Pacers have a future.

[Manchester77]

The Class 508 units were based at Strawberry Hill depot as 4-car units, so have knowledge of use on South of England lines. Would the Lymington Branch have any specific operational problems for these units ?

Not that I can see. 508s have 20 metre long coaches and I think the 421s did too? Also aren't all the 508s in 3 car formation on MerseyRail? Could they easily be reverted to 4 car operation?

Then again aren't there 3 or 4 ex-southeastern 508s stored somewhere couldn't they be brought out and refurbished?

 

[tbtc]

On a peripherally rated note.... would an ex-Merseyrail 508 work on the Lymington Branch?

They are going to be rather simple to maintain I would have thought.

No physical trouble doing it (once you've spent money bringing one up to standard).

But there is the problem of having one non-standard EMU at Brokenhurst (?), making things quite complicated for SWT (same goes with Northern having one EMU at Heaton for the Chathill services) - apparently a lot of hassle to go to for the sake of one 158.

Since the Lymington situation should be sorted out when SWT get more EMUs at some stage, the current arrangement is probably the "least bad" option

 

[jopsuk]

Part of the reason for getting rid of the Lymington slammers was to remove non-standard stock from the fleet.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Then again aren't there 3 or 4 ex-southeastern 508s stored somewhere couldn't they be brought out and refurbished?

There's a few in Eastleigh AFAIK. However, said sets are falling apart and it wouldn't surprise me if most (or indeed all) are beyond all reasonable repair. I've been on a couple of railtours through the yard at Eastleigh over the past few years and they look in a bad way.

 

[Manchester77]

Yeah there's some in Southeastern livery and at least one in Connex livery. After googling this there is also at least one ex silverlink set too. I'd imagine they'd still have the original low back ex-BR seats so at the very least they'd need a full interior refresh and repainting. As they probably won't have moved for the past however many years they'd probably need their motors refurbishing etc.

 

[HSTEd]

Part of the reason for getting rid of the Lymington slammers was to remove non-standard stock from the fleet.

In that case, I will have to propose a far more complex cascade.

Merseyrail 507/8s to Southern

[All] Southern 313s to Northern

[Some] Northern 323s to London Midland, 150s to general cascade

London Midland 350s to South West Trains

South West Trains 158 to general cascade.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

[Some] Northern 323s to London Midland, 150s to general cascade

On our local South Manchester lines, the small amount of shortages of Class 323 units on the Northern Rail fleet sees the ubiquitous Class 142 Pacer units making up the shortfall. If more of these Class 323 units are sent to London Midland, all that will ensue is more of "Newton Heaths' finest" being pressed into replacement service on our routes...

 

[HSTEd]

On our local South Manchester lines, the small amount of shortages of Class 323 units on the Northern Rail fleet sees the ubiquitous Class 142 Pacer units making up the shortfall. If more of these Class 323 units are sent to London Midland, all that will ensue is more of "Newton Heaths' finest" being pressed into replacement service on our routes...

Yes, but you would be receiving 19 Class 313s in compensation.

 

[northwichcat]

Yes, but you would be receiving 19 Class 313s in compensation.

Good Aprils Fools joke there.

The 313s cannot replace the 323s for a number of reasons:
1. There are no more 75mph paths available for stoppers on the WCML so any replacements for the 323s must be at least 90mph capable.
2. Unless you're proposing new station toilets at places like Congleton and Kidsgrove the replacement trains will also need toilets, which the 313s do not have.
3. The Southern 313s are more than 10m shorter than the Northern 323s and also have 90 less seats (more than 90 if you propose fitting a toilet) so even if you ignore the 75mph issue and toilet issues you have a train that is too short or too long if doubled up without platform lengthening.

So it's a none starter.

 

[HSTEd]

Good Aprils Fools joke there.

The 313s cannot replace the 323s for a number of reasons:
1. There are no more 75mphs available for stoppers on the WCML so any replacements for the 323s must be at least 90mph capable.

Since the entire 323 fleet would not be replaced, you would have sufficient units to maintain the services which currently require 90mph performance.
The trains would be used on services like those to Hazel Grove and to Glossop and Hadfield.
We are only looking to free a handful of units.
And then there are electrification projects in the Manchester area that will be arriving relatively soon that can make use of 75mph units.

2. Unless you're proposing new station toilets at places like Congleton and Kidsgrove the replacement trains will also need toilets, which the 313s do not have.

Why? the routes I propose mainly consist of short journeys.

3. The Southern 313s are more than 10m shorter than the Northern 323s and also have 90 less seats (more than 90 if you propose fitting a toilet) so even if you ignore the 75mph issue and toilet issues you have a train that is too short or too long if doubled up without platform lengthening.

So it's a none starter.

As many services to the South and East of Manchester already consist of 20m or shorter carriage units, this is surely not a gamebreaker.

 

[tbtc]

there are electrification projects in the Manchester area that will be arriving relatively soon that can make use of 75mph units

Whilst there will be much electrification around Manchester over the rest of this decade, it's going to be longer distance services (Blackpool, Leeds, Liverpool etc) where toiletless 75mph EMUs aren't really suited.

I could see the need for 313s if we were talking about the short services from Manchester to Marple, but that's something for another day.

 

[northwichcat]

Since the entire 323 fleet would not be replaced, you would have sufficient units to maintain the services which currently require 90mph performance.
The trains would be used on services like those to Hazel Grove and to Glossop and Hadfield.

We are only looking to free a handful of units.

So you're solution for not giving SWT a micro-fleet is to give Northern a micro-fleet instead?

There's only one EMU that runs to Hazel Grove every day. The Hazel Grove EMUs were robbed for extra hourly Airport-Manchester and making the Stoke-Manchester service all day in 2008. Most Hazel Grove services continue to Preston now and in the evening peak there's a Piccadilly-Hazel Grove-Chinley service so even if you get more EMUs there's little provision for using them on Hazel Grove services ahead of Bolton electrification.

Also, it would be beneficial for any services which do not call at Heaton Chapel and Levenshulme to be 90mph capable giving the pathing shortage in that area regardless of whether or not they only do a 25 minute run between Manchester and Hazel Grove.

Why? the routes I propose mainly consist of short journeys.

For no toilets you need short journeys and frequent services like Merseyrail. It's no use telling someone in somewhere like Congleton or Holmes Chapel that they can wait until they get to Manchester to use the toilet if the frequency is only hourly (or 2 hourly on Sundays) and there may be a chance that the next train is delayed or cancelled.

As many services to the South and East of Manchester already consist of 20m or shorter carriage units, this is surely not a gamebreaker.

Yes just take the adequately sized trains on the few routes that have them and replace them with shorter trains that are too small so they can be overcrowded just like the other routes.

The 323s are probably the highest capacity train (compared to number of carriages) currently on the UK network and they've got more standard class seats than the 5 standard class carriages on 9 car Pendolinos and a similar number of seats to the 4 car 350/2s. If they are ever replaced on their current routes a lot of thought and consideration needs to go in to what would replace them - just any old 3 car EMU is not a solution. Just like you can't replace the 166s with a 3 car 144.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Would TfGM have any say over the introduction of toiletless trains on the services from Manchester Piccadilly to Glossop/Hadfield ?

 

[northwichcat]

Would TfGM have any say over the introduction of toiletless trains on the services from Manchester Piccadilly to Glossop/Hadfield ?

I'm not sure about toiletless trains but I do know a condition of TfGM funding CCTV for the 323s is that if they are ever moved from the Manchester area the replacement trains will already have CCTV fitted before arriving in the Manchester area.

 

[507 001]

Also aren't all the 508s in 3 car formation on MerseyRail?

Yup!

Could they easily be reverted to 4 car operation?

Nope! (You would have to steal the TOSs back from the SWT 455s)

Then again aren't there 3 or 4 ex-southeastern 508s stored somewhere couldn't they be brought out and refurbished?

Theres around 14 IIRC (southeastern had 12, one of which went on a one way trip to a fire training centre earlier this year, and Silverlink had 3) but "knackered" doesn't even begin to cover the state the ex-SET ones are in.
The Silverlink ones are better, but still not great. IIRC they are running short trips to keep them serviceable though.


Talking of pacers future, has anybody seen this?

http://www.porterbrook.co.uk/brochure/14xdmu/index.html

Theres some brilliant bits of salesman spin in there!!

 

[sheff'd victoria]

Would TfGM have any say over the introduction of toiletless trains on the services from Manchester Piccadilly to Glossop/Hadfield ?

TfGM still have the idea of turning the Glossop/Hadfield line into a Metrolink route

 

[northwichcat]

TfGM still have the idea of turning the Glossop/Hadfield line into a Metrolink route

It'd be a tram-train route under the most recent proposals.

 

[The Ham]

Could there be a future for Pacers being used on non NR lines to provide "commuter services" on heritage lines?

 

[sprinterguy]

Could there be a future for Pacers being used on non NR lines to provide "commuter services" on heritage lines?

Am I right in thinking that the Weardale Railway looked into this, and possibly even trialled such a service, a couple of years back? I believe that BR also did similar on the same route back when the Pacers were fairly new, using one of Heaton's 143s, as they were at the time.

 

[WatcherZero]

Could there be a future for Pacers being used on non NR lines to provide "commuter services" on heritage lines?

Using old DMU's like this was looked at on the East Lancashire Railway, though the business case didnt quite work out.

 

[theblackwatch]

Am I right in thinking that the Weardale Railway looked into this, and possibly even trialled such a service, a couple of years back? I believe that BR also did similar on the same route back when the Pacers were fairly new, using one of Heaton's 143s, as they were at the time.

The Weardale ran a commuter/community service but it ceased in 2011 due to poor loadings - see http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/ne..._the_line_for_rural_rail_service_in_Weardale/ .

Back in the early 1990s, the KWVR looked into providing a commuter service but it never got any further than that, and I'm sure several other lines have also looked into it and presumably found the reason the line's closed in the 1960s was because such operations were not commerically viable.

 

[YorkshireBear]

The Weardale ran a commuter/community service but it ceased in 2011 due to poor loadings - see http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/ne..._the_line_for_rural_rail_service_in_Weardale/ .

Back in the early 1990s, the KWVR looked into providing a commuter service but it never got any further than that, and I'm sure several other lines have also looked into it and presumably found the reason the line's closed in the 1960s was because such operations were not commerically viable.

Some of the more marginal lines are now being looked at again since the increase in rail travel and population. I know the KWVR has but as of yet that has come to nothing. I know the mid hants has also looked into it and tried using a parry people mover for the job but it broke and never took off again.

 

[The Ham]

Some of the more marginal lines are now being looked at again since the increase in rail travel and population. I know the KWVR has but as of yet that has come to nothing. I know the mid hants has also looked into it and tried using a parry people mover for the job but it broke and never took off again.

Technically it was GO-OP operating on the Mid Hants rather than the Mid Hants itself.

It was the line I had in my mind when I asked the question.

 

[yorksrob]

Back in the early 1990s, the KWVR looked into providing a commuter service but it never got any further than that

Not very surprising considering it was isolated from the network at the time ! (in spite of Anneka's best efforts)

 

[scarby]

Back in the early 1990s, the KWVR looked into providing a commuter service but it never got any further than that, and I'm sure several other lines have also looked into it and presumably found the reason the lines closed in the 1960s was because such operations were not commerically viable.

A major reason is surely that often/mostly heritage lines are only partial sections of former branch lines etc, so often they go from "nowhere" to "nowhere" or at least "somewhere" to "nowhere".

So who's going to take a Pacer service, for example, from Grosmont to to Pickering, but if the line had the oft-discussion extention to Malton, it would actually connect to two NR stations.

Another major issue is that if you are going to run a proper service, it needs to be year-round, and most heritage lines are closed for at least a large portion of the winter just for starters.

 

[northwichcat]

A major reason is surely that often/mostly heritage lines are only partial sections of former branch lines etc, so often they go from "nowhere" to "nowhere" or at least "somewhere" to "nowhere".

If you look at ELR. Bury's not a nowhere, while Rawtenstall is a bit of a ghost town but it has an express bus service every 20 minutes to Manchester and Nelson via Burnley (every 15 minutes at peak times) and also a very frequent bus service to Accrington, so it is a town that could justify a rail link reinstatement in lieu of some of those bus services.

 

[Greybeard33]

If you look at ELR. Bury's not a nowhere, while Rawtenstall is a bit of a ghost town but it has an express bus service every 20 minutes to Manchester and Nelson via Burnley (every 15 minutes at peak times) and also a very frequent bus service to Accrington, so it is a town that could justify a rail link reinstatement in lieu of some of those bus services.

This TfGM study last year concluded that commuter services on the ELR could not be justified - the BCR would be no more than 0.25 at best, compared with the DfT minimum requirement of 1.5.

 

[northwichcat]

This thread may be of interest http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=76653&page=2 It seems Iran have decided that the 141s are life expired and withdrawn them.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This TfGM study last year concluded that commuter services on the ELR could not be justified - the BCR would be no more than 0.25 at best, compared with the DfT minimum requirement of 1.5.

A study in to the Middlewich branch reopening got a score well above 1.5 but Network Rail didn't even bother to properly look at it and now the study needs updating due to year-on-year growth on the Mid-Cheshire line.

 

[WatcherZero]

So the Government has told Cambrige Council that electrification in the North could lead to a cascade of diesel units for increased frequency Cambridge-Stansted services since new build electric units for that route isnt value for money and hence they wont consider any potential strengthening of Cambridge services until 2014.

Should we be worried that we may lose Sprinters that could be used for strengthening or Pacer replacement to the south? How many units would they need to double the frequency of services on that route? Is the fact their considering diesel rather than electric units an admission there wont be any spare electric units available?

 

[Eagle]

How many units would they need to double the frequency of services on that route?

To have a 1tph shuttle between Cambridge and Stansted Airport, you'd need two units.

Currently the 170s are booked in the WTT to take 29 minutes south and 37 minutes north (the difference is due to pathing allowance where trains join the mainline), and whichever units this service would get would probably be a bit slower-accelerating than Turbostars.