Porterbrook to create Pacer demonstrator (now unveiled)

[Bletchleyite]

Firstly, given the number of lengthy routes the Pacers run, it would be unacceptable to have toiletless trains on these. With this in mind, it would be impractical and reduce flexibility to have a small sub group of toiletless trains just for a few short routes scattered across the network.

I don't, to be fair, think toiletless trains are a good idea anywhere. But it wouldn't surprise me if that option were looked at, with them being used on the kind of short-distance services that don't *really* need them, such as Manchester area locals like the Marple service, or Ormskirk-Preston, or similar.

Neil

 

[Bakerloo]

Them 142s are sexy trains

Joking aside, surely the money would be far better spent on investing in newer trains? At this rate, Pacers will be around for another 20 years at least!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Them 142s are sexy trains

Joking aside, surely the money would be far better spent on investing in newer trains? At this rate, Pacers will be around for another 20 years at least!

At £800K per vehicle it would seem poor value - but I suspect the £800K is substantially research and development, and an actual implementation would be orders of magnitude cheaper.

Neil

 

[samuelmorris]

This is what I was wondering - a lot has been published about how much these demonstrator units cost to make, but I've seen very little about the estimated per-unit cost of actually fitting out the whole fleet the same way. £800,000 for a 2-car 143 is pretty damn steep, but then I seem to recall the development cost being placed in excess of £4 million for the 321 demonstrator, with not much said about how much it would cost to do the rest of the fleet. That said, there are a couple of (in my opinion) fairly serious design flaws with the 321 demonstrator that could really do with a bit more R&D before putting into practice (not that I imagine they will!).

Realistically, if pacers can be made to meet all the modern requirements for a suitable cost, extending their lives to the mid to late 2020s seems like a suitable way of getting round the rolling stock crisis until as much as possible is wired up since new build DMUs are pretty much outlawed these days. The caveat of course is that it shouldn't prevent the units being cheap to lease, as then it will be a waste.

 

[455driver]

At £800K per vehicle it would seem poor value - but I suspect the £800K is substantially research and development, and an actual implementation would be orders of magnitude cheaper.

Neil

172s were about £1,500,000 per carriage (or something like that) so at least double the cost of these rebuilds.

Would you like 200 rebuilt DMU vehicles or 100 new build DMU vehicles, if the latter what are you going to do to make up the shortfall?

 

[Bletchleyite]

172s were about £1,500,000 per carriage (or something like that) so at least double the cost of these rebuilds.

A 172 is 2x23m, a Pacer is 2x16m, so that isn't entirely clear cut. But the answer to that will depend on (a) whether that's an R&D cost with production vehicles much cheaper (I suspect so), and (b) on what timescale these DMUs are needed, as obviously new ones will last much longer.

A realistic solution may well be a bit of both.

Neil

 

[Wavertreelad]

Firstly, given the number of lengthy routes the Pacers run, it would be unacceptable to have toiletless trains on these. With this in mind, it would be impractical and reduce flexibility to have a small sub group of toiletless trains just for a few short routes scattered across the network.

I seem recall we have been this road before, but a 142 coupled to 150 or 156 might not require a loo especially if they were only used at peak time services. Having said that by 2020 there could be plenty of dmu's to go round to avoid the problem in the first place.

 

[jon0844]

At £800K per vehicle it would seem poor value - but I suspect the £800K is substantially research and development, and an actual implementation would be orders of magnitude cheaper.

Neil

Most of that £800k is for consultancy fees and advertising the modification plans. They'll then spend 75p on each carriage (give or take 74p).

 

[ryan125hst]

I don't, to be fair, think toiletless trains are a good idea anywhere.

I agree with you. People with disabilities, weak bladders may need to use an onboard toilet, and small children often need to go as soon as they say so.

I've used a Pacer toilet before after drinking a bottle of Fanta before setting off from Nottingham. I haven't got the biggest bladder in the world and had to go on the train to Retford despite visiting the toilets when changing trains at Sheffield . It would have been an uncomfortable journey had the train not had a toilet (although I wouldn't have drunk much in that situation anyway).

I seem recall we have been this road before, but a 142 coupled to 150 or 156 might not require a loo especially if they were only used at peak time services. Having said that by 2020 there could be plenty of dmu's to go round to avoid the problem in the first place.

Personally, I think the best thing to do would be to dispose of the Class 142's as no-one has ever recommended refurbishing them and they are the worst of the Pacers. Then Porterbrook's idea of refurbishing the Class 143's and 144's would be a good idea if an accessible toilet was fitted (see here). The refurbished Pacers will then be able to work on branch lines and maybe increase the service frequency on them. One that springs to mind is the Cleethorpes to Barton-on-Humber service, currently a Class 153 every two hours. A refurbished Class 144 will have more seats than a Class 153 (109 on a 144 currently, 90 on a refurbished 144 (two car of course) and around 70 for a 153). They, may be able to start offering an hourly service as long as cascaded Sprinters could be used on mainline services.

I also feel that refurbished Pacers would be ideal trains to allow new services to be tested. Take Sheffield to Cleethorpes via Retford and Gainsborough- currently there's only three trains each way on a Saturday. Refurbished Class 144's could be used to make the service a more frequent Monday to Saturday service. If passenger numbers are good, better trains could be built or cascaded, but only once the line has proved viable.

I think the Sprinters should run only with other Sprinters (156+153 or 150+150 for example) and used on busier commuter lines.

 

[455driver]

Personally, I think the best thing to do would be to dispose of the Class 142's as no-one has ever recommended refurbishing them and they are the worst of the Pacers.

So what is going to replace the 180 pacer carriages you are scrapping then?

 

[alexl92]

So what is going to replace the 180 pacer carriages you are scrapping then?

A horse and carriage would be an improvement.

Question: Other than bodywork, I've never noticed any difference between Northern's 142s and 144s... why does everyone say that 144s are better? They're all horrendously bad to me...

 

[61653 HTAFC]

A horse and carriage would be an improvement.

Question: Other than bodywork, I've never noticed any difference between Northern's 142s and 144s... why does everyone say that 144s are better? They're all horrendously bad to me...

The different body construction (smoother, no rivets) does make a big difference to passenger perceptions, as does the improved seating. A quick look at the cab partition on each shows how the 142 seems more of a rushed job compared to the 144.

Though when the best thing about a train is that "it's not a 142" there's still plenty of room for improvement!

 

[sprinterguy]

What are they actually going to do? Any idea?

Presumably most or all of the changes suggested in this brochure:
www.porterbrook.co.uk/downloads/brochures/14x Brochure.pdf

(See pages 11 and 14 for the full list of possible modifications)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So what is going to replace the 180 pacer carriages you are scrapping then?

Transpennine electrification, Valley Lines electrification, cascaded Network Turbos (Bristol area) and cascaded class 185s (possibly to Northern services?). Granted, the timescale for some of these means it is likely that a dispensation will be required to keep some 142s running for a couple of years beyond the 2019 deadline, and I am sceptical that these schemes are sufficient to allow for the withdrawal of all class 142s, but they should all go some way to allowing 142 withdrawal.

Ideally we should have had a new build of DMUs to replace some of the Pacers when Northern Spirit were toying with the “Turbostar Traveller” concept in around 2000.

 

[northwichcat]

172s were about £1,500,000 per carriage (or something like that) so at least double the cost of these rebuilds.

Would you like 200 rebuilt DMU vehicles or 100 new build DMU vehicles, if the latter what are you going to do to make up the shortfall?

LM claimed their 172s (69 vehicles) costed £93m: http://www.londonmidland.com/your-journey/journey-planning/a-new-era-for-the-snow-hill-lines/ which would probably make £1.5m the cost of a 2 car 172 not the cost of a carriage. I imagine the centre cars would have been cheaper than the driving cars.

A 172 is 2x23m, a Pacer is 2x16m, so that isn't entirely clear cut.

Even bigger difference than that. 172s have 23.6m carriages and Pacers have 15.5m carriages. Like I pointed out before some of the 4 car 142 combinations at Northern could be operated by a 3 car 172 instead.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ideally we should have had a new build of DMUs to replace some of the Pacers when Northern Spirit were toying with the “Turbostar Traveller” concept in around 2000.

Perhaps - though there have been a large number of new DMU builds and cascades as a result, there has just also been a lot of growth which was completely unexpected in the 1990s.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

LM claimed their 172s (69 vehicles) costed £93m: http://www.londonmidland.com/your-journey/journey-planning/a-new-era-for-the-snow-hill-lines/ which would probably make £1.5m the cost of a 2 car 172 not the cost of a carriage. I imagine the centre cars would have been cheaper than the driving cars.

Eh? 93 / 69 = about 1.5, so about £1.5m per vehicle as they stated, not per unit

Even bigger difference than that. 172s have 23.6m carriages and Pacers have 15.5m carriages. Like I pointed out before some of the 4 car 142 combinations at Northern could be operated by a 3 car 172 instead.

Possibly, though with that we risk the mistakes of BR's 3-for-2 policy, remembering that most local-use 1st generation DMUs were 18m long and wasted a lot of space on the van area. With likely growth, 4-for-4, but with the new 4 being 23m, makes more sense - just as LM replaced 2x20m with 2x23m and in some cases 3x23m.

Neil

 

[sprinterguy]

Possibly, though with that we risk the mistakes of BR's 3-for-2 policy, remembering that most local-use 1st generation DMUs were 18m long and wasted a lot of space on the van area. With likely growth, 4-for-4, but with the new 4 being 23m, makes more sense - just as LM replaced 2x20m with 2x23m and in some cases 3x23m.

Neil

The 3 x 23m units replaced 3 x 20m class 150 formations. In terms of number of carriages, the LM replacement of class 150s with 172s was essentially like for like (but, as you say, with longer vehicles).

If you were to replace a pair of Pacers with a 3-car class 172 you would still get a 70 metre long train in place of a 62 metre long one.

 

[northwichcat]

Eh? 93 / 69 = about 1.5, so about £1.5m per vehicle as they stated, not per unit

Too little sleep last night.

However, 93/69 = 1.3782 so rounding it up to 1.5 would give you a figure of £103.5m for 69 carriages, which is over £10m more than the figure LM gave.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Too little sleep last night.

However, 93/69 = 1.3782 so rounding it up to 1.5 would give you a figure of £103.5m for 69 carriages, which is over £10m more than the figure LM gave.

I think it's close enough. 1.3782m is "about 1.5 million", at least to the Press.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

If you were to replace a pair of Pacers with a 3-car class 172 you would still get a 70 metre long train in place of a 62 metre long one.

Indeed.

One thing to remember is Northern's west side diagrams are (in order of capacity):
142
150
156
142+142
142+150
150+150
150+156
156+156

Going from a 142 to a 150 gives around 30 extra seats, while going from a 156 to a 142+142 gives around 70 extra seats so there will likely be some services operated by 142+142 which already have some spare capacity.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think it's close enough. 1.3782m is "about 1.5 million", at least to the Press.

If an 8.84% margin of error is acceptable in your view. The press would be all over a 8.84% margin of error if DfT made it.

 

[Emyr]

According to Angel, Class 142s are 2.8M (9'4") wide, although this seems to be the same as the widest point on the C1 gauge.

The widest currently produced single-decker bus is about 2.5m (8'4") wide, so you'd need to widen the body.

C1 says the entrance step must be no wider than 2744m.


Enviro200 body on a Pacer chassis, worth a shot?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If an 8.84% margin of error is acceptable in your view. The press would be all over a 8.84% margin of error if DfT made it.

The Press of course are "all over" anything, and not always for good reason.

When discussing such large sums of money in this kind of abstract manner, to the nearest £0.5 million is probably fine.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Enviro200 body on a Pacer chassis, worth a shot?

Well, there was the Networker Classic project which never went forward, a proposal to put a modified (=cheapened) Electrostar body onto Mk1 EMU chassis.

I can see there being a benefit in creating a modern Pacer, but I'd suggest using something like the new Manchester high-floor trams as a base for such a thing, rather than using flat-wagons a la Pacer.

(Edit: Or I suppose the Class 139 Parry People Mover kind-of *is* a modern day mini Pacer - it certainly has a bus derived body)

Neil

 

[Parallel]

A million quid on a Pacer refurbishment? Might as well invent a new version for that price! the 143s down here go off lease next year - will they be released or is the internal 165 > 150 > 143 cascade happening a damn sooner than I imagined?

I can't see the majority of the Thames Valley being electrified in time for the end of the lease for the FGW 143s - And the 150s and 158s can't go anywhere until the 166s and 165s arrive here... Perhaps they'll sort out something a little more short term. FGW can't really afford to be 7 units short, especially considering how stretched the West fleet is anyway. Who knows, maybe they'll go for something long term if they're impressed with the Pacer demonstrator and eventually cascade them to shorter metro lines. Some stock for Bristol - Portishead would be good!

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Porterbrook may as well purchase some of the 142's, strip the bodywork off and get Bombairder (however its spelt) to build some new centre coaches for the 143's and 144's including the three car ones on the old 142 chassis. This way one coach can be fitted with a DDA applicable bog the other is laden full with seats.

Off topic but the 150/1's and the 150/2's could be merged into a new /3 sub class although it depends on how many 150/1's you have in order to create a non standard four car class 150 by using the /2's (with cab the cabs facing each other) in the middle.


Its like for like, but if money is tight then its the only way to go.

 

[Rapidash]

In the not overly distant future, the peaks in/out of Exeter will need to go 5 or 6 coaches long, as even the x2 150's are getting rammed full these days. The Sprogling Express somehow ends up full even when its headed down to Paignton, and that departs Exeter mid afternoon.

Think everywhere barring SJP/Exton could fit that?

Three carriages long, either Pacer or Sprinter as the norm would seem like an excellent idea to me, in my spectacularly-not-that-knowledgeable mind.

 

[The Ham]

Also, even if the cost per seat is the same or even double then because of the potential life span differences then the cost per seat per year would still be better value. Even if a new vehicle ended up being unneeded in say 20 years time.

 

[Greybeard33]

Porterbrook may as well purchase some of the 142's, strip the bodywork off and get Bombairder (however its spelt) to build some new centre coaches for the 143's and 144's including the three car ones on the old 142 chassis. This way one coach can be fitted with a DDA applicable bog the other is laden full with seats.

Would such a drastic rebuild not be considered to be a new class of vehicle, which would therefore have to meet the latest emissions and crashworthiness requirements? There must be a limit to how far the Pacers' "grandfather rights" can be stretched. A Pacer-sized carriage full of exhaust particulate filters and crumple zones would hardly have any space left for passengers!

 

[alexl92]

How long are we going to continue squeezing the last dregs of life out of these blasted cattle trucks? Someone at the DfT needs to grow a pair and place a large order for a new class of DMU (3 - 6-car variants) to be ready in 5 or 6 years time. Worry about financing it later... someone can do some creative accounting or something.

Every million you spend on making a pacer marginally less repulsive is a wasted million that could have gone towards a new train.

I know the cost of a new train is way way above the cost of a refurb but if feels now like the DfT are avoiding the problem and pretending it can be solved by a lick of paint.

 

[WatcherZero]

That's the problem, we need more diesels today but in 5-6 years time we may only need a handful as sprinters and turbostars released by electrification take over pacer duties.

 

[alexl92]

That's the problem, we need more diesels today but in 5-6 years time we may only need a handful as sprinters and turbostars released by electrification take over pacer duties.

Personally, if there was a surplus of DMUs I'd start to withdraw the 150s. I know they're only 30 years old and not life expired but if the last Northern example I travelled on is anything to go by, they're really not that pleasant to travel on compared to newer trains. I'd sell a number to preservation and keep a few more as reserves and spare parts.

I also don't think having spare DMUs is a terrible idea. The downside of electification is that if the power goes down, everything grinds to a halt, so having DMUs that can pick up the work if needed, even on a reduced timetable, is a good idea. Also, TPE are a great example of why you should always be prepared for growth beyond what's predicted, so to have spare stock for the first time in years would be great.

 

[deltic08]

Porterbrook may as well purchase some of the 142's, strip the bodywork off and get Bombairder (however its spelt) to build some new centre coaches for the 143's and 144's including the three car ones on the old 142 chassis. This way one coach can be fitted with a DDA applicable bog the other is laden full with seats.

Off topic but the 150/1's and the 150/2's could be merged into a new /3 sub class although it depends on how many 150/1's you have in order to create a non standard four car class 150 by using the /2's (with cab the cabs facing each other) in the middle.


Its like for like, but if money is tight then its the only way to go.

The problem with Pacers is the awful jerky ride especially on curves due to non articulation and their inability to stop when required on a greasy rail. Rebodying will not change that. They were designed as a short term stopgap for no longer than 15 years. They have done well but are now knackered and need scrapping as electrification comes on stream. As has been quoted many times about Pacers, you cannot polish a turd.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How long are we going to continue squeezing the last dregs of life out of these blasted cattle trucks? Someone at the DfT needs to grow a pair and place a large order for a new class of DMU (3 - 6-car variants) to be ready in 5 or 6 years time. Worry about financing it later... someone can do some creative accounting or something.

Every million you spend on making a pacer marginally less repulsive is a wasted million that could have gone towards a new train.

I know the cost of a new train is way way above the cost of a refurb but if feels now like the DfT are avoiding the problem and pretending it can be solved by a lick of paint.

I totally agree. The DfT and Network Rail didn't worry about spending £34m repairing Dawlish seawall. They just got on with it because it was essential. Just get on and electrify lines where Pacers are used or where more modern DMUs are used. Paddington-Oxford/Newbury should be completed using 387s before Didcot-Bristol/Cardiff is even started releasing 165s for the West Country earlier than planned. 150/158s can then cascade North to replace some Pacers.