...

 

[northwichcat]

There have been examples in the past where an engine has been removed from a unit (one is reminded of the de-rating of the Met Cam 'twins' and Calder Valley units) so that the power supplied is more suited to the use the unit is put to. Would not a 3 car 185 with 1 engine be sufficient for, say, the Mid Cheshire or Lincolnshire lines? Or a 2 engined one sufficient for the Gunjnislake branch?

Network Rail have actually identified some platforms on the Mid-Cheshire as needing to be lengthened to 96m i.e. 4 x 24m carriages. On other North West lines they've identified lengthening to 92m being required. 96m is only needed for 4 car 168s or other newer DMUs - obviously 180s and 185s in 4 car formation aren't possible.

A TPE 170 with the first class replaced by standard would give around 115 seats. On the Mid-Cheshire line if the frequency enhancement on the Greenbank-Stockport section goes ahead then most services operated by something with that kind of capacity and some peak services doubled up then it would seem ideal for the Mid-Cheshire line. (A 2 car 172 or 175 option would also work.) If instead you use 185s then it doesn't really allow for the passenger growth that might follow from a frequency enhancement and newer trains being used, with a much bigger platform lengthening program.

The other concern I'd have about 185s on the Mid-Cheshire line is in the next couple of years the speed limit is set to be increased on the Leftwich viaduct for 142s, 150s, 156s, 158s and 175s. However, it won't be increased for freight. (I'm not sure on diverted Voyagers.) Would putting heavier units as the primary traction on the line effectively make that work redundant?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I imagine engines will be removed from the 185s over the coming years as they get cascaded. Thinking completely out of the box can we not build a few new DMU carriages and fit some spare 185 engines underneath them Then we don't need new engines...

Or alternatively - the 185s are a small fleet of 51 trains. Hang on to them as spares instead of possibly needing to make small numbers of replacement parts.

 

[Buttsy]

Network Rail have actually identified some platforms on the Mid-Cheshire as needing to be lengthened to 96m i.e. 4 x 24m carriages. On other North West lines they've identified lengthening to 92m being required. 96m is only needed for 4 car 168s or other newer DMUs - obviously 180s and 185s in 4 car formation aren't possible.

A TPE 170 with the first class replaced by standard would give around 115 seats. On the Mid-Cheshire line if the frequency enhancement on the Greenbank-Stockport section goes ahead then most services operated by something with that kind of capacity and some peak services doubled up then it would seem ideal for the Mid-Cheshire line. (A 2 car 172 or 175 option would also work.) If instead you use 185s then it doesn't really allow for the passenger growth that might follow from a frequency enhancement and newer trains being used, with a much bigger platform lengthening program.

The other concern I'd have about 185s on the Mid-Cheshire line is in the next couple of years the speed limit is set to be increased on the Leftwich viaduct for 142s, 150s, 156s, 158s and 175s. However, it won't be increased for freight. (I'm not sure on diverted Voyagers.) Would putting heavier units as the primary traction on the line effectively make that work redundant?

Fully appreciate your comments regarding the Mid Cheshire route. I was just trying to think of lines that weren't heavily graded where a 1 engined 3 car 185 might be suitable and that came to mind. Exmouth - Barnstaple/Paignton may be better suited to this idea.

Also, lets not forget that as Crossrail and GWML (& associated branches) electrifation comes on line, there will be a number of 165 & 166s that will be available to use elsewhere subject to clearance work being carried out...

 

[jopsuk]

Lets not forget that the 165s and 166s are essentially already assigned to west country and that the clearence issues are already being survyed, plans bing made to rectify.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Lets not forget that the 165s and 166s are essentially already assigned to west country and that the clearence issues are already being survyed, plans bing made to rectify.

True, but that should at the very least free up some sprinters from West Country branches and local services. Problem is, we still won't have enough trains for the number of people wanting to travel!

 

[tbtc]

Not sure I understand your argument. Once the Pacers are replaced the 150s, 153s, 155s, 156s, 158s and 159s will all need replacing in the following 10 years so an order of 200 or something like the class 172s certainly wouldn't be short term thinking but an order large enough to replace all the Pacers and Sprinters would be.

As you've said yourself many times before there isn't anything really suitable to cascade down on to the local routes that don't get electrified

It's a difficult subject.

As things stand, we won't have sufficient DMUs replaced in CP5 to allow all Pacers to be withdrawn (especially not as there's an understandable demand to use any freed-up DMUs to increase service/capacity on other lines to meet demand).

But at the same time, if CP6 builds on CP5 and does the "fill in" work around CP5 electrification (e.g. once the MML is wired to Sheffield then you could wire the sections from Sheffield to Moorthorpe and Doncaster which would free up 75mph DMUs) then we may have sufficient 75mph DMUs in 2024 to meet demand then.

It's just whether we build new DMUs that may be surplus to requirements in a few years time or try to "muddle on" with refurbished 1980s stock. Neither looks very appealing, but (right now) I'd guess that the latter option is more likely.