Porterbrook to create Pacer demonstrator (now unveiled)

[northwichcat]

Porterbrook is spending close to £1 million modifying a Pacer train relating to PRM-TSI (Passengers of Reduced Mobility - Technical Specification for Interoperability) compliance.

Paul Francis, managing director of the rolling stock leasing company, told Transport Select Committee MPS on October 27: “We are doing a Pacer vehicle in Derby, with RVEL [Rail Vehicle Engineering Ltd].

“We are going to put £800,000 into a Pacer vehicle. Notwithstanding everybody’s dissatisfaction, we want to show stakeholders - whether they are people from Northern, people from DFT or politicians, whoever wants to come and see it - what you can genuinely do with that Pacer vehicle to modify it.

“That will form the backstop if the surplus of diesel rolling stock does not materialise and you have to continue to operate Pacer vehicles. We have taken that decision quite independently. We have just decided to invest that money.”

- See more at: http://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/porterbrook-to-modify-pacer#sthash.Kyko2GK3.dpuf

Porterbrook own the 143s (with ATW and FGW) and the 144s (with Northern) so do we know which type of train is going to be the demonstrator? Presumably it won't be a 3 car 144.

 

[WatcherZero]

IF you look at lease end dates a FGW 143 looks most likely unless they have agreed to sub lease one back from a customer. The Budget looks more like a 2 car rather than 3 car unit.

ATW 143 14/10/2018
FGW 143 20/09/2015
Northern 144 2 car 07/02/2016
Northern 144 3 car 07/02/2016

Will keep digging.

Of course to add the 2020 is a deadline not a target, they could have a more limited TSI refurb rather than full mechanical overhaul to see out their lives (and run for a short time beyond 2020 with minor derogations) and the timing of this project may be aimed at getting another five years of service with Northern bidders.

 

[northwichcat]

ATW 143 14/10/2018
FGW 143 20/09/2015
Northern 143 07/02/2016
Northern 144 07/02/2016

Northern don't have any 143s, while their 142s belong to Angel.

 

[Wolfie]

Northern don't have any 143s, while their 142s belong to Angel.

Yet

 

[northwichcat]

Yet

The Duke of Lancaster regiment and the Yorkshire regiment have both agreed to form blockades to prevent that from happening, so they won't get north of Stafford.

 

[Wolfie]

The Duke of Lancaster regiment and the Yorkshire regiment have both agreed to form blockades to prevent that from happening, so they won't get north of Stafford.

But Northern is SO the centre of excellence in Pacer operation and maintenance.....

 

[northwichcat]

But Northern is SO the centre of excellence in Pacer operation and maintenance.....

No. Iran is the worldwide centre of excellence for Pacers.

They dump them in sidings: http://share.bahnforum.info/transfe...e2687fe5a58c9db17011/Iran_2013/IMG_2301_1.JPG

Then buy brand new trains:
http://persiatour24.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/367584_delhi.jpg

Perfect solution!

 

[GatwickDepress]

Surely the DfT are missing a trick here. Simply locate the abandoned Pacers, bring them back here, slap a few purple and blue vinyls on, and hey presto! Northern's stock shortage solved.

 

[Wolfie]

No. Iran is the worldwide centre of excellence for Pacers.

They dumped them in sidings: http://share.bahnforum.info/transfe...e2687fe5a58c9db17011/Iran_2013/IMG_2301_1.JPG

Then buy brand new trains:
http://persiatour24.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/367584_delhi.jpg

Perfect solution!

Not much maintenance in Iran though..... rather like Northern actually!

Surely the DfT are missing a trick here. Simply locate the abandoned Pacers, bring them back here, slap a few purple and blue vinyls on, and hey presto! Northern's stock shortage solved.

I think you forgot to specify "unrefurbished" though they might brush out most of the sand and dust I guess. I'm not sure they might not be too modern for Northern thinking about it though.....

 

[northwichcat]

Surely the DfT are missing a trick here. Simply locate the abandoned Pacers, bring them back here, slap a few purple and blue vinyls on, and hey presto! Northern's stock shortage solved.

They are 141s with 2 sets of passenger doors per side. 142 and 144s are already bad enough for loading/unloading times with 3 sets of doors.

 

[Haydn1971]

Surely the DfT are missing a trick here. Simply locate the abandoned Pacers, bring them back here, slap a few purple and blue vinyls on, and hey presto! Northern's stock shortage solved.

Alternatively just reuse some old freight wagons, put a tarp over the top and a few bails of hay inside for people to sit on...

 

[northwichcat]

Alternatively just reuse some old freight wagons, put a tarp over the top and a few bails of hay inside for people to sit on...

Neigh.

 

[Darandio]

Alternatively just reuse some old freight wagons, put a tarp over the top and a few bails of hay inside for people to sit on...

But will it baaarantee me a seat?

 

[507 001]

Alternatively just reuse some old freight wagons, put a tarp over the top and a few bails of hay inside for people to sit on...

Isn't that essentially what the pacer is already? The chassis did start out in life as the prototype HSFV after all!

 

[Wolfie]

Isn't that essentially what the pacer is already? The chassis did start out in life as the prototype HSFV after all!

As I think they would optimally be used as hencoops, every trip should come with some fresh laid eggs,.....

 

[Brian Aylott]

Porterbrook own the 143s (with ATW and FGW) and the 144s (with Northern) so do we know which type of train is going to be the demonstrator? Presumably it won't be a 3 car 144

Well it doesn't matter if its a 2 or 3 car unit for they are only doing 1 vehicle
Brian

 

[Wolfie]

Well it doesn't matter if its a 2 or 3 car unit for they are only doing 1 vehicle
Brian

Presumably one which already has a toilet as I guess they will need to show the fitting of a suitable compliant loo....

 

[Bletchleyite]

One way to make them compliant would, ironically, be to remove the bog. It is not compulsory for trains to have them, though it might well be, umm, a little inconvenient (particularly for those whose disability involves frequent use of such facilities).

Neil

 

[Monty]

Time for a NPfN (New Pacer for the North)? I'll get my coat..

 

[northwichcat]

One way to make them compliant would, ironically, be to remove the bog. It is not compulsory for trains to have them, though it might well be, umm, a little inconvenient (particularly for those whose disability involves frequent use of such facilities).

Agreed but then they'd be metro trains internally with a door layout only suiting a low usage rural route. If DfT want to fund station toilets at most stations instead of having toilets on trains then maybe we could have toilet-less trains on less frequent services.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed but then they'd be metro trains internally with a door layout only suiting a low usage rural route. If DfT want to fund station toilets at most stations instead of having toilets on trains then maybe we could have toilet-less trains on less frequent services.

Merseyrail doesn't have toilets at most stations and doesn't have them on the train either. Same with London Underground and Overground.

Neil

 

[northwichcat]

Merseyrail doesn't have toilets at most stations and doesn't have them on the train either. Same with London Underground and Overground.

But those are metro style routes and the interchange stations do usually have toilets (Southport usually has a very long queue for the toilets just after a Merseyrail arrival.) On the Hope Valley line if you just miss a service than you could have to wait 120 minutes for the next service. How often does that happen on LO, LU or Merseyrail?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But those are metro style routes and the interchange stations do usually have toilets (Southport usually has a very long queue for the toilets just after a Merseyrail arrival.) On the Hope Valley line if you just miss a service than you could have to wait 120 minutes for the next service. How often does that happen on LO, LU or Merseyrail?

That isn't really as relevant, because if you need the loo that much you aren't going to be able to wait 120 minutes for a train with a loo to arrive (which might be out of order) before going off in search of the nearest pub, cafe or tree.

Journey length is arguably of more relevance.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And, FWIW, 142s are not just used on rural routes, they feature on "metro" routes as well, such as Manchester-Marple locals.

Neil

 

[Wolfie]

That isn't really as relevant, because if you need the loo that much you aren't going to be able to wait 120 minutes for a train with a loo to arrive (which might be out of order) before going off in search of the nearest pub, cafe or tree.

Journey length is arguably of more relevance.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And, FWIW, 142s are not just used on rural routes, they feature on "metro" routes as well, such as Manchester-Marple locals.

Neil

You are right BUT Porterbrook don't own the 142s, and there are no proposals to refurb them, only the 143/144s. They will lose seats due to door modifications and a disabled loo hence the comments about their future utility.....

 

[Masbroughlad]

Porterbrook is spending close to £1 million modifying a Pacer train relating to PRM-TSI (Passengers of Reduced Mobility - Technical Specification for Interoperability) compliance.

Paul Francis, managing director of the rolling stock leasing company, told Transport Select Committee MPS on October 27: “We are doing a Pacer vehicle in Derby, with RVEL [Rail Vehicle Engineering Ltd].

“We are going to put £800,000 into a Pacer vehicle. Notwithstanding everybody’s dissatisfaction, we want to show stakeholders - whether they are people from Northern, people from DFT or politicians, whoever wants to come and see it - what you can genuinely do with that Pacer vehicle to modify it.

“That will form the backstop if the surplus of diesel rolling stock does not materialise and you have to continue to operate Pacer vehicles. We have taken that decision quite independently. We have just decided to invest that money.”

- See more at: http://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/porterbrook-to-modify-pacer#sthash.Kyko2GK3.dpuf

Porterbrook own the 143s (with ATW and FGW) and the 144s (with Northern) so do we know which type of train is going to be the demonstrator? Presumably it won't be a 3 car 144.

What are they actually going to do? Any idea?

 

[yorksrob]

That isn't really as relevant, because if you need the loo that much you aren't going to be able to wait 120 minutes for a train with a loo to arrive (which might be out of order) before going off in search of the nearest pub, cafe or tree.

Journey length is arguably of more relevance.

Neil
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And, FWIW, 142s are not just used on rural routes, they feature on "metro" routes as well, such as Manchester-Marple locals.

Neil

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.

 

[rf_ioliver]

No. Iran is the worldwide centre of excellence for Pacers.

They dump them in sidings: http://share.bahnforum.info/transfe...e2687fe5a58c9db17011/Iran_2013/IMG_2301_1.JPG
!

And you wonder why Iran is so upset at the UK...I'd be too getting stuck with weapons of mass destruction such as those....



Ian

 

[Rapidash]

That statement should have Prof Farnsworth proclaiming "Good news everyone!" At the start

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?

 

[WatcherZero]

And you wonder why Iran is so upset at the UK...I'd be too getting stuck with weapons of mass destruction such as those....



Ian

Remember sell them the trains before you put an oil embargo on the country, not the other way round.

 

[samuelmorris]

Notwithstanding everybody’s dissatisfaction

Had to admit I found this quite amusing