Pacers have a future.

[Surreyman]

Just finished reading Modern Railways (March 2013),
Under the Heading '2020 Vision', Roger Ford has detailed the PRM-TSI changes required to selected (older) fleets of Rolling stock.
The following page 54, highlights the current compliance status of class 143, accompanied by illustrations of proposed internal changes/upgrades.
Presumably this doesn't necessarily guarantee that all Pacers will be retained/upgraded.
The article seems to suggest that all classes of DMU & EMU can in theory be modified to meet PRM-TSI compliance.

 

[daikilo]

Just finished reading Modern Railways (March 2013),
Under the Heading '2020 Vision', Roger Ford has detailed the PRM-TSI changes required to selected (older) fleets of Rolling stock.
The following page 54, highlights the current compliance status of class 143, accompanied by illustrations of proposed internal changes/upgrades.
Presumably this doesn't necessarily guarantee that all Pacers will be retained/upgraded.
The article seems to suggest that all classes of DMU & EMU can in theory be modified to meet PRM-TSI compliance.

Roger does a magnificent job on demistyfiying. I just wish that sometimes he wouldn't publish it.

So we can count on a few more decades of nodding donkeys as they sure won't die by themselves.

 

[WillPS]

Anything could be modified. You could 'modify' an oil tanker to be a passenger coach; of course there would be very little left of the tanker by the time you were done!

With all 'modifications' you eventually come across a threshold over which a straight-forward new build would be more cost effective. That threshold is reached very quickly if you require structural changes, as I would imagine modifying a Pacer would.

Lest we forget - these are vehicles which have massively outlasted their intended purpose and are no good as a promotional tool in the image-conscious privatised era. The stasis that is "zero growth" Northern can't continue forever and a new-comer will likely see the Pacers as something which restrains growth.

 

[daikilo]

Anything could be modified. You could 'modify' an oil tanker to be a passenger coach; of course there would be very little left of the tanker by the time you were done!

With all 'modifications' you eventually come across a threshold over which a straight-forward new build would be more cost effective. That threshold is reached very quickly if you require structural changes, as I would imagine modifying a Pacer would.

Lest we forget - these are vehicles which have massively outlasted their intended purpose and are no good as a promotional tool in the image-conscious privatised era. The stasis that is "zero growth" Northern can't continue forever and a new-comer will likely see the Pacers as something which restrains growth.

I don't think they have outlasted their purpose, quite the contrary, with max <25t load on a 45t under-frame they are possibly the only vehichles that meet the production spec for most of the routes they run on.

Disregard my flipant comment, that there could be a future evollution that maintains their validity is actually good news for the lines they run on, even if their passengers probably woul prefer an improved solution.

 

[ffm]

Please no! A future for Pacers? Argh!!! The only decent future for a Pacer is to be scrapped and become a razor blade in a second life.

 

[DarloRich]

Just finished reading Modern Railways (March 2013),
Under the Heading '2020 Vision', Roger Ford has detailed the PRM-TSI changes required to selected (older) fleets of Rolling stock.
The following page 54, highlights the current compliance status of class 143, accompanied by illustrations of proposed internal changes/upgrades.
Presumably this doesn't necessarily guarantee that all Pacers will be retained/upgraded.
The article seems to suggest that all classes of DMU & EMU can in theory be modified to meet PRM-TSI compliance.

Of course you can alter them. No one with a brain thought you couldn't. The question comes in relation to the CBA. Is it more cost affective to buy new or modify existing and sweat the asset a bit more?

 

[tbtc]

The propasals in Rogers article would turn a Pacer into a reasonable vehicle to travel on

A 144 is a decent enough vehicle to travel on - with enough TLC you could do the same to a 142 (no 143s in this neck of the woods, so am rarely on one).

Recent high level documents seem to suggest the supply of new DMUs is going to be virtually nil (as more lines are electrified), so we might as well get used to Pacers...

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed (this story would have filled me with annoyance a few years ago !)

Get rid of the cruddy 142's and keep the 143's and 144's as they are actually pretty decent trains.

 

[bronzeonion]

In all seriousness I can't see why they can't use Pacers as transport for pway workers or any other infrastructure workers. Rather than have them all turn up in minibuses and cars they could all get on that and get out directly at the possession. In all fairness for todays railway Pacers just arn't suitable no matter how much you spruce them up.

 

[DarloRich]

In all seriousness I can't see why they can't use Pacers as transport for pway workers or any other infrastructure workers. Rather than have them all turn up in minibuses and cars they could all get on that and get out directly at the possession. In all fairness for todays railway Pacers just arn't suitable no matter how much you spruce them up.

You are still going to have to refit them to provide messing units, washing facilities and all the other stuff you find in the vans. You also need a train driver and a path to run the train in, and everyone on the train has to wait until the last man finishes work to get home.

 

[The Ham]

A 144 is a decent enough vehicle to travel on - with enough TLC you could do the same to a 142 (no 143s in this neck of the woods, so am rarely on one).

Recent high level documents seem to suggest the supply of new DMUs is going to be virtually nil (as more lines are electrified), so we might as well get used to Pacers...

My understanding of the vitally nil order for DMU's during CP5 and CP6 was due to the electrification of main lines freeing up enough IC trains and sprinters to cascade enough sprinters to replace the pacers (either by electrifying lines with sprinters on directly or by replacing them with the freed up class 22x's to enable the sprinters to be cascaded).

 

[MCW]

My understanding of the vitally nil order for DMU's during CP5 and CP6 was due to the electrification of main lines freeing up enough IC trains and sprinters to cascade enough sprinters to replace the pacers (either by electrifying lines with sprinters on directly or by replacing them with the freed up class 22x's to enable the sprinters to be cascaded).

this is where I think the long term rolling stock plans fall down, I can't see how cascading voyagers/meridians to move sprinters onto pacer routes can work. Imagine a four car voyager working from Nottingham to Skegness all year round, most of the time the damn thing will be empty! The only other way I could see things working is if they get the 150's and redistribute them again.

In terms of the pacers, they are still soldering on and perhoas that should be a good example of British engineering at *ahem* its best *ahem*. I think they do have a future. If its useable with a bit of tarring up why get rid of it???

 

[IanXC]

this is where I think the long term rolling stock plans fall down, I can't see how cascading voyagers/meridians to move sprinters onto pacer routes can work. Imagine a four car voyager working from Nottingham to Skegness all year round, most of the time the damn thing will be empty! The only other way I could see things working is if they get the 150's and redistribute them again.

I think, particularly with the 4 car voyagers, the opportunity should be taken to introduce some services which wouldn't otherwise work, due to pathing issues on mainlines. The same kind of short hop mainline work 158s were designed for.

 

[ainsworth74]

Alternatively I also think that it would be a good to use them to try and bring some former XC routes back onto the network, for instance bring Liverpool back onto the XC map.

 

[Oswyntail]

... Imagine a four car voyager working from Nottingham to Skegness all year round, most of the time the damn thing will be empty! ....

But if you look at flows that do not currently exist then they might be justified. For instance, Skegness to Sheffield, linking up with a Peterborough to Sheffield to travel onwards to Carlisle. A little imagination might be all that is needed!

 

[Haydn1971]

In all seriousness I can't see why they can't use Pacers as transport for pway workers or any other infrastructure workers. Rather than have them all turn up in minibuses and cars they could all get on that and get out directly at the possession.

I've this nightmare vision of a pacer chugging up HS2 in 2040 as a maintenance vehicle

Shivers at the thought !

 

[Harbon 1]

They'd need one hell of a modification. They're high up and basically there would be little left. I suppose if the money is willing to be put into it, then it can be done. *Coughbogiescough*

 

[IanXC]

Alternatively I also think that it would be a good to use them to try and bring some former XC routes back onto the network, for instance bring Liverpool back onto the XC map.

Although perhaps an example other than Liverpool, as that'd probably end up as a diesel under the wires route!

 

[northwichcat]

A 144 is a decent enough vehicle to travel on - with enough TLC you could do the same to a 142 (no 143s in this neck of the woods, so am rarely on one).

I'm not sure. 144s seem to ride better than 142s - 144 carriages are also much heavier than 142 carriages.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

this is where I think the long term rolling stock plans fall down, I can't see how cascading voyagers/meridians to move sprinters onto pacer routes can work. Imagine a four car voyager working from Nottingham to Skegness all year round, most of the time the damn thing will be empty! The only other way I could see things working is if they get the 150's and redistribute them again.

In terms of the pacers, they are still soldering on and perhoas that should be a good example of British engineering at *ahem* its best *ahem*. I think they do have a future. If its useable with a bit of tarring up why get rid of it???

For one thing the ATOC proposals posted a few weeks back did not actually say no new DMUs in CP5 but said no DMUs being replaced by brand new DMUs, they allowed for a small number of new additional DMUs for growth.

Another thing is proposals relating to rolling stock change all the time until they actually happen. Take the proposed EMU order that was going to replace the Northern 323s, 321s and provide some additional capacity. That changed in to a proposed LM order and then a cascade of the 322s to compliment the 321s in West Yorks, to be followed by a 319 cascade.

Relating to how cascades would work I would envisage:
- Voyagers and Meridians replacing class 170s and 158s on services over 2 hours in length.
- Class 170s and class 185s going on to the Sprinter routes of over 75 minutes in length.*
- Cascaded 156s and 158s replacing Pacers, 150s and 153s.

* Network Rail proposals for platform lengthening seem to be allowing for 23m carriage length (class 156 or 158 length) on services up to around 75 minutes in length and 24m carriage length (long enough for a slightly longer class 170 or 185 carriage) on longer services.

 

[rebmcr]

Obviously 2-car Voyagers aren't doable (221 144), but is the requisite braking equipment all in one of the intermediate carriages?

If 22x's get cascaded to 158 routes, it would probably be useful to shufty them around a bit, and have a mix of 3- 4- 5- and 6-car units to suit various routes' needs.

 

[northwichcat]

Obviously 2-car Voyagers aren't doable (221 144), but is the requisite braking equipment all in one of the intermediate carriages?

If 22x's get cascaded to 158 routes, it would probably be useful to shufty them around a bit, and have a mix of 3- 4- 5- and 6-car units to suit various routes' needs.

I think it would need to be 4, 5 or 6 really due to one coach in each Voyager having a shop or large luggage area which doesn't have external windows, so you can't easily replace it with seats. There's also the issue with a 3 car 22x being similar in seating capacity to a 2 car 156 (even if you take in to account the First Class area) but the 2 car 156 being cheaper to run.

Interestingly in another thread people were discussing reforming the 222s following MML electrification to not have so many variations of train length in the one fleet.

 

[RobShipway]

But surely there would not be enough 22x trains to replace all 158's on the network, so that would mean having to built a new set of trains surely? Unless, you use the class 22x's to replace the 158/159's on South Trains routes to Salisbury/Exeter or you pass the fleet over to say Arriva Trains Wales to replace their class 158 trains, then there is not going to be enough in the 22x fleet to do the replacing, unless you are introducing new built class 172's other than those all ready built.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In terms of the Pacers, they are still soldering on and perhaps that should be a good example of British engineering at *ahem* its best *ahem*. I think they do have a future. If its usable with a bit of tarring up why get rid of it???

I used one of the Class 142 units last night on the Southport to Manchester Airport service and your comment that they are "A good example of British engineering at its best" leaves me in despair. The ride was very poor, the internal decor and door condition left so much to be desired and as a 21st century offering to the British transport scene, a disgrace that should not be tolerated.

The "raison d'etre" trotted out ad nauseum that when new, these units were essential to the continuance of many branch lines seemed somewhat to ring less true in the year 2013, when pulling out of platform 13 at Manchester Piccadilly, the juddering monstrosity was glided past by an 11-car Pendolino en route to London where London-based travellers returning to the metropolis must have been bemused to view something as archaic as our mode of transit on the main line out of Manchester. Even the Manchester Metrolink current "yellow bananas" look at least reflective of the 21st century as a mode of passenger transit that people in this day and age can travel upon. The Class 142 Pacers unfortunately are reflective of all that is wrong with rail passenger transit offered to intending passengers in the year 2013.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

... where London-based travellers returning to the metropolis must have been bemused to view something as archaic as our mode of transit on the main line out of Manchester.

But don't FCC and Southern have the oldest regularly-used mainline stock in the country* in the Class 313s? They run in and out of Kings Cross on weekends and up and down the ECML to Welwyn Garden City and Hertford North and Stevenage seven days a week, as well as in and around Sussex. They are almost a decade older than 142s and aside from the 142's 'bounciness' (which tends to depend on track condition) and seating, there isn't a huge amount of difference between the conditions and comfort of either class...

(* - save the ex-Tube stock on the Isle of Wight and the lightly-used Bubble Cars with Chiltern / ATW.)

 

[tbtc]

I can't see how cascading voyagers/meridians to move sprinters onto pacer routes can work

Neither can I.

Given the lack of seats on Voyagers (compared to Sprinters) you'd need more coaches just to provide the same capacity (i.e. a four coach Voyager wouldn't be a proper replacement for a four coach 158 or even a three coach 170), you'd lose the ability to split services (i.e. you'd need five coaches to cover the Liverpool - Nottingham capacity, but then five coaches would be a waste east of Nottingham).

I also think that it would be a good to use them to try and bring some former XC routes back onto the network, for instance bring Liverpool back onto the XC map.

With CP5 electrification you'll be able to do routes like Liverpool - Portsmouth with (dual voltage) EMUs. Would be a shame to waste more diesels under the wires IMO.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

the 142's 'bounciness' (which tends to depend on track condition)

This is a good point that many miss on Pacer-bashing threads - the lines that Pacers run on really aren't great in places, which exaggerates the ride quality

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But don't FCC and Southern have the oldest regularly-used mainline stock in the country* in the Class 313s?

Matt, much as I respect the defence for the Pacers that you have staunchly and most loyally put forward for so very many past months on this forum, are you really serious when you compare the current condition offered to intending rail passengers by the Class 142 Pacers when compared to the current condition of the Class 313 units ?

Age is something that can be something that can be seen to affect travel modes differently, when the basic products can be in need of comparison with each other. Even allowing for the fact that I experienced a stroke at the age of 67 and am not quite as mobile as I would have been, people who see the gentleman resident as my nearest neighbour half a mile from us who is only 63, is said to look 10 years older than me. It is all a question of how age can affect differently.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

You however did appear to imply that the London did not have such 'arachaic' and poor-condition stock as the North does running in and out of its cities. I disproved that with the examples I gave. I am well aware that the Pacers are in worse conditon internally but by absolutely no means whatsoever is the South short on such aged stock. Let's not forget either that FCC 313s have the same (or very, very similar to) seating as Northern 144s!

 

[RobShipway]

Matt, much as I respect the defence for the Pacers that you have staunchly and most loyally put forward for so very many past months on this forum, are you really serious when you compare the current condition offered to intending rail passengers by the Class 142 Pacers when compared to the current condition of the Class 313 units ?

Age is something that can be something that can be seen to affect travel modes differently, when the basic products can be in need of comparison with each other. Even allowing for the fact that I experienced a stroke at the age of 67 and am not quite as mobile as I would have been, people who see the gentleman resident as my nearest neighbour half a mile from us who is only 63, is said to look 10 years older than me. It is all a question of how age can affect differently.

I have to agree with your comments Paul, even though I am some 20 plus years younger than you. If you look at some of my colleagues at work you say that some where in the fifties as they have greying hair or little or no hair, yet these people in question are some actually some 2 to 3 years younger than me with them only just getting into their forties.

But getting back on the subject here, I have been on both the class 142's and class three a few times and without a doubt can say that the ride of the Class 313 is a lot smoother, but then it is the better built product out of the two trains.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This is a good point that many miss on Pacer-bashing threads - the lines that Pacers run on really aren't great in places, which exaggerates the ride quality

That is still not much to give confidence to intending rail travellers on those lines where the Class 142 Pacers are the norm. May I be so bold as to hark back to the earlier days of bicycle construction and state that the poor ride of the "boneshakers" had much to do with the lack of any "damping" suspension on those items rather than the conditions of the roads that they did so traverse.

 

[Surreyman]

I'm not sure. 144s seem to ride better than 142s - 144 carriages are also much heavier than 142 carriages.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


For one thing the ATOC proposals posted a few weeks back did not actually say no new DMUs in CP5 but said no DMUs being replaced by brand new DMUs, they allowed for a small number of new additional DMUs for growth.

Relating to how cascades would work I would envisage:
- Voyagers and Meridians replacing class 170s and 158s on services over 2 hours in length.
- Class 170s and class 185s going on to the Sprinter routes of over 75 minutes in length.*
- Cascaded 156s and 158s replacing Pacers, 150s and 153s.

Agree with your cascade proposals but confused by your use of the word 'replacing'.
Do you mean replacing as in displacing or as in sending to the scrapyard?
With growing passenger numbers, lack of funds for new trains, the name of the game has to refurbishing older trains for another 10 years life, effectively increasing the overall fleet of trains (and by definition number of seats), OK there may be some engineering issues, i.e sagging in 153s, severe corrosion etc.
Available paths may be problem but running 150s and pacers as 4 car trains as the norm has to be priority.