Pacers have a future.

[Greybeard33]

It seems there's no easy answer here. If push came to shove they'd have no choice but to start tinkering with services I suspect. I'm not saying it would morally be the right thing to do, but a 2020 exemption hasn't been completely ruled out yet has it?

The Industry Strategic Business Plan for England and Wales (linked from http://www.networkrail.co.uk/publications/industry-strategic-business-plan-for-cp5/) has this to say on the subject (my bolding):

Compliance with accessibility legislation

During CP5 compliance with the Persons of Reduced Mobility - Technical Specification for Interoperability (PRM-TSI) will require considerable investment in older trains. DfT has worked with the ROSCOs to agree the scope of the modifications required for PRM-TSI. It has taken a pragmatic approach, which is welcome, given the difficult trade-off between cost and service life of older vehicles. Assuming retention of the existing pragmatic approach, it is estimated that the costs of compliance with the PRM-TSI will be £150-175 million. These costs will be incurred during CP5 and it is expected that they will be financed by the ROSCOs and amortised into leasing costs.

There is likely to be a peak of activity in 2017-2019 and franchisees may need to have the ability from DfT to reduce service levels slightly to make vehicles available for workshop visits to achieve this. At present, no allowance for lower fleet availability has been built into franchise agreements. The options of seeking a change to the law to permit a longer timescale for these modifications or further review of PRM-TSI scope for vehicles with a short life expectancy or very low use remain.

It is also noteworthy that the ATOC document does not even mention PRM-TSI requirements as affecting future fleet capacity.

The Pacers do complain when they are heavily loaded and in protest they accelerate very slowly and run late.

They also complain, with piercing shrieks of protest, when forced around sharp curves, like the chord between Skelton Junction and Deansgate Junction!

 

[northwichcat]

They also complain, with piercing shrieks of protest, when forced around sharp curves, like the chord between Skelton Junction and Deansgate Junction!

To be fair the 150s complain a bit around that stretch but being on a 142 on that stretch is deafening on a summer day when the windows are open.

 

[WatcherZero]

Jcollins, I think as we have both pointed out while its physically possible to make them compliant its both expensive and a reduction in capacity such that even if it was an economical solution (and for a small number of conversions it might be) there may not be suitable places to operate to make converting the whole fleets worthwhile. The refurbished Pacerswith toilets may be suitable for some low load rural routes like Cumbria and Wales when running in pairs, routes that are currently or have recently been operated by a single 153 for example. The majority of the pacers currently work short urban and suburban routes, usually in multiple, and I fail to see how they would be suitable after modification.

 

[sprinterguy]

The CGI image looks pretty nice though.

Although Pacers usually seem quite bright internally by virtue of their large windows, I don't think that any refurbishment will manage to make a Pacer look that sparkly

 

[YorkshireBear]

Concerning that we are are considering reducing services just to get units compliant. Feels like a very backwards step. Surely that sentence there gives us a reason for one last DMU order.....

 

[Bevan Price]

Concerning that we are are considering reducing services just to get units compliant. Feels like a very backwards step. Surely that sentence there gives us a reason for one last DMU order.....

Well, not trains, but several councils have used non-compliance with disability regulations as a flimsy excuse for closing their public toilets.

 

[Harbon 1]

Although Pacers usually seem quite bright internally by virtue of their large windows, I don't think that any refurbishment will manage to make a Pacer look that sparkly

Ii was gonna say! I doubt they'd look like that when their done! And I hope the connecting gangway bit (forgotten the name ) is wide enough for wheelchairs, otherwiise they'll have to pick a side and hope their station is on the same side!

 

[tbtc]

Concerning that we are are considering reducing services just to get units compliant. Feels like a very backwards step. Surely that sentence there gives us a reason for one last DMU order.....

Remember this is at a time when the Sprinter fleet is going to need to have several units out of service at any one time to upgrade 150/153/155/156/158/159s to be compliant with the new regulations too - things may be tight.

 

[Buttsy]

Ii was gonna say! I doubt they'd look like that when their done! And I hope the connecting gangway bit (forgotten the name ) is wide enough for wheelchairs, otherwiise they'll have to pick a side and hope their station is on the same side!

Seeing Roger Ford's bit in MR, the vestible is going to be widened so that a wheelchair can get through.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Well, not trains, but several councils have used non-compliance with disability regulations as a flimsy excuse for closing their public toilets.

Considering that we are considering the most basic mode of human needs in terms of travel by discussing Pacers, the introduction of public toilets into the thread seems to be a most opportune comparison to introduce into the discussion.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Remember this is at a time when the Sprinter fleet is going to need to have several units out of service at any one time to upgrade 150/153/155/156/158/159s to be compliant with the new regulations too - things may be tight.

That is what i mean, the fact that we are going to need to reduce service levels just so enough units can be out of service to ensure upgrades are complete shows that the government has failed with its rolling stock strategies. Equal blame should of course lie with ROSCOs.
Furthers what we have said in previous threads though doesn't it. We will need another DMU order.... :/
I'm sure this will delight some people on here but i can see more services like the gloex appearing over the next 8 years.

 

[The Ham]

Remember this is at a time when the Sprinter fleet is going to need to have several units out of service at any one time to upgrade 150/153/155/156/158/159s to be compliant with the new regulations too - things may be tight.

It maybe possible that between now and the end of 2019 that enough lines get electrified early enough to allow the cascading of DMU's to provide spare trains to allow units to be out of service for long enough before the end of 2019.

Even ignoring electrification there will be a whole load of IC125's which will be available between the start of roll out for IEP and 2019.

Either way it only becomes a problem on the 1st of Jan 2020 as to whether there is enough trains.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Either way it only becomes a problem on the 1st of Jan 2020 as to whether there is enough trains.

If compliance to an Act of Parliament is deemed to be so, on a mode of transport that is used by the electorate that has Members of Parliament to represent them there, then Parliament should enact measures which ensure that are taken to achieve such compliance from the enactment of that said Act to the final date of enactment. If this means the building of new units to achieve this compliance, then that should be the case.

 

[northwichcat]

Concerning that we are are considering reducing services just to get units compliant. Feels like a very backwards step. Surely that sentence there gives us a reason for one last DMU order.....

I'm wondering what the cost would be of diesel or hybrid tram-trains seating 120-150 or the Pacer replacement design that CSRE came up with (that could be good for up to 25 years) compared to the proposed Pacer refurbishment that might only be good until around 2025.

While tram-trains or the CSRE design may not be ideal, if it's a choice of one of those or refurbished Pacers then the refurbished Pacers may provide poorer value for money.

The thread title is actually misleading. It should be "Some Pacers may have a future if refurbishment scheme goes ahead.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If compliance to an Act of Parliament is deemed to be so, on a mode of transport that is used by the electorate that has Members of Parliament to represent them there, then Parliament should enact measures which ensure that are taken to achieve such compliance from the enactment of that said Act to the final date of enactment. If this means the building of new units to achieve this compliance, then that should be the case.

Yes. An exemption order (other than one for minor infringements only) should only be used if for some reason a class of complaint trains are grounded for safety concerns

 

[Greybeard33]

I'm wondering what the cost would be of diesel or hybrid tram-trains seating 120-150 or the Pacer replacement design that CSRE came up with (that could be good for up to 25 years) compared to the proposed Pacer refurbishment that might only be good until around 2025.

It seems unlikely that diesel or hybrid tram-trains will be affordable as a general Pacer replacement. The NR Draft Alternative Solutions RUS says:

The tram train pilot understands that there may now be bi-mode tram train products which are under development. The question of order size is likely to be an issue for any purchase of tram train vehicles as they are individually unlikely to be of a sufficient size to realise economies of scale or continuity of production.

Diesel tram trains represent only a percentage of an already small global market for tram train rolling stock. This strategy has therefore assumed because of the experience of the tram train pilot and the highly bespoke nature of the diesel tram train product that electric tram trains are the most likely option.

The TfGM response indicates that electrification (presumably of the Marple and Atherton lines) is now included in its Manchester tram-train proposals.

The draft RUS also concludes that tram-trains are only likely to be a viable option for services into cities that have an existing on-street tramway system, which only applies to a small proportion of Pacer services. The AECOM response suggests that a so-called "heavy tram" or "train-tram" is more appropriate for services that run entirely on segregated track.

 

[northwichcat]

It seems unlikely that diesel or hybrid tram-trains will be affordable as a general Pacer replacement. The NR Draft Alternative Solutions RUS says:
The TfGM response indicates that electrification (presumably of the Marple and Atherton lines) is now included in its Manchester tram-train proposals.

The draft RUS also concludes that tram-trains are only likely to be a viable option for services into cities that have an existing on-street tramway system, which only applies to a small proportion of Pacer services. The AECOM response suggests that a so-called "heavy tram" or "train-tram" is more appropriate for services that run entirely on segregated track.

Unfortunately then it'll likely mean future tram-train schemes won't be in operation any time soon. It'll probably be at least two years after the Sheffield trial before any new electrification can be completed.

 

[yorksrob]

Unfortunately then it'll likely mean future tram-train schemes won't be in operation any time soon. It'll probably be at least two years after the Sheffield trial before any new electrification can be completed.

I use the Atherton line regularly, and I certainly don't look forward to pootling around the streets of Manchester rather than getting to Victoria where I generally need to be. They need to think of better ideas than turning everything that moves into a tram.

 

[317666]

That is why I said in an early post that replacing the pacers and even the likes of the 156's, should be new class 172's as they have better acceleration that 170's or 185's etc... I believe?

The 150s and 156s still have a lot of life left in them though, to the point that I think by the time they are in need of replacement, a more up-to-date design than the 172 will be available.

 

[northwichcat]

I use the Atherton line regularly, and I certainly don't look forward to pootling around the streets of Manchester rather than getting to Victoria where I generally need to be. They need to think of better ideas than turning everything that moves into a tram.

Given some lines have already been converted to Metrolink there are some practical uses for tram-trains but some of the practical uses tend to extend out of TfGM's area so they have less control over them such as:
* Northwich to Victoria via Sale
* Rawtenstall to Piccadilly via Bury
* Stockport to Manchester Airport via Baguley. Maybe start some services from the Denton line?

The CLC line via Warrington Central has a few options as well with an option for a tram-train line between Liverpool South Parkway and Liverpool Airport being considered as well as almost meeting up with the Metrolink lines in the Deansgate area.

Not sure why Marple and Atherton are prioritised so highly.

 

[Greybeard33]

Given some lines have already been converted to Metrolink there are some practical uses for tram-trains but some of the practical uses tend to extend out of TfGM's area so they have less control over them such as:
* Northwich to Victoria via Sale
* Rawtenstall to Piccadilly via Bury
* Stockport to Manchester Airport via Baguley. Maybe start some services from the Denton line?

The CLC line via Warrington Central has a few options as well with an option for a tram-train line between Liverpool South Parkway and Liverpool Airport being considered as well as almost meeting up with the Metrolink lines in the Deansgate area.

Not sure why Marple and Atherton are prioritised so highly.

Maybe because they are heavily subsidised Manchester commuter lines, and are entirely within the TfGM area? The other TfGM priority is the Glossop/Hadfield line, which does extend over the Derbyshire border, but has the advantage of being already electrified (I presume dual-voltage tram-trains would be used, to avoid the cost of converting it back from AC to DC again).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Maybe because they are heavily subsidised Manchester commuter lines, and are entirely within the TfGM area? The other TfGM priority is the Glossop/Hadfield line, which does extend over the Derbyshire border, but has the advantage of being already electrified (I presume dual-voltage tram-trains would be used, to avoid the cost of converting it back from AC to DC again).

Could I ask if the aspiration for tram-train services to access the central core of Manchester be at all feasible, even with the Second City Crossing being built, when the city-centre road-running sections are fully operational with all the services on the lines still under construction, such as the Airport line.

Where will the extra line-access capacity be found in the central core be found to allow these aspirations to come to maturity ?

 

[northwichcat]

Maybe because they are heavily subsidised Manchester commuter lines, and are entirely within the TfGM area? The other TfGM priority is the Glossop/Hadfield line, which does extend over the Derbyshire border, but has the advantage of being already electrified (I presume dual-voltage tram-trains would be used, to avoid the cost of converting it back from AC to DC again).

Glossop and Hadfield stations are under the control of TfGM despite being in Derbyshire.

 

[Greybeard33]

Could I ask if the aspiration for tram-train services to access the central core of Manchester be at all feasible, even with the Second City Crossing being built, when the city-centre road-running sections are fully operational with all the services on the lines still under construction, such as the Airport line.

Where will the extra line-access capacity be found in the central core be found to allow these aspirations to come to maturity ?

I understand that the TfGM studies show it is feasible in respect of city centre track capacity. The tram-train services from Marple and Glossop/Hadfield could continue through Cornbrook and on to the south, replacing some of the tram services that would otherwise terminate at Piccadilly. Therefore there would not be many additional paths needed through the city centre.

Whether the tram-train conversion is necessary, desirable or cost effective is another matter, considering that the Northern Hub and other planned NR improvements will enable increases in heavy rail capacity/service frequency on these lines anyway. I suspect that TfGM's ardour for tram-train may cool if future changes in franchising arrangements give it more control over Manchester heavy rail services.

 

[sheff'd victoria]

Maybe because they are heavily subsidised Manchester commuter lines, and are entirely within the TfGM area? The other TfGM priority is the Glossop/Hadfield line, which does extend over the Derbyshire border, but has the advantage of being already electrified (I presume dual-voltage tram-trains would be used, to avoid the cost of converting it back from AC to DC again).

I know this subject causes a storm with the " Woodhead Route " fans, it would be good for a tram-train to run on this route but only if provisions were put in place if the Woodhead Route re-open again to mainline traffic.

 

[yorksrob]

I know this subject causes a storm with the " Woodhead Route " fans, it would be good for a tram-train to run on this route but only if provisions were put in place if the Woodhead Route re-open again to mainline traffic.

It seems hard to see how such a scheme wouldn't kill off any future reopening of Woodhead altogether.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Glossop and Hadfield stations are under the control of TfGM despite being in Derbyshire.

Does the railway station of Dinting also come under Derbyshire County Council for geographical location purposes and administrative services, but is another such railway station as both Glossop and Hadfield that comes under the control of TfGM?

 

[Greybeard33]

I know this subject causes a storm with the " Woodhead Route " fans, it would be good for a tram-train to run on this route but only if provisions were put in place if the Woodhead Route re-open again to mainline traffic.

The point of tram-trains is that they can share the track with heavy rail, unlike conventional trams. In the case of the Hadfield line, the proposal is that the tram-trains would use shared track between Hyde Junction and Ashburys, before diverging to a new alignment to join the Ashton-Piccadilly Metrolink line. Equally, the line between Hyde Junction and Hadfield could be shared, in the unlikely event of the Woodhead route reopening.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't see how you're supposed to diagram mainline trains when you have trams arriving at unpredictable times. I could see it working if the tram part had it's own dedicated track (basically a branch without signalling) but that's not the case with central Manchester.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

As TfGM hates trains so much I am surprised they haven't coverted every line possible to either Metrolink or Tram Trains, I am not a Tram lover (obviously) and they have a place but to destroy the Railway network and lose peoples jobs is hardly something I would promote.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The draft RUS also concludes that tram-trains are only likely to be a viable option for services into cities that have an existing on-street tramway system, which only applies to a small proportion of Pacer services.

Whilst page 2 of the TfGM response to the main document states...."Tram-train offers the prospect of creating a similar transformation of several more suburban rail lines in Greater Manchester"...., it does not name any of these stated rail lines, in that letter from TfGM to Network Rail dated 30th April 2012.

Nearly a year now has elapsed since the TfGM submission was sent in that letter. Is there anything new to report in this interim period, not just regarding TfGM but from the other large neighbouring public authority transport bodies, other what is known to be the case in South Yorkshire and the pre-existing eventual tram-train trials ?