Pacers have a future.

[northwichcat]

Would anyone feel that one political party would be more stringent in insisting on the compliance to the Disability Discrimination Act of Parliament than others, if elected after the next General Election ?

You'd think with the Conservative's policies on wanting to put people on disability benefit back in to work and closing down specialist centres employing people with disabilities (saying they want disabled people in mainstream jobs) that they would be wanting to accelerate DDA compliance not slow it down!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Noticed this while talking about Pacers in another thread. According to Porterbrook the 5 class 143's leased to FGW are off lease on March 31st 2013 (the Arriva Wales ones are on lease until 14 October 2018). Has FGW renewed the lease recently or if not is it known where they would be going? (it also lists 4 class 57 and 8 Mk3 coachs, 10 Mk3 sleeper coachs at FGW as off lease on the 31st).

The 2013 date seems to coincide with the date the FGW franchise should have ended.

FGW have 8 x 143s not 5 x 143s or are only some of them leased from Porterbrook?

If FGW have no future use for them it would make sense for ATW to take them on and to release their small 153 fleet for either Northern or EMT to take on. (150s can internally cascade to the HOW line before someone says that's too long to be Pacer operated.)

 

[sheff'd victoria]

- Phase them out over the next 20yrs, rather than having a desperate shortage of DMU's
Parry People movers ?

Oh god not 20 years :cry:

I dont have anything against the 3car units has they can cope with the demand , its the 142's that I have the problem with.

I like the idea of the Parry People Mover , Ive heard about this train working in Stourbridge, I wonder if it would be good on branch lines like the Cleethorpes - Barton Line, hmmm I feel another topic coming up on my Lincolnshire thread

 

[Surreyman]

Would anyone feel that one political party would be more stringent in insisting on the compliance to the Disability Discrimination Act of Parliament than others, if elected after the next General Election ?

It has been signed off and agreed, compliance isn't optional.
Personally I agree with it and in any case, the ROCs & TOCs will ensure all rolling stock is compliant by the due date.
Other than programming the engineering work required between now and 2019, there really isn't an issue.
Perhaps the only problem that might arise are (for example) if the owning Rolling stock co, said that for various reasons the 153s are not worth upgrading, (even then, they might be 'persuaded' if DFT 'incentives' them).
My politics has always been 'left of centre' but I can't help reflecting that it is Tory Governments that seem to fund rail Electrification.
I acknowledge that Lord Adonis(Labour) was instrumental in promoting Railways, sadly his successors (Shadow Ministers) are very mediocre i.e MS Eagle.

 

[yorksrob]

I think the legislation has been implemented with the best of intentions, it's just that the problems created will far outweigh any benefits. At best we're looking at reductions in seating capacity on trains that already get overcrowded, or worse, withdrawal of units that we can ill afford to lose. And all this to supposedly make trains accessible when they are already frequently used by passengers of highly limited mobility and visual impairment.

 

[sprinterguy]

FGW have 8 x 143s not 5 x 143s or are only some of them leased from Porterbrook?

Only five of them are leased from Porterbrook: The remaining three are owned by First Great Western as assets of the GW franchise.

 

[CC 72100]

If FGW have no future use for them it would make sense for ATW to take them on and to release their small 153 fleet for either Northern or EMT to take on. (150s can internally cascade to the HOW line before someone says that's too long to be Pacer operated.)

Would be a very big if - that would leave most of the Exeter local services cancelled! :roll: We'd end up with LM who have trains but no drivers, and FGW with plenty of drivers, and no trains. No chance!

 

[northwichcat]

Would be a very big if - that would leave most of the Exeter local services cancelled! :roll: We'd end up with LM who have trains but no drivers, and FGW with plenty of drivers, and no trains. No chance!

Or alternatively some service that were strengthened following the LM cascades losing their extra capacity to free up 150s or 153s for Exeter services.

5 of the 12 x 142s that went to FGW had been directly/indirectly used for extra capacity on Mid-Cheshire line services during the closure of the Altrincham Metrolink line only a few months before they went to FGW. It doesn't mean Northern then cancelled services to let FGW have the 142s, it meant the services that got the extra carriages went back to unstrengthened formations.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Only five of them are leased from Porterbrook: The remaining three are owned by First Great Western as assets of the GW franchise.

So are First likely to sell them at the end of the FGW franchise? At the moment if they lose the GW franchise the only other suitable place First could use them is in Scotland.

The 144s and 155s were recently sold to a leasing company on condition that they remain on West Yorks services until the end of the current Northern franchise.

 

[CC 72100]

Or alternatively some service that were strengthened following the LM cascades losing their extra capacity to free up 150s or 153s for Exeter services.

5 of the 12 x 142s that went to FGW had been directly/indirectly used for extra capacity on Mid-Cheshire line services during the closure of the Altrincham Metrolink line only a few months before they went to FGW. It doesn't mean Northern then cancelled services to let FGW have the 142s, it meant the services that got the extra carriages went back to unstrengthened formations.

I can't see it happening to be honest. From what I gather, overcrowding on FGW local services is bad enough already. For example, you really wouldn't want to take away the 150 that is tagged onto a Portsmouth - Cardiff around Bristol in the morning peak, nor would you want to make other Bristol diagrams single units. Finally, Devon local services are stretched enough in the summer as it is. You can't really afford to take 8 units or so from anywhere on the network, because if they were taken from Devon, 8 wouldn't be able to move down from Bristol to replace them. It appears that they try to make all Devon 'triangle' services a minimum of 3 coaches in the summer, and it couldn't be any other way really - the Exmouth line on sunny days is rammed!

Also, I though FGW only had 5x 142s, or are you referring to a time earlier in the franchise?

 

[northwichcat]

Also, I though FGW only had 5x 142s, or are you referring to a time earlier in the franchise?

FGW took on 12 x 142s in 2007, which were all subleased from Northern to provide cover for refurbishment programs. The original sublease for all 12 expired in November 2008. However, FGW felt they still required the 12 x 142s beyond Nov 08 and the LO 150s (which were originally due to go to Northern under HLOS) weren't to be replaced by 172s in time for the Dec 08 timetable change. This then led Northern not having enough stock for what would be needed to run the Dec 08 timetable, which required Northern to run extra services with TPE being overstretched following TPE having to take on the Scottish services from Virgin without getting extra stock.

In the end it was agreed that FGW would return 5 x 142s by Nov 08 and could keep the other 7 x 142s on an extension of the sublease. Northern would also sublease 3 x 180s from NXEC, who had secured 5 x 180s for Lincoln services but didn't need them until a further timetable change. In the end NXEC lost the franchise and EC said they did not wish to use the 5 x 180s for Lincoln services, so Northern were able to keep the 180s until the LM stock was released, which in turn allowed FGW to hang on to 142s for a lot longer than they were supposed to.

 

[WatcherZero]

If their franchise assets wouldnt they be inherited by the successor anyway? First wouldnt be able to move them between its franchises unless the successor didnt want them.

 

[ainsworth74]

I was thinking that. If they were an asset of First Group then it's up to them what happens with them (like the HSTs that First own) but if they're officially assets of the GW franchise then surely they'd go with the franchise?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If we are looking at the Pacer fleet and DDA, would the door situation and the step situation need to be the most immediate problem to resolve as these are the first problems to be encountered by the very people wishing to board these units, that the DDA Act is meant to address.

We see many views on operational problems with these units but let us never forget the very people that the DDA Act is meant to assist. These people who will have seen the date on the enactment of this act and of the stated final date that matters had to be resolved, would be somewhat horrified to read that in 2013, a reference to another 20 years in service as a possibility.

Lookng at that scenario, it makes one wonder will the Pacer fleet still be around to greet the inaugural HS2 services as they emerge from the tunnel at Ardwick...

 

[WatcherZero]

No its the final deadline as its the most difficult to rectify.

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Making transport accessible by all I must agree with.
But with the best of intentions, it won't always be easy.
When I was in Nantes, which have the same LRV's (trams) as Blackpool, I did not see 1 wheelchair on them. With the packed platforms and people squeezed on them like sardines (or 'sandwich' if you are French!) using a wheelchair would be virtually impossible!
Buses have a much shorter life than a rail vehicle, and I assume this was not allowed for in their timescale, unless a rich GB could replace them all!
So will 90 odd Pacer 142s be lining the sidings at the scrappies in 6 years time?
Imo it would be better to restrict their use, and pension off several each year.
Maybe having a lightweight ramp on each unit, and used more on rural services?
Having no toilet rather than having a non DDA compliant toilet, can that make sense?

 

[DXMachina]

"Pacers have a future"

As tin cans and baking foil, on a long enough timeline.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Having no toilet rather than having a non DDA compliant toilet, can that make sense?

I have heard of non-DDA toilet compliant routes, but are there any proposals for non-DDA compliant incontinence routes.

Another mind-boggling proposal to be considered on the threads of RailUK forums...hock:

 

[tbtc]

Having no toilet rather than having a non DDA compliant toilet, can that make sense?

It's something I've argued before - it'd be a negative measure but it would ensure that Pacers weren't "discriminating", so it'd tick a box in terms of "accessibility" (however perverse that sounds).

Plenty of other trains already have no toilets, of course, Merseyrail is a franchise without any on-board toilets, but the trick is where to allocate these trains to, so that the lack of toilet is less of an issue (or whether you can get round it by coupling each toiletless Pacer to an "accessible" 150)? Other than a couple of routes in Greater Manchester (New Mills etc) there's not a lot of "short" services run by Pacers that won't be electrified in a few years time (little need for a toilet on the Cardiff Bay shuttle, but that'll be EMU run later this decade)

Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, I'm not saying it's a great idea, just one way of getting round regulations...

 

[yorksrob]

Making transport accessible by all I must agree with.
But with the best of intentions, it won't always be easy.
When I was in Nantes, which have the same LRV's (trams) as Blackpool, I did not see 1 wheelchair on them. With the packed platforms and people squeezed on them like sardines (or 'sandwich' if you are French!) using a wheelchair would be virtually impossible!
Buses have a much shorter life than a rail vehicle, and I assume this was not allowed for in their timescale, unless a rich GB could replace them all!
So will 90 odd Pacer 142s be lining the sidings at the scrappies in 6 years time?
Imo it would be better to restrict their use, and pension off several each year.
Maybe having a lightweight ramp on each unit, and used more on rural services?
Having no toilet rather than having a non DDA compliant toilet, can that make sense?

Pacers already have a ramp with them. And they are already well used by people in wheelchairs.

 

[Haydn1971]

Pacers already have a ramp with them. And they are already well used by people in wheelchairs.

That's great for mobility independence isn't it :-/

My idea of a vehicle that offers mobility equity to users is a vehicle that can get a mobility impaired passenger from the platform into the train without having to rely on someone else. At the moment, I can only think of one rail based vehicle that offers that capability, my local tramway in Sheffield. I'm sure there are some other trams, but I can't think of any trains that either have level access or a chair lift between levels that a passenger can use independently.

 

[jopsuk]

The DLR is almost gap free and level at almost all stations.

There are bits that confuse me on the mainline. The new platforms at Cambridge, which are straight, level and low line-speed, leave a gap and a step to the brand new, as wide as pretty much any other UK mainline stock, Class 379

 

[northwichcat]

Pacers already have a ramp with them. And they are already well used by people in wheelchairs.

The ramp Pacers require is a special extended ramp, unlike the ordinary ramp used for other trains. The special ramp can't be universally used at every station - if the platform is too low, not wide enough etc. then the wheelchair passenger must travel on another service or be transported by taxi to/from an alternative station. Guide Bridge and Salford Crescent are among the stations where wheelchair passengers have to actively avoid the Pacer services. While Northwich is among the stations that requires passengers to be taxied to an alternative station. So it's not just stations with a limited service like Denton that can't accommodate a wheelchair passenger boarding a Pacer.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, I'm not saying it's a great idea, just one way of getting round regulations...

Unless you're proposing refurbishing the 142s minus the toilet then I'm not sure how it is getting around regulations. The passengers without any accessibility problems certainly won't chose to sit in a 142 over a refurbished train joined on to it and the bus bench seating certainly doesn't meet DDA requirements. Then what do you do if the complaint train is full and some less able passengers are wanting to join? There's no corridor connectors so if people start moving between trains then they'll be long dwell times. And what if no-one moves? Do you ask the 25 yr old passenger to move to let a 70 year with a stick sit down on the complaint train to find that the 25 yr old has a sprained ankle?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

According to Porterbrook the 5 class 143's leased to FGW are off lease on March 31st 2013 (the Arriva Wales ones are on lease until 14 October 2018).

Just checked on this. At the moment all FGW stock leased from Porterbrook (143s, 150s, 153s, 158s and HSTs) has a 'Scheduled Lease End' of 31/03/2013.

The c2c class 357s have one of 26/05/2013 and the FCC class 319s have one of 15/09/2013.

 

[yorksrob]

That's great for mobility independence isn't it :-/

My idea of a vehicle that offers mobility equity to users is a vehicle that can get a mobility impaired passenger from the platform into the train without having to rely on someone else. At the moment, I can only think of one rail based vehicle that offers that capability, my local tramway in Sheffield. I'm sure there are some other trams, but I can't think of any trains that either have level access or a chair lift between levels that a passenger can use independently.

Are you seriousley suggesting that we should put up with stock shortages, fewer seats and toiletless trains just so a minority don't have to ask the guard for assistance ? If you are, I would suggest you have your priorities wrong.

 

[tbtc]

Unless you're proposing refurbishing the 142s minus the toilet then I'm not sure how it is getting around regulations

Yes, that is what I was suggesting.

 

[tom1649]

There's no way that making 100+ Pacers DDA compliant can be financially justified. How many more years after 2020 would they have to run to make such a scheme provide value for money? Perhaps as a worst case scenario they'll just have to mothball lines and run replacement buses until new trains are ready.

It's interesting how the DfT is so keen to dictate many things on the railway including new rolling stock orders, yet when a problem such as this arises, at least partly as a result of their own policies, they turn their backs and claim it's the ROSCO/TOC's problem.

 

[sprinterguy]

So are First likely to sell them at the end of the FGW franchise? At the moment if they lose the GW franchise the only other suitable place First could use them is in Scotland.

As other posters have pointed out, the 3 Pacers are assets of the Great Western franchise itself. They will pass on to the control of the new franchise by default, regardless of who the new operator is. They are only owned by First Group for as long as First hold the Great Western franchise.

 

[Greybeard33]

There's no way that making 100+ Pacers DDA compliant can be financially justified. How many more years after 2020 would they have to run to make such a scheme provide value for money? Perhaps as a worst case scenario they'll just have to mothball lines and run replacement buses until new trains are ready.

If you were correct, surely the ROSCOs would not offer a modification programme? No TOC would be willing to pay higher lease charges for a PRM-TSI compliant Pacer than for a brand new DMU!

And I doubt that even the wheelchair users themselves would prefer a replacement bus to a non-compliant Pacer.

 

[tom1649]

If you were correct, surely the ROSCOs would not offer a modification programme? No TOC would be willing to pay higher lease charges for a PRM-TSI compliant Pacer than for a brand new DMU!

And I doubt that even the wheelchair users themselves would prefer a replacement bus to a non-compliant Pacer.

Fair enough. I suppose the ROSCOs already cream off enough public money to their shareholders, it wouldn't be seen as a terrible thing if they used some to modify some 1980s DMUs instead.

Responding to your second point, I doubt they would either. The government doesn't always share the same common sense though does it?

 

[Surreyman]

There's no way that making 100+ Pacers DDA compliant can be financially justified

. How many more years after 2020 would they have to run to make such a scheme provide value for money? Perhaps as a worst case scenario they'll just have to mothball lines and run replacement buses until new trains are ready.

It's interesting how the DfT is so keen to dictate many things on the railway including new rolling stock orders, yet when a problem such as this arises, at least partly as a result of their own policies, they turn their backs and claim it's the ROSCO/TOC's problem.

Er, except that making 100+ Pacers DDA compliant is apparently financially justified. (Modern Railways, Roger Ford - 'Informed Sources').
I am no financial expert & I don't work for a Rolling stock Company but I would make a guess of @ 10 years life from date of refurbishment.

 

[tbtc]

There's no way that making 100+ Pacers DDA compliant can be financially justified. How many more years after 2020 would they have to run to make such a scheme provide value for money? Perhaps as a worst case scenario they'll just have to mothball lines and run replacement buses until new trains are ready

You've got to compare the cost of upgrading a Pacer to meet the regulations with the cost of buying a new DMU (given that if we continue electrification in CP6 then the Sprinters/ Turbostars etc should be sufficient to cope with remaining DMU lines post-2024), so you may only have five/ ten years guaranteed use out of a DMU built today.

Neither options sounds like great value for money, of course, and I wish we weren't in this position. But...

 

[tom1649]

Ok Ok I accept what the industry says, I just found it hard to believe.