Porterbrook to create Pacer demonstrator (now unveiled)

[northwichcat]

Yeah much better to scrap the perfectly usable 143/144s and then try to squeeze everyone into a crush loaded 150 etc (if they can physically get on) than travel on a 143/144 (refurbished or not) wouldn't they! :roll:

Scrapping 442s, yes I wouldn't argue with that, but scrapping the 144s when they still have useful life in them yet is stupid.

So we want to keep trains in service which will carry the same number of passengers as a double decker bus but want to scrap newer trains which can carry the same number of passengers as four double decker buses because the recycled electrical equipment is life-expired? That's a good way to ensure the overcrowding problem is never solved.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Pacers have the benefit of being here already and could be compliant with all legal requirements (including DDA 2020 if it needs to be spelt out separately for some) with relatively low-cost modification.

It's been pointed out numerous times before that the ePacer will not be 100% complaint and that Porterbrook were hopeful of getting minor exemption orders from the Secretary of State for Transport.

You're also ignoring the fact that the ePacer project will affect a maximum of 46 Pacers, when in total there are 140 Pacers. 94 Pacers need replacing regardless.

The cost of a fully compliant DMU design in relatively small quantities may be far above expectations and may signal a further push to release more existing stock by advancing the electrification programme.

Advancing the electrification programme by a year or two would only put it back on schedule! Manchester-York electrification was due by December 2018, DfT said in the TPE ITT it will happen after December 2020, with Roger Ford suggesting it'll be December 2021.

Don't forget as well as the Pacers there's almost 140 class 150s which will need replacing at some point in the not too distant future.

 

[edwin_m]

I think you've missed something key.

The Northern ITT says bidders can propose to use 15xs and 17xs which will be released by their current franchises. Scotrail are planning to release 10 x 2 car 156s, 8 x 2 car 158s and 29 x 3 car 170s by the end of 2018.

The new build plus the Sprinters released by Scotrail should be sufficient number of carriages to withdraw all but one of the 142s. Taking on the 170s would then be enough carriages to withdraw the remaining Pacers, plus add come additional diesel carriages to the franchise.

The additional would be required to make the proposed December 2019 enhancements like extending some Calder Vale services to the Airport. I think we have to presume the December 2017 enhancements on non-electrified lines would have to be made using existing Northern DMUs released by North West electrification.

FGW recently announced their plan is to release 15 x 150/1s and 14 x 153s but I imagine they'll go directly/indirectly to another franchise. I also predict they'll be an add-on option on the new self-powered trains order, which will allow more trains to be ordered when other franchises come up for renewal without going through the tendering process again (meaning quicker delivery.)

That's a good point, although I wonder if Transpennine will also be after the 170s. I can't face wading through the documents again to work out how that conflict would be resolved.

 

[northwichcat]

That's a good point, although I wonder if Transpennine will also be after the 170s. I can't face wading through the documents again to work out how that conflict would be resolved.

TPE aren't allowed to take on 14xs, 15xs or 17xs. It almost seems that was written in to ensure Northern bidders could take on all the DMUs released by Scotrail.

Given FGW and Chiltern won't be releasing any 16xs, while Grand Central have already secured the FGW 18xs, that only really leaves
1. Loco-hauled (including loco-hauled 442s)
2. 222s released by MML electrification
3. New build of bi-mode or diesel-electric
4. New build of diesel with a future plan to cascade to another franchise.

 

[47802]

This oft-mentioned "new build order", does it exist? So somebody has a price, a delivery schedule and most importantly, budget to commit?
There is a lot of wishful thinking here and so near to a general election of which nobody knows how it will change government. An ITT is just that, an invitation to tender. Of course there could be consequential costs if the scope was changed when the costs of the bids were seen, but the DfT haven't done that before have they?
The cost of a fully compliant DMU design in relatively small quantities may be far above expectations and may signal a further push to release more existing stock by advancing the electrification programme.
Porterbrook may be kite-flying but I doubt that the demonstrtor exercise is purely speculative and there would be a sound business opportunity to life extend what some here who aren't riven with hatred of Pacers in general, see as reasonable stock for some services.
Pacers have the benefit of being here already and could be compliant with all legal requirements (including DDA 2020 if it needs to be spelt out separately for some) with relatively low-cost modification.

It will be up to the bidders of the franchise to get a suitable tenders from the manufacturers in the same way that the winning Scotrail bidder got from Hitachi for AT200's, and the different bidders may well propose different solutions and different manufacturer's for the new build

Pacers will be less cost effective due to their post modification lower seating capacity, Porterbrook decided to modify a pacer before the Northern ITT was out clearly the decision to continue it was up to them and they might not have been able to save much cost by cancelling it at this late stage anyway.

The ITT also seems to have been written in such a way that they expect significant cascaded stock to go to Northern particularly 15x and 170's while TPX don't have the option of taking 170's.

I think the other thing to consider is that if you think there will still be a need for a considerable diesel fleet well into the future then its probably better to get them sooner rather than later before even tighter emission regulations apply.

I also think its time to say that Dec 2019 enough is enough for all franchises not just Northern, obviously a possible spanner in the works for that might be the timing of the valleys electrification, even with the elimination of the railbuses we are going to have a large 1st generation sprinter fleet that will be 30+ years old that may have to remain in service for a considerable period depending on the progress of electrification.

I also think it would make little sense for the next Government to interfere with the northern ITT if they want to make cuts then surely the pace of electrification will be reduced and this ITT seems a good get out clause for little or no more electrification in the North beyond the current scheme's within the next franchise period.

 

[northwichcat]

The ITT also seems to have been written in such a way that they expect significant cascaded stock to go to Northern particularly 15x and 170's while TPX don't have the option of taking 170's.

It's been reported on wnxx that Southern will have a spare centre car long-term after their 170/1 reforming.

If they release a Porterbrook centre car to Northern and Northern take on the 29 x 3 car 170s that would allow the option of reforming them in to 15 x 4 car 170s and 14 x 2 car 170s, which would probably suit platform lengths better and still allow the option of 6 car formations on some lines.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Wait a minute I thought Conwy Valley services were 153s and 150s (with low density seating), a 4 car ePacer would be a big increase in capacity. What about the 3 car 144s?

If I recall correctly it is always booked a 150 now (used to be 153 in winter), but I may be mistaken.

An ATW class 150 I think has 116 seats, and I don't think the seats are any less dense than on an unmodified ATW Pacer which I think has 106 seats. I did say "if something significant is done about the legroom" and that applies to the 150s as well. It appears the accessible toilet reduces the 144e to around 78 seats (about the same as a 153) in a 2-car unit but they don't appear to have sorted the legroom. Assuming 42 seats in the centre car of a 3-car 144e you are up to 120 seats but, I repeat, that's before you make the legroom acceptable for a journey over 1hr. Fixing the legroom might mean you only get around 85 seats in a 3-car unit, in which case a 4-car ePacer unit might be getting back to arround the current seating capacity.

One of the reasons Network Rail rejected 158 use on Conwy Valley and Borderlands was dwell times would be too long. While the 155 and 156 doors can open and close a bit quicker than 158 doors I'm not sure it wouldn't affect dwell times still.

Isn't there a programme to increase line speeds on thr Borderlands so that the passenger timetable (with padding) doesn't need to schedule a unit out before it has arrived? Dwell times probably wouldn't matter so much then and, unless it is transfered to another TOC, it seems a bit silly to keep a handful of 150s just for that and perhaps the Chester-Crewe and Crewe-Shrewsbury shuttles.

 

[PHILIPE]

Conwy Valley Line everything 150.

 

[northwichcat]

Assuming 42 seats in the centre car of a 3-car 144e you are up to 120 seats but, I repeat, that's before you make the legroom acceptable for a journey over 1hr. Fixing the legroom might mean you only get around 85 seats in a 3-car unit, in which case a 4-car ePacer unit might be getting back to around the current seating capacity.

A centre car always has a lot more seats than a driving car due to no cab (unless the centre car contains the toilet.) The 144 centre cars currently have 58 seats. The amount of leg room is not generous but then newer seat designs have thinner backs than older ones, so just changing the type of seat will provide some improvement.

85 is a very unambitious number for a train 46.5m in length. A 185 driving car with standard class only has 65 seats and has generous leg room, so a 3 car 144 could provide around double that, keeping the same amount of leg room. A 3 car 144 is very slightly shorter than 2 x 185 driving cars and that doesn't allow for the extra corridor connection or the toilet but on a 144 the cabs are smaller and there's much less space taken up by doors, so I reckon it won't that dis-similar to 2 x 185 driving cars.

unless it is transfered to another TOC, it seems a bit silly to keep a handful of 150s just for that and perhaps the Chester-Crewe and Crewe-Shrewsbury shuttles.

The 150s will have to run something. Which services are your proposing would be downgraded from 155/6s to 150s to allow a transfer of 155/6s to ATW?

 

[AM9]

It's been pointed out numerous times before that the ePacer will not be 100% complaint and that Porterbrook were hopeful of getting minor exemption orders from the Secretary of State for Transport.

Derogations exist all over industry and the railways are no exception especially where safety is not a significant issue. The exemptions could be time limited anyway.

You're also ignoring the fact that the ePacer project will affect a maximum of 46 Pacers, when in total there are 140 Pacers. 94 Pacers need replacing regardless.

The 142 Pacers seem to be ready for removal anyway but with the general release of DMUs from Scotrail and the GWML and North-Western electrification schemes there are a few years left in the 143/144 units. The current administration's apparent emancipation of rail travel won't last forever if re-elected, and there are rail sceptics in the Labour opposition line-up. If push comes to shove with continuing economic cutbacks, the temptation to keep the 'unpopular' pacers in use will prove too tempting, especially if politicians own reputations are at stake.

Don't forget as well as the Pacers there's almost 140 class 150s which will need replacing at some point in the not too distant future.

150s will be replaced when their cost of ownership becomes unsustainable. As MKIIIs, they can be 'refreshed' just like the 319s have so will be good for another 10+ years as far as passenger comfort goes. If they start getting too unreliable, that's another matter.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Derogations exist all over industry and the railways are no exception especially where safety is not a significant issue. The exemptions could be time limited anyway.

The 142 Pacers seem to be ready for removal anyway but with the general release of DMUs from Scotrail and the GWML and North-Western electrification schemes there are a few years left in the 143/144 units. The current administration's apparent emancipation of rail travel won't last forever if re-elected, and there are rail sceptics in the Labour opposition line-up. If push comes to shove with continuing economic cutbacks, the temptation to keep the 'unpopular' pacers in use will prove too tempting, especially if politicians own reputations are at stake.

In the words of Sir Humphery it would be a brave Labour transport secretary who says to the north were are not replacing pacers as promised by the previous Tory transport secretary.

 

[AM9]

In the words of Sir Humphery it would be a brave Labour transport secretary who says to the north were are not replacing pacers as promised by the previous Tory transport secretary.

Not if it is framed as 'more comfortable trains or more doctors in hospitals etc..' Politicians have a way of changing direction in ways that has the least impact on votes.

 

[Class 170101]

I see no recent discussion on Class 153s which are not yet DDA compliant.

According to Wiki (so may be wrong) the class is split as follws
Northern 18 (9 short)
FGW 14 (7 short)
AGA 5 (2½ short)
ATW 8 (4 short)
EMT 17 (8½ short)
LM 8 (4 short)

The latest I have heard is that the easiest way is to reform them back to Class 155s and insert the DDA loo in half the number of carriages as a result. However this leaves a shortage of trains (shown in brackets above) which needs to be solved. Its not just Pacers that are a problem come 2020.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Conwy Valley Line everything 150.

Pacers are banned from the Conwy Valley in any case. It's too bendy - they would get stuck due to the fixed wheels. (I believe this has happened which resulted in the ban).

 

[47802]

I see no recent discussion on Class 153s which are not yet DDA compliant.

According to Wiki (so may be wrong) the class is split as follws
Northern 18 (9 short)
FGW 14 (7 short)
AGA 5 (2½ short)
ATW 8 (4 short)
EMT 17 (8½ short)
LM 8 (4 short)

The latest I have heard is that the easiest way is to reform them back to Class 155s and insert the DDA loo in half the number of carriages as a result. However this leaves a shortage of trains (shown in brackets above) which needs to be solved. Its not just Pacers that are a problem come 2020.

Well depends on how many of those are actually worked single, hasn't there been comments from Porterbrook about leaving them single and ditching the Toilet. I'm not if some people get a bit too hung up about the lack of Toilet there are plenty of longish bus journeys around the country with no Toilet, ok maybe putting them on the central wales line without a Toilet might not be acceptable, but do they really need a Toilet on the Barton on Humber service?

 

[Class 170101]

Well depends on how many of those are actually worked single, hasn't there been comments from Porterbrook about leaving them single and ditching the Toilet. I'm not if some people get a bit too hung up about the lack of Toilet there are plenty of longish bus journeys around the country with no Toilet, ok maybe putting them on the central wales line without a Toilet might not be acceptable, but do they really need a Toilet on the Barton on Humber service?

AGA do some trips Ipswich to Lowestoft and Ipswich to Cambridge on them - over an hour serving lots of unstaffed stations so no chance of loo stops at stations.

If it was that simple though why not just remove loos, from all trains, if thats the unsolvable issue, and say there you are EU - all trains DDA compliant. Not sure the EU would like that, might be letter of the law but I doubt it would be in the spirit of it.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Not if it is framed as 'more comfortable trains or more doctors in hospitals etc..' Politicians have a way of changing direction in ways that has the least impact on votes.

Depends on how many doctors in Northern hospitals. Still would be fun to watch the Northern council leaders and MP's kick off though, espically if they start voting with those rebellious Scott's

Anyway back on topic it seems the last of the Pacers will see out their lives on the Welsh Valleys untill electrifcation possibly in the early 2020's. The Wales and Borders franchise may decide to take on some of the ex northern 144's to increase capacity untill said electrification is completed, however if electrification is completed before the end of CP6 then can the cost of upgrading pacers be justified for a few short years?

 

[northwichcat]

150s will be replaced when their cost of ownership becomes unsustainable. As MKIIIs, they can be 'refreshed' just like the 319s have so will be good for another 10+ years as far as passenger comfort goes. If they start getting too unreliable, that's another matter.

One of the ROSCOs reported if self-powered vehicles are ordered to replace Pacers than an add-on order should be ordered to replace the worst of the 150s, some of which are suffering badly from corrosion.

This seems to coincide with the rolling stock strategy which originally said no new DMU orders in CP5. However, the revised one now says 350-500 new self-powered vehicles are required in the short term. Porterbrook (who proposed the ePacer) were actively involved in that strategy.

 

[47802]

Is the reported death of the Pacer premature:-x

I see that Tony Miles on WNXX is suggesting that the Northern ITT may be too expensive with rumours of a re-scope after the election.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Is the reported death of the Pacer premature:-x

I see that Tony Miles on WNXX is suggesting that the Northern ITT may be too expensive with rumours of a re-scope after the election.

To which sub-species of that particular breed do you so allude above?

 

[47802]

To which sub-species of that particular breed do you so allude above?

143/144, you would hope that the 142 sub species will still be dead but I'm not putting my money on that or that their wont be that other Tube thing either.:-x

 

[northwichcat]

Is the reported death of the Pacer premature:-x

I see that Tony Miles on WNXX is suggesting that the Northern ITT may be too expensive with rumours of a re-scope after the election.

Only the 142s were expected to be killed off. 14xs were forbidden from the next Northern and TPE franchises post-2020 and they are forbidden from running Scotrail services. Other areas haven't had any guarantees that Pacers won't be used post-2020 unless they fail accessibility/retention toilet requirements.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm not putting my money on that or that their wont be that other Tube thing either.:-x

D-Trains were never completely ruled out.

All it said was bidders must propose a minimum of 120 new carriages must be provided which can't be rebuilt from old trains. That would still allow bidders (without any re-scoping) to say something like they'll release the 153s and take on D-Trains in lieu.

 

[158756]

Only the 142s were expected to be killed off. 14xs were forbidden from the next Northern and TPE franchises post-2020 and they are forbidden from running Scotrail services. Other areas haven't had any guarantees that Pacers won't be used post-2020 unless they fail accessibility/retention toilet requirements.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


D-Trains were never completely ruled out.

All it said was bidders must propose a minimum of 120 new carriages must be provided which can't be rebuilt from old trains. That would still allow bidders (without any re-scoping) to say something like they'll release the 153s and take on D-Trains in lieu.

If it were to be re-scoped I would imagine we'd be talking about removing the 'no Pacers', new trains, and possibly the additional services as well, so in that scenario what the current ITT says would be largely irrelevant.

 

[northwichcat]

If it were to be re-scoped I would imagine we'd be talking about removing the 'no Pacers', new trains, and possibly the additional services as well, so in that scenario what the current ITT says would be largely irrelevant.

The long term rolling stock strategy talks about 350-500 new self-powered vehicles being required. D-Trains can't provide all of them even if they are permitted, so really it would sense for DfT to permit an ITT for new trains which would allow up to at least 350 vehicles. They don't have to all be for Northern and some could be an optional add-on, just like the class 387 order.

 

[47802]

Only the 142s were expected to be killed off. 14xs were forbidden from the next Northern and TPE franchises post-2020 and they are forbidden from running Scotrail services. Other areas haven't had any guarantees that Pacers won't be used post-2020 unless they fail accessibility/retention toilet requirements.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


D-Trains were never completely ruled out.

All it said was bidders must propose a minimum of 120 new carriages must be provided which can't be rebuilt from old trains. That would still allow bidders (without any re-scoping) to say something like they'll release the 153s and take on D-Trains in lieu.

Why do we need a parrot style re-quoting the Northern ITT to us I think most people who have made comments on this thread are reasonably aware of what the ITT says, and as things stand at the moment there no intention to retain 142's beyond 2020, and while 143/144 may not be technically ruled out, if they ruled out for Northern as things stand at present, then I don't see it being that likely they will be used elsewhere.

 

[northwichcat]

Why do we need a parrot style re-quoting the Northern ITT to us I think most people who have made comments on this thread are reasonably aware of what the ITT says, and as things stand at the moment there no intention to retain 142's beyond 2020, and while 143/144 may not be technically ruled out, if they ruled out for Northern as things stand at present, then I don't see it being that likely they will be used elsewhere.

Yet the person who made post 320 was completely unaware of the requirement for Northern to operate no 14xs after December 2019.

From your earlier post it sounded like you were previously under the impression every Pacer will be written off in the next few years and the D-Train option would not happen for the North but now after seeing a post from Tony Miles you were doubtful that would happen.

At the time the Northern ITT went to press there wasn't an ePacer (except on paper), there's an election looming and senior politicians including Cameron and Clegg had promised the North we'll see the back of the Pacers during the next franchise.

Things may be different after the next election. Have Cameron and Clegg promised the East Midlands they won't see a cascade of 144s to replace 153s? No. Will the same people be in DfT after 7th May? Unlikely. Patrick McLoughlin saying he thinks Pacers have had their day on a visit to the North isn't a binding agreement to prevent Pacers being used in other franchises where the ITT hasn't yet been drawn up.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Things may be different after the next election. Have Cameron and Clegg promised the East Midlands they won't see a cascade of 144s to replace 153s? No. Will the same people be in DfT after 7th May? Unlikely. Patrick McLoughlin saying he thinks Pacers have had their day on a visit to the North isn't a binding agreement to prevent Pacers being used in other franchises where the ITT hasn't yet been drawn up.

What East Midlands services do you in invisage pacers running post 2020? The pacers in FGW seem to have been displaced by 16x cascades to Bristol area leading to a 15x cascade to the SW pernisula. The Paces on the valley lines will be seen off by electrification (although if that is delayed beyond 2020 then the Wales and Borders franchise could take on some 144's displaced from the North as a short term increase in capacity). So unless the next government renaigs on the ITT commitment then the long term future for pacers looks bleak.

 

[47802]

Yet the person who made post 320 was completely unaware of the requirement for Northern to operate no 14xs after December 2019.

From your earlier post it sounded like you were previously under the impression every Pacer will be written off in the next few years and the D-Train option would not happen for the North but now after seeing a post from Tony Miles you were doubtful that would happen.

At the time the Northern ITT went to press there wasn't an ePacer (except on paper), there's an election looming and senior politicians including Cameron and Clegg had promised the North we'll see the back of the Pacers during the next franchise.

Things may be different after the next election. Have Cameron and Clegg promised the East Midlands they won't see a cascade of 144s to replace 153s? No. Will the same people be in DfT after 7th May? Unlikely. Patrick McLoughlin saying he thinks Pacers have had their day on a visit to the North isn't a binding agreement to prevent Pacers being used in other franchises where the ITT hasn't yet been drawn up.

Well unless the Northern ITT is re-scoped then I see Pacer as essentially being dead everywhere, and I don't see the Tube thing on Northern either, as that would be yet another train type to introduce along with the new build and possible 170's, and another train type that isn't particularly flexible with the low speed limit and no ability to work with 15x stock.

The one thing I will say is that given a choose between an e-pacer and the Vivarail D train, the e-pacer makes more sense to me for its higher top speed, staff already trained on them, and compatibility with 15x stock, and despite what Viva they say about strengthening the cab, the Raibuses were built to the heavy rail crash regs that applied at the time while the D stock wasn't.

 

[Haydn1971]

Politics - a five year rolling lie cycle - the only thing that is certain is that the current Pacers can't continue after 2019 as they are - Whilst the current ITT excludes the non-bogied Pacers, I'll be surprised if they do get canned as early as most people would like.

 

[yorksrob]

On the subject of de-scoping the next franchise specification, I'm sure like me, most Northern residents would rather the requirement to replace 144's were relaxed than the proposed improvements to services binned. If a future Government decided to do both, it would suffer major reputational consequences.

 

[AM9]

Call me cynical but in my view, the current administration desparately wants to get enough votes to avoid being in another coalition, and moreso to avoid a Labour led government. So they need to make promises to any community that does not normally return them MPs, - especially traditional Labour constituencies.
They have identified an opportunity to woo northern votes by making promises to improve railways in the area, which may also quieten local politicians and local media hostility about things like Pacers etc..
In four weeks time, the election will be decided, and if their ruse is successful, they can procrastinate, re-scope, re-schedule, apply for derogation etc., until the letter of the promises are left as just intentions that coincidentally happen to fall around the time of the next election. It is unlikely that they would try to secure political support from the north again, (even the most gullible of voters will remember just five years back), so will look to boost their voting returns elsewhere.
Meanwhile, the only thing that we can be sure of is that Pacers will be scheduled to be replaced or made compliant with whatever rules are introduced within the next four and a half years.