Porterbrook to create Pacer demonstrator (now unveiled)

[450.emu]

Looks good - though I'm sure new trains would be better than tarting the Pacers up :roll:

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It is supposed to be diagramed on the Huddersfield to Sheffield - Penistone Line but could be a crush in peak hours.

The peak on the Penistone line is weird... There's Honley schools, Huddersfield students and workers, and heavy commuter flow at Sheffield and Meadowhall... Barnsley seems to have reasonable peak traffic in and out, but not quite as heavy as the termini. The regular timetable requires 3 units with some swapping in and out in the evenings. If there's a diagram that hits Barnsley during the peak rather than Huddersfield or Sheffield that would work. Or perhaps the diagram which includes the 1812(?) from HUD which tends to be quieter than you might expect thanks to the 1748 extra which is formed from a Bradford arrival.

Nope, it's entirely crewed by TPE.

They stopped using the 185 on the first device awhile ago. It now uses the previous day's unit with the swap taking place on its return.

Is that so that Northern doesn't need a traincrew depot at Cleethorpes? Makes sense...

 

[Techniquest]

How on Earth do they go from whatever number seats are on a 2-car 144 now to less than on a 153?! I don't have the figures to hand for the number of seats, but I find it unbelievable that a 153 on its own has more capacity than a 2-car 144 now!

 

[Bletchleyite]

How on Earth do they go from whatever number seats are on a 2-car 144 now to less than on a 153?! I don't have the figures to hand for the number of seats, but I find it unbelievable that a 153 on its own has more capacity than a 2-car 144 now!

153s have seating intended for those without legs. The e-Pacer appears to have a more reasonable seat pitch. If you changed the pitch on a 153 to be more reasonable (say, to be equal to that in the centre section of a 350/1 which is a reasonable minimum) I reckon they would be similar.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Apparently Northern are deciding which diagram to designate the unit to. It's seated capacity is now more similar to that of a 153 than the rest of the 2 car Pacers.

How on Earth do they go from whatever number seats are on a 2-car 144 now to less than on a 153?! I don't have the figures to hand for the number of seats, but I find it unbelievable that a 153 on its own has more capacity than a 2-car 144 now!

I haven't seen the figures, but "similar to" does not necessarily mean "less than". In any case the consensus is that if 153s had accessibility mods carried out, the loss of capacity would be too much for them to be much use. It has not yet been decided how to handle this issue.

If it is decided to give all 143/144 units the "e-" treatment, the 10 3-car units will be in great demand I guess!

 

[Techniquest]

Should be interesting to see what happens then!

 

[D365]

If it turns out to be the case that there is less demand for individual Pacer units, could a spare unit be inserted to make up another unit to three cars?

How about Porterbrook purchasing a few more 142s for just that

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If it turns out to be the case that there is less demand for individual Pacer units, could a spare unit be inserted to make up another unit to three cars?

How about Porterbrook purchasing a few more 142s for just that

Turning 142 vehicles into centre cars for 143/4s is the North equivalent of "Convert the 442s to AC for the GEML"...

Given the loss in capacity on the 2-car sets, I could see the potential for merging them all into 4-car sets, but as there's 13 2-car 144s and 23 144s, there'd be one unit of each class left over. They could be formed into a hybrid set, or stripped for spares.

The issue is whether it'd be worth it: how much use will there be for pacers post-2020, and for how long? How much would it cost? Would rebuilding the inner cabs into gangways compromise the structure?
The same issues would apply to anything involving 142s, with the added complications such as differences in floor height (something that I have a feeling would also apply to any 143/4 hybrid as mentioned above.

 

[Boothby97]

Is that so that Northern doesn't need a traincrew depot at Cleethorpes? Makes sense...

Believe thats the whole point, there is no point to have a Northern traincrew depot just for the Barton branch.
By the way, my comment about 144012 being used on the Barton branch was very much tongue in cheek, hence the

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Given the loss in capacity on the 2-car sets, I could see the potential for merging them all into 4-car sets, but as there's 13 2-car 144s and 23 144s, there'd be one unit of each class left over. They could be formed into a hybrid set, or stripped for spares. The same issues would apply to anything involving 142s, with the added complications such as differences in floor height (something that I have a feeling would also apply to any 143/4 hybrid as mentioned above.

Have Angel Trains said anything OFFICIALLY that would pre-suppose they would divest themselves of any of their Class 142 units to a competitor such as Porterbrook.

 

[northwichcat]

I haven't seen the figures, but "similar to" does not necessarily mean "less than".

It doesn't a 153 has a minimum of 72 standard seats (they don't all have the same type of seating or same number of seats), the ePacer has 78 seats.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Have Angel Trains said anything OFFICIALLY that would pre-suppose they would divest themselves of any of their Class 142 units to a competitor such as Porterbrook.

The last entry in the news section on the Angel Trains website is the updated joint rolling stock strategy document which says

RSSSG has undertaken some detailed analysis and sensitivity testing of the requirements for
self-powered trains in recent months. This has included detailed analysis of the total number of
Type A and Type B vehicles likely to be required in each year to 2022. This work has indicated
a potential requirement for 350 to 500 additional non-electric vehicles, for a variety of urban
stopping, rural stopping and inter-urban express services. This analysis assumes replacement
of most or all of the 290 Class 14x ‘Pacer’ vehicles, and the provision of additional vehicles for
the alleviation of present levels of crowding and/or to permit future growth.

http://www.angeltrains.co.uk/Portal...rd Edition Final - published 3 March 2015.pdf

'Most or all' being withdrawn seems to allow for the possibility of Porterbrook's ePacer being taken up but not for 142s to be altered.

 

[Smudger105e]

Unless they've snuck some DOO equipment in there on the sly!

Not unless a cab paint is classified as DOO. Or the driver has arms long enough to reach the door headers!

 

[Orchid]

The peak on the Penistone line is weird... There's Honley schools, Huddersfield students and workers, and heavy commuter flow at Sheffield and Meadowhall... Barnsley seems to have reasonable peak traffic in and out, but not quite as heavy as the termini. The regular timetable requires 3 units with some swapping in and out in the evenings. If there's a diagram that hits Barnsley during the peak rather than Huddersfield or Sheffield that would work. Or perhaps the diagram which includes the 1812(?) from HUD which tends to be quieter than you might expect thanks to the 1748 extra which is formed from a Bradford arrival.


Is that so that Northern doesn't need a traincrew depot at Cleethorpes? Makes sense...

All three diagrams are 3 car 144s, including the extra one from Leeds in the evening. I would be surprised if they changed one to a two car for the purposes of a trial, one of the problems with the demonstrator is the loss of seats so it's probably best not to exacerbate the situation by removing an entire vehicle.

 

[dave12435]

Wow that's quite a transformation!
its always amazing how much you can polish a turd even though it is still a turd.
That said it looks great and shows once again (as did the Chiltern MK3 refurb) what can be done with older stock

 

[kevconnor]

As an aside when they do finally consign Newton Heath's finest to the great metal crusher in the sky they should give consideration to the idea that for a donation to say a spinal injury clinic allow people to destroy a pacer.

 

[northwichcat]

Neither have I - generally I've found them to be quite comfortable and much better than the awful modular seats in the Merseytravel refurbished Pacers. Whilst it is a good idea the one problem I can see with taking the seats out of an old bus for a Class 142 would be that the bench seats in buses generally only seat two passengers. That's fine if a two seat bench needs replacing but if a three seat bench needs replacing it may be a bit more difficult to find a replacement

Of course a three seater can indeed be replaced by a two seater but it would see a reduction of a single seat. On the other hand however I think it would be better to replace three seats with two rather than none at all

Some of the Leyland deckers had a 3 seater in front of the stairs on the top deck and single seaters alongside the stairs.

However, would taking old seats from buses (opposed to other trains) mean that the grandfather rights can't be applied and they'd have to meet current crash standards?

If you want to fit one of the 142s with better seats how about the ones removed from a 144 as part of the ePacer project, then the good ones removed from that 142 could be used as spares for other 142s?

 

[BantamMenace]

It shouldn't be too bad on the Heysham boat train from Leeds diagram from my experience

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It shouldn't be too bad on the Heysham boat train from Leeds diagram from my experience

Would the luggage stowage on the unit be enough to cope with that expected on the boat train from Leeds in normal circumstances?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

All three diagrams are 3 car 144s, including the extra one from Leeds in the evening. I would be surprised if they changed one to a two car for the purposes of a trial, one of the problems with the demonstrator is the loss of seats do its probably best not to exacerbate the situation by removing an entire vehicle.

It has been a while since I've seen anything with bogies on the Penistone line... Have seen a few 2-car Pacers though. Used to be at least one Sprinter out of the 3 units, the 'extra' from Leeds has almost always been a 3x144 for years in my experience, even when it was a true through service via Dewsbury.

A reduced capacity e-pacer would be uncomfortable on the Brighouse leg though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
According to the latest Rail, 144012 is due to be released to Northern today. Any sightings or clues about it heading back to the Hill?

 

[Smudger105e]

Still some technical door problems. I'll let you know as soon as it is ready to depart Derby.

 

[alexl92]

It has been a while since I've seen anything with bogies on the Penistone line...

My ex lived below Lockwood viaduct a couple of years ago and I'm almost certain I saw a few 150s working across it whilst she was there but I can't recall ever seeing one in Platform 2 at Huddersfield.

 

[darloscott]

There certainly used to be a 150 on the Penistone, if I remember right it was the 0936, 1236 etc from Sheffield

 

[Tracked]

Went on the Penistone line a few times last year, 158's a few times and 3-car 144 once iirc

 

[Iskra]

There certainly used to be a 150 on the Penistone, if I remember right it was the 0936, 1236 etc from Sheffield

1236 was a 3-car 144 when I used it a couple of months back. Only ever seen 144's on it myself.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It's only in the last 6-12 months that sprinters in general have become very rare on the Penistone line. It's been a good couple of years since I've seen a 158 on there though...

Going back to the "New and Improved" pacer, I'm surprised there's door issues that weren't there before, as supposedly nothing mechanical has been touched. Problems with that new-fangled ramp maybe?

 

[Smudger105e]

No, the door issues are the interface between the new systems and the existing Pacer systems with items such as traction interlock. The doors are mechanically sound.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I have been told that 144012 now has some minor snags and should be going back to Northern this week.

 

[Parallel]

Not sure if it's been posted already, but there are some more photos on this blog:

https://paulbigland.wordpress.com/category/144e/

It looks very smart, I have to say.

 

[Camden]

It can be painted gold, have deep pile carpet and an indoor swimming pool but, when it moves, people will still know it's a pacer.

 

[Smudger105e]

It can be painted gold, have deep pile carpet and an indoor swimming pool but, when it moves, people will still know it's a pacer.

Thete are problems with that.

Gold paint, being metallic, is difficult to touch up. As regards the swimming pool, the water would splosh around and make the deep pile carpet wet lol

The thing is, is this Pacer better in lots of ways than a standard 144? Or would the customer prefer new trains if they were having to pay for them?

 

[northwichcat]

The thing is, is this Pacer better in lots of ways than a standard 144?

Depends. The ePacer has a better interior but it now has severely reduced capacity. It would be more sensible to look at them as an option for replace single 153s and using doubled up 153s to replace Pacers.

Or would the customer prefer new trains if they were having to pay for them?

I think it's unlikely a new order of trains would be designated to certain routes, they would likely be mixed with 1980s Sprinters.