Porterbrook to create Pacer demonstrator (now unveiled)

[47802]

Will any pacers be preserved?

Anybody thinking of preserving them should be given a good flogging in my view
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I asked Tony about Porterbrook response yesterday and he said Porterbrook were going to cancel the trial conversion unless they received assurances over FGW and Welsh franchises.

Well hopefully they will, I carn't see why FGW would want them since they are supposed to be getting cascaded 165/166 further west, I guess the welsh might need them until valley line electrification when ever that might be.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Will any pacers be preserved?

To quote James May "Surely we need only preserve one...as a warning from history."
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Anybody thinking of preserving them should be given a good flogging in my view
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Well hopefully they will, I carn't see why FGW would want them since they are supposed to be getting cascaded 165/166 further west, I guess the welsh might need them until valley line electrification when ever that might be.

If valley lines electrification is only delayed by a couple of years then is it worth the cost of refurbishing pacers?

 

[Rhydgaled]

If valley lines electrification is only delayed by a couple of years then is it worth the cost of refurbishing pacers?

Will have to be refurbished unless they can get a derrogation from TSI-PRM. Which would be cheaper for say a 5yr lease for the ValleyLines as a stop-gap until electrification, Porterbrook's upgraded 144/143 units or the converted D-stock?

 

[northwichcat]

Wow that's impressive if it comes out like that.

The photos show a mockup of the old design Porterbrook came up a few years back for a 143 with the intention of it being used on Valley Lines, not the actual 144 design they started work on. Note the PIS on that design says "Cardiff Central."

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Will any pacers be preserved?

I think the Pacer Preservation Society wants 2-3 of each class saved.
They are an important part of British Rail's history, and I think they could of saved some lines from closure.

I hope Porterbrook do refurbish them all before 2020. And it'll br bad without a refurb soon.
They are many lines which could use 144e Pacers after 2020.
Remember the ITT says Northern can't use them... maybe Transpennine or East Midlands will get extra routes transfered in the future?

 

[Clip]

The photos show a mock of the old design Porterbrook came up a few years back for a 143 with the intention of it being used on Valley Lines, not the actual 144 design they started work on. Note the PIS on that design says "Cardiff Central."

What the PIS says doesnt really matter in the grand scheme of things does it when its just a 3D creation of what something could look like or are you just being really pedantic?

 

[northwichcat]

What the PIS says doesnt really matter in the grand scheme of things does it when its just a 3D creation of what something could look like or are you just being really pedantic?

I'm not being pedantic. The designs used in that article were the wrong ones. The correct ones are the ones that have been printed in the latest Rail magazine and feature a different design as already mentioned on pages 14 and 15 of this thread.

Also as Watcherzero has said it won't now be completed unless DfT confirm the next Great Western or Wales and Borders franchises can use Pacers.

 

[47802]

I think the Pacer Preservation Society wants 2-3 of each class saved.
They are an important part of British Rail's history, and I think they could of saved some lines from closure.

I hope Porterbrook do refurbish them all before 2020. And it'll br bad without a refurb soon.
They are many lines which could use 144e Pacers after 2020.
Remember the ITT says Northern can't use them... maybe Transpennine or East Midlands will get extra routes transfered in the future?

Why would they refurb them significantly if they are not going to be used beyond 2020?, in any case the 143/144's that I have been are generally much better than some of the 142's mainly the merseyrail units which could do with a bit of work even for another 4 to 5 years usage,. I also believe that if the northern 142's had been given a really decent refurb a few years ago and for that matter the sprinter fleet as well there would have been less demand to get rid of them, I Porterbrook were too slow with this demonstrator they should have had it running 12 months ago.

My view is if that the country can afford to build HS2 then it should be able to afford to replace the Railbuses.

Can they be run a special preserved line, preferably one that runs directly to a nuclear waste dump.

 

[Gareth Marston]

I'm not being pedantic. The designs used in that article were the wrong ones. The correct ones are the ones that have been printed in the latest Rail magazine and feature a different design as already mentioned on pages 14 and 15 of this thread.

Also as Watcherzero has said it won't now be completed unless DfT confirm the next Great Western or Wales and Borders franchises can use Pacers.

Welsh Government will have say on Pacers as it will be they who will let the next Wales and Borders franchise.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Will have to be refurbished unless they can get a derrogation from TSI-PRM. Which would be cheaper for say a 5yr lease for the ValleyLines as a stop-gap until electrification, Porterbrook's upgraded 144/143 units or the converted D-stock?

If Valley Lines electrification is deferred to 2025 then the refurbished pacers should be ok, but if it is completed by 2022/3 then can the cost of refurbishing pacers for to TSI-PRM compliance be justified? A degradation untill electrifcation is completed may be embrassing politically but with new/refurbished compliant EMU's it wouldn't be the end of the world.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Welsh Government will have say on Pacers as it will be they who will let the next Wales and Borders franchise.

I carn't see the Welsh Government allowing continued use of pacers when they are being withdrawn on Northern.

 

[WatcherZero]

Realistically you would have to get 10 years out of them for it to be worthwhile, i.e. they would have to be done now really to get any benefit. Great Western wont be tendered till Jan 2018 and begin March 2019, Wales Aug 2017 and Oct 2018.

That would tend to say it would be pointless waiting till after the award to start the conversion work because I don't think anyone seriously thinks even refurbed they would last till the end of the next decade. The only viable option must now be for Porterbrook to find an existing operator and a government backed agreement to do it immediately and to require the following operator to use them in a way that's normally only done for brand new stock in the first third of its life.

 

[daniel3982]

Wonder if they'll end up in Albania or somewhere?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wonder if they'll end up in Albania or somewhere?

Only in a shop selling razor blades.

Neil

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Will any pacers be preserved?

Pacer Preservation Society is after obtaining at least one of the remaining three classes of Pacer.

If I were them I'd keep the first two 142's and the last two and include the former ATN units as well (the only 142 with decent heaters), the first two and last two of the 143's and the 144's again the first two and the last two.

The remaining units can then be stripped for spares. If I had the cash I'd buy a handful of the three car 144's and ask a few heritage railways to see if they wish to take on a Railbus weekend.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think the Pacer Preservation Society wants 2-3 of each class saved.
They are an important part of British Rail's history, and I think they could of saved some lines from closure.

I hope Porterbrook do refurbish them all before 2020. And it'll br bad without a refurb soon.
They are many lines which could use 144e Pacers after 2020.
Remember the ITT says Northern can't use them... maybe Transpennine or East Midlands will get extra routes transfered in the future?

Well some could go to some heritage lines, how I'd love to travel on a Pacer on the Bluebell Railway.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

You'd have to convert them to steam railmotors to get them on the Bluebell!

 

[Gareth Marston]

Realistically you would have to get 10 years out of them for it to be worthwhile, i.e. they would have to be done now really to get any benefit. Great Western wont be tendered till Jan 2018 and begin March 2019, Wales Aug 2017 and Oct 2018.

That would tend to say it would be pointless waiting till after the award to start the conversion work because I don't think anyone seriously thinks even refurbed they would last till the end of the next decade. The only viable option must now be for Porterbrook to find an existing operator and a government backed agreement to do it immediately and to require the following operator to use them in a way that's normally only done for brand new stock in the first third of its life.

They are dead the Valleys will get round it with ex FGW 150 displaced by 165/166 if wiring goes beyond 2020.

 

[alexl92]

Well some could go to some heritage lines, how I'd love to travel on a Pacer on the Bluebell Railway.

I'm sorry, but I have to ask: why?! I can understand why some preserved railways would find uses for them but I cannot understand why you'd want one on the Bluebell of all places!

Just out of interest, would it be possible to convert the pacers to screw link couplings with buffers and brake pipes so you could run them with first gen DMUs?

 

[Llama]

Not without ridiculous expense and re-engineering.

 

[edwin_m]

Preserving more than one of each class sounds like overkill to me - heritage railways won't have much use for them as those that need diesel trains probably all have first-generation DMUs anyway. I doubt we'll see more than a two-car set of 142 and another of either 143 or 144, as the last two are pretty much identical anyway.

 

[WillPS]

4 of each class is unsustainable. A 142, a 3-car 144 and maybe a 143 is plenty.

 

[The Ham]

Just out of interest, would it be possible to convert the pacers to screw link couplings with buffers and brake pipes so you could run them with first gen DMUs?

Why bother, a heritage line with a first gen DMU may be better off selling it to another line and getting a few pacers. As although not as popular with the enthusiasts it would make maintenance easier as there would only be one type of unit to deal with. Given the low speeds of most of the lines there wouldn't be the problems with running them near their top speeds.

 

[edwin_m]

I suspect Pacers and Sprinters would have problems on a 25mph heritage line because the transmission only locks up at a higher speed so they would always be running on torque convertor.

 

[alexl92]

Preserving more than one of each class sounds like overkill to me - heritage railways won't have much use for them as those that need diesel trains probably all have first-generation DMUs anyway. I doubt we'll see more than a two-car set of 142 and another of either 143 or 144, as the last two are pretty much identical anyway.

Somewhere like the Swanage or Keighley, where there is the potential or actual plans in place for commuter services might have use for 2 or 3... maybe a couple of 2-car and a 3-car?

I suspect Pacers and Sprinters would have problems on a 25mph heritage line because the transmission only locks up at a higher speed so they would always be running on torque convertor.

I understood that the 25mph limit was because most stock is slam door... so pacers which have central locking would be permitted to run faster? Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[jimm]

I understood that the 25mph limit was because most stock is slam door... so pacers which have central locking would be permitted to run faster? Correct me if I'm wrong.

The 25mph limit dates back to Light Railway Act Orders, which were the rules preserved railways operated under for many years. The rules now used are much the same. More details here:

http://orr.gov.uk/about-orr/who-we-work-with/rail-infrastructure/minor-and-heritage-railways

The GCR at Loughborough has special permission to operate passenger trains at up to 45mph on its double track section.

 

[SprinterMan]

What is this message from Porterbrook everyone is on about? I can't find it :P

Adam

 

[edwin_m]

The 25mph limit dates back to Light Railway Act Orders, which were the rules preserved railways operated under for many years. The rules now used are much the same. More details here:

http://orr.gov.uk/about-orr/who-we-work-with/rail-infrastructure/minor-and-heritage-railways

The GCR at Loughborough has special permission to operate passenger trains at up to 45mph on its double track section.

Isn't the GCR exemption only for trains with no passengers, when all foot crossings are locked out of use?

Heritage railways are also exempted from having AWS and TPWS and allowed to run Mk1 and earlier stock without restriction. Both of these would be open to question if some trains ran faster while passenger trains were operating, even if the Mk1s themselves were still restricted to 25mph.

 

[jimm]

Isn't the GCR exemption only for trains with no passengers, when all foot crossings are locked out of use?

Heritage railways are also exempted from having AWS and TPWS and allowed to run Mk1 and earlier stock without restriction. Both of these would be open to question if some trains ran faster while passenger trains were operating, even if the Mk1s themselves were still restricted to 25mph.

As I understand it, there is one level of exemption for passenger trains on the GCR and then another for testing of other stock for outside companies, which is allowed at up to 75mph. There is only one foot crossing on the line anyway.

Before we start veering off topic too much, heritage railway speed lints were discussed a couple of years ago here: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=87141

 

[northwichcat]

They are dead the Valleys will get round it with ex FGW 150 displaced by 165/166 if wiring goes beyond 2020.

The released 150s will need a costly refurbishment to make them accessible (and not dump toilet waste on the tracks) as well.

 

[Chris125]

As I understand it, there is one level of exemption for passenger trains on the GCR and then another for testing of other stock for outside companies, which is allowed at up to 75mph. There is only one foot crossing on the line anyway.

I'm happy to be corrected but I believe there's a higher limit for demonstration mail trains (40mph?) and then 75mph for test trains when the railway is closed. Both the SVR and MHR can also run test trains at higher speeds and there may be others.

 

[jimm]

I'm happy to be corrected but I believe there's a higher limit for demonstration mail trains (40mph?) and then 75mph for test trains when the railway is closed. Both the SVR and MHR can also run test trains at higher speeds and there may be others.

Whatever the exact details, the fact remains that GCR has met the requirements to allow trains to run at speeds above 25mph and has ORR approval to do so and other lines could follow suit should they take the necessary steps to satisfy ORR - whether the ability to run Pacers is a good reason to do so, I leave to others to judge...