Porterbrook to create Pacer demonstrator (now unveiled)

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Did people hate the Pacers when they were introduced, or was it afterwards? Did they replace knackered previous trains which people also hated?

When the Class 142 were introduced on the Manchester Victoria-Oldham-Rochdale loop line, comment was made of the poor quality seating that was provided, being somewhat akin to what was found on buses. People always expected train services to have superior seating to that found in the buses.

 

[Bletchleyite]

When the Class 142 were introduced on the Manchester Victoria-Oldham-Rochdale loop line, comment was made of the poor quality seating that was provided, being somewhat akin to what was found on buses. People always expected train services to have superior seating to that found in the buses.

Yet Class 101s and other local DMUs (that they replaced) are short vehicles (18m) with low-backed, 3+2, bus style seating (albeit in the style of an older bus).

If you look at a 142 alongside a 101, there are many, many similarities. And the 142 genuinely doesn't ride all that much worse. And is quieter inside. And a 101 sounds like an old bus because of the bus engines/gearbox!

You have to take these things based on their time.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yet Class 101s and other local DMUs (that they replaced) are short vehicles (18m) with low-backed, 3+2, bus style seating (albeit in the style of an older bus).

I do so like your qualification "albeit in the style of an older bus"...

 

[northwichcat]

How many older trains did the ear deafening squeal around sharp bends which Pacers do?

 

[47802]

Did people hate the Pacers when they were introduced, or was it afterwards? Did they replace knackered previous trains which people also hated?

In the case of Northern the poor seating in some of the 142's along with the general poor interior state of many Northern Sprinters as well as Railbuses has not helped the situation, had all these trains been given a decent refurb I'm not sure there would have been the clamour to get rid of them

Also Porterbrook must have known when the Northern ITT was due out so why didn't they get this refurbished unit done well before it was due?

 

[northwichcat]

Also Porterbrook must have known when the Northern ITT was due out so why didn't they get this refurbished unit done well before it was due?

The ITT was due out last December but it was delayed.

 

[47802]

The ITT was due out last December but it was delayed.

Which still begs the question why didn't they get this done at least 6 months earlier, and presumably the answer is that they didn't think that non bogied vehicles would be specifically barred in the ITT, however I'm still expecting the next government to come up with some excuse to back pedal on this.

 

[yorksrob]

the answer is that they didn't think that non bogied vehicles would be specifically barred in the ITT, however I'm still expecting the next government to come up with some excuse to back pedal on this.

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing IMO. The 144's aren't a bad passenger experience (and I should know, I commute on them every day) and I'd far rather have them available to soak up increased demand than a capacity crunch due to an artificial deadline.

 

[47802]

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing IMO. The 144's aren't a bad passenger experience (and I should know, I commute on them every day) and I'd far rather have them available to soak up increased demand than a capacity crunch due to an artificial deadline.

I would disagree granted 144 may be a bit better but since its been put into the ITT it should be stuck to, its an opportunity to give the north of England a much better quality train service which it should have had years ago, the population of Yorkshire and Humberside alone is similar to Scotland yet we generally have inferior rolling stock.

 

[AM9]

....the population of Yorkshire and Humberside alone is similar to Scotland yet we generally have inferior rolling stock.

It's farepaying passengers you need to justify expensive rolling stock, not just population living near the lines.

 

[northwichcat]

It's farepaying passengers you need to justify expensive rolling stock, not just population living near the lines.

With Scotland apparently it needs more public spending on railways per head than Yorkshire & Humber due to overall being more rural. However, apparently Yorkshire & Humber needs less public funding per head than London & South East due to being more rural. It seems Yorkshire & Humber loses out by being more rural than some areas but not being as rural as others. :roll:

 

[47802]

It's farepaying passengers you need to justify expensive rolling stock, not just population living near the lines.

Well you can get into an argument about how the franchise map has been drawn up but that's been discussed at length on other threads. Lets put it this way the Far North line and Kyle line have 158's but there are still some services on the Calder valley route which have Railbuses, I would be astonished if the subsidy for Calder Valley based services wasn't vastly lower than the subsidy required for the Kyle/far North Line

 

[Class 170101]

I think there could be a use there. Crewe-Derby currently has too many passengers for 153s but apparently operating a 156 on those services isn't affordable. A 144 is somewhere between the two. As the EMT franchise comes up for renewal after the next election I imagine DfT will want to be less generous than they've been with Northern and FGW.

But its perfectly affordable to run a 4 car Class 222 on it as seems likely for Easter weekend due to Watford closure?

I think it was announced last month (or February) that the DfT and the Treasury were looking at Derby to Birmingham electrification. I can't imagine it being too expensive to fill in Derby to Stoke afterwards.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Then of course would Dft allow TPX to nick some 16x from FGW which would seem unlikely given the recent direct award cascade plans and the statements made in the ITT about taking stock from other franchises.

But then with a new Government in town I suspect anything is possible

Not possible 16x units too wide for regions except Western. Clever BR managers for making them wider than usual :P

 

[47802]

But its perfectly affordable to run a 4 car Class 222 on it as seems likely for Easter weekend due to Watford closure?

I think it was announced last month (or February) that the DfT and the Treasury were looking at Derby to Birmingham electrification. I can't imagine it being too expensive to fill in Derby to Stoke afterwards.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Not possible 16x units too wide for regions except Western. Clever BR managers for making them wider than usual :P

Is Portsmouth on Western Region? we have had this argument on here before they are only marginally wider than some other 23m stock (323) and could probably be cleared for most routes if needed, and 16x are mentioned in the TPX ITT so clearly the Dft think its possible, but given the latest FGW award it would seem unlikely anyway, unless of course taking a wild punt Chiltern grab the Scotrail 170's and release some 165's.

In any case we are getting away from the Porterbrook Railbuses, the fact that Porterbrook are still continuing with this project does that indicate they still think they might be used somewhere or was the project so advanced that there was little to be saved by cancelling it anyway?

 

[cjmillsnun]

With Scotland apparently it needs more public spending on railways per head than Yorkshire & Humber due to overall being more rural. However, apparently Yorkshire & Humber needs less public funding per head than London & South East due to being more rural. It seems Yorkshire & Humber loses out by being more rural than some areas but not being as rural as others. :roll:

Scotland's transport budget is devolved.

 

[Smudger105e]

Been stripped and being refitted now

 

[Geeves]

Its supposed to be finished and back by now

 

[Smudger105e]

Refit is going well, quite a few technical ammendments are having to be accommodated. No - one's fault but everyone wants to make sure that it's done right.

 

[physics34]

please just scrap it!

 

[Smudger105e]

As has been quoted here, a budget of £800K for this facelift (I assume subsequent refurbished will cost less) or 2.7 million for a new build. If you were the operator, which would you consider?

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

please just scrap it!

Why? The FGW Pacers are said to be alright so the ePacer might be good. It needs to be seen if it's good or bad and that's why it's a trial.

 

[northwichcat]

As has been quoted here, a budget of £800K for this facelift (I assume subsequent refurbished will cost less) or 2.7 million for a new build. If you were the operator, which would you consider?

Which operator?

Northern's franchise runs out next year. The next Northern franchise winner can only use properly bogied stock from December 2019.

Scotrail are forbidden from taking on trains which aren't properly bogied, as will the winner of the next TPE franchise. Scotrail, like FGW, will have surplus DMUs in a few years time.

Currently that leaves ATW, EMT, LM, Anglia, Southern, SWT and Chiltern as operators who could take them on long term.

 

[Smudger105e]

I am not doubting your assertion that the next operator of the Northern franchise cannot operate non - bogie stock, but if that is what stock the operator inherits from Northern, are the DfT saying they have to stop using the stock by 2019? If that is the case that seems a little unfair to me.

 

[CapitalStar378]

How many older trains did the ear deafening squeal around sharp bends which Pacers do?

The 142/143 units on the Cardiff Valleys have a deafening screech when braking making for an unpleasant platform experience for passengers!

 

[northwichcat]

I am not doubting your assertion that the next operator of the Northern franchise cannot operate non - bogie stock, but if that is what stock the operator inherits from Northern, are the DfT saying they have to stop using the stock by 2019? If that is the case that seems a little unfair to me.

The next franchise will be jointly awarded by DfT and Rail North. Rail North have been pushing for the same quality of rolling stock to be used in the North as Transport Scotland specified must be used in Scotland.

The next operator is required to order a minimum of 120 self-powered carriages (unless bidders propose new loco-hauled, which seems unlikely) and are expected to make use of 15xs and 17xs released by other operators to allow a Pacer free fleet by December 2019.

How is that unfair? LM and LO were expected to eliminate 150s from their respective franchises. (Although in the end DfT allowed LM to keep a small number of 150s as well as the 172s.) Other franchises have been let on the basis they obtain new trains and withdraw the older ones.

Is it unfair that the North is to get to order new commuter trains for non-electrified lines for the first time since 1985 during the next franchise?

 

[MCR247]

Which operator?

Northern's franchise runs out next year. The next Northern franchise winner can only use properly bogied stock from December 2019.

Scotrail are forbidden from taking on trains which aren't properly bogied, as will the winner of the next TPE franchise. Scotrail, like FGW, will have surplus DMUs in a few years time.

Currently that leaves ATW, EMT, LM, Anglia, Southern, SWT and Chiltern as operators who could take them on long term.

People on here have said pacers are "banned" from Nottingham as Northern found out one day, but I'm not sure if banned = not cleared or banned = banned in this case? If its true, then thats one less operator!

 

[northwichcat]

People on here have said pacers are "banned" from Nottingham as Northern found out one day, but I'm not sure if banned = not cleared or banned = banned in this case? If its true, then thats one less operator!

Since Northern started serving Nottingham it's been their intention for all Leeds-Nottingham services to be 158s. With other types of Sprinter cleared to fill in if there's a 158 shortage I'm not sure they would have bothered to obtain Pacer clearance just in case of a shortage.

It's also possible for a unit to be OK to run on the line but not in passenger service to the timings for a different type of unit, as ATW found out when they applied to use 158s on Borderlands.

 

[D60]

I am not doubting your assertion that the next operator of the Northern franchise cannot operate non - bogie stock, but if that is what stock the operator inherits from Northern, are the DfT saying they have to stop using the stock by 2019? If that is the case that seems a little unfair to me.

My understanding is that under the terms of the Northern ITT, any bidder proposing to use non-bogied stock on the future Northern franchise after 1 Jan 2020, will be eliminated from the bid...

 

[MCR247]

Since Northern started serving Nottingham it's been their intention for all Leeds-Nottingham services to be 158s. With other types of Sprinter cleared to fill in if there's a 158 shortage I'm not sure they would have bothered to obtain Pacer clearance just in case of a shortage.



It's also possible for a unit to be OK to run on the line but not in passenger service to the timings for a different type of unit, as ATW found out when they applied to use 158s on Borderlands.

I think this was before the service started and they were training drivers. A pacer got sent down but it had to turn around at chesterfield or somewhere as they either aren't cleared to Nottingham (more likely) or they are banned

 

[WillPS]

On more than one occasion I've known the Leeds-Nottingham service to be split at Sheffield with a Pacer performing the duties to Leeds.