Retired Pacers?

[30mog]

Classes 142-144 have to be withdrawn by 2020 to meet disability discrimination requirements.

A few weeks ago I was accompanying a wheelchair bound friend on a journey involving a 158. Like with all trains, disabled passengers are pointed to a particular door. Wherever you go these days you will find an over crowded train or two and someone moaning "why cant they put extra carriages on when they know its busy..." What is the connection here read on.

Could Pacers be retained as 'extra carriages' for when needed? Or put another way. Could they continue to be used so long as they are coupled to a unit of Classes 150+? That way, some albeit not all of the train is available to disabled passengers at all times. As I have mentioned, wheelchair users tend to be pointed to a particular door in any case. The Sprinter part of the train would be available to them, for example. And as an able bodied passenger. If train lengthening at busy times is justified, better a Pacer than nothing.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If you wish to retain any of the Pacer fleet for the reasons that you state, the compliancy required to aid and assist the very type of people you state would need to be enacted to allow the required accessibility.

Wheelchairs and step-entry units are just one reason that I will put forward as an example.

 

[Yew]

Remember DDA. Is not all about wheelchairs. It also includes PIS systems and door button changes.

The question about if a combination of accessible and non accessible carriages is an acceptable formation is much debated. Personally I expect to see many concessions for stock that would be uneconomical to upgrade (papers, maybe 150's and Mk3's

 

[Whistler40145]

Don't trains also have to provide Wheelchair accessible toilets?

If so, isn't that another reason Pacers are having to be withdrawn as there won't be sufficient space to accommodate them?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Remember DDA. Is not all about wheelchairs. It also includes PIS systems and door button changes.

The question about if a combination of accessible and non accessible carriages is an acceptable formation is much debated. Personally I expect to see many concessions for stock that would be uneconomical to upgrade (papers, maybe 150's and Mk3's

I did go to the trouble in my posting of saying..."Wheelchairs and step entry units are just one reason that I will put forward as an example".

I wonder just how long it will be before anyone from the Government, whosoever may be in power at the time, will clarify the matter of the current 2019 compliance date, or will this be a nettle that no-one will grasp in the hope that somebody else will do this. There are numerous organisations who have the disabled members of society at heart and they should now be vociferous in their request for statements of clarification of this matter.

Until that happens, RailUK will feature many postings of a speculative nature based on the personal feelings of forum members.

 

[HSTEd]

Don't trains also have to provide Wheelchair accessible toilets?

If so, isn't that another reason Pacers are having to be withdrawn as there won't be sufficient space to accommodate them?

Not necessarily.

Class 345s will apparently not be required to provide wheelchair accessible toilets.
If they have to provide either no toilets or wheelchair accessible toilets, I am afraid the obvious solution is to lock the non-accesible toilets OOU permanently.

 

[Z12XE]

Which in some cases makes sense, harsh I know but take the 153 for example. If the problem is the toilet, then just get rid of the one that's there.

Else you'd end up with the situation where the train has a seated capacity of one - the person having a dump

 

[Haydn1971]

Could Pacers be retained as 'extra carriages' for when needed?

Alternatively, let's make the railways a not for profit entity then use what was previously paid to shareholders to build new trains to replace the ****e we have to put up with today !

 

[30mog]

Alternatively, let's make the railways a not for profit entity then use what was previously paid to shareholders to build new trains to replace the ****e we have to put up with today !

As far as I am aware. There is no rule preventing a not for profit organisation bidding for a franchise. I have yet to hear of one doing so. I suspect the idea has been worked on but ultimately there isn't one with enough financial clout to even afford the bidding process. I would welcome otherwise.

Maybe I should use the above as the nucleus of another thread.

Now back to the right track. I am asking would it be acceptable to form a train partly of fully disabled compatible and partly not? Even an HST or Class 91 powered rake on the East Coast only has a disabled toilet every two carriages or so doesn't it? Couple a two car Pacer with a two car Sprinter. In percentage terms you are not short changing disabled passengers. Surely staff who are booked to assist wheelchair users are smart enough to be alert to such a mixed train? And secondly, would you rather see a Sprinter with people packed in like sardines at rush hour? Or one not so badly so because extra carriages are being utilised, even if they are the s*** boxes of the fleet?

 

[CalderRail]

I did go to the trouble in my posting of saying..."Wheelchairs and step entry units are just one reason that I will put forward as an example".

I wonder just how long it will be before anyone from the Government, whosoever may be in power at the time, will clarify the matter of the current 2019 compliance date, or will this be a nettle that no-one will grasp in the hope that somebody else will do this. There are numerous organisations who have the disabled members of society at heart and they should now be vociferous in their request for statements of clarification of this matter.

Until that happens, RailUK will feature many postings of a speculative nature based on the personal feelings of forum members.

OK, but given the premise of the OPs question, that if a pacer was running in multiple with another class of unit, is there a level of upgrades which would allow the pacer to comply with the per-vehicle requirements while the other unit has the specific alterations for disabled access to meet the per-train requirements?



However, I should note to OP that Porterbrook does have a plan to upgrade its pacer units to meet PRM-TSI. Angel doesn't though.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

However, I should note to OP that Porterbrook does have a plan to upgrade its pacer units to meet PRM-TSI. Angel doesn't though.

That means all the entire class of the Class 142 units will not form part of this proposal suggested by this thread.

 

[CalderRail]

That means all the entire class of the Class 142 units will not form part of this proposal suggested by this thread.

True. OPs post includes 143s and 144s though. And the premise of his question was that if it became easier to upgrade the pacers into some form of compliance (so that they could continue in service as long as they were coupled with a class that met the per-train access standards) would that be a viable plan?

 

[northwichcat]

Could Pacers be retained as 'extra carriages' for when needed? Or put another way. Could they continue to be used so long as they are coupled to a unit of Classes 150+? That way, some albeit not all of the train is available to disabled passengers at all times.

How do you make sure the disabled passengers board the accessible unit? You can't necessarily spot a deaf passenger in the same way you can spot a wheelchair bound passenger.

If a passenger with limited mobility is waiting for the train, how do you ensure they don't finish up having to walk 40 metres to board the accessible train after it has stopped?

At stations which have Harrington Humps how you make sure it's always the accessible unit that stops by the hump if one unit is accessible and the other isn't?

What about short platforms where one unit may have to be locked out of use?

The answer is non-accessible Pacers and 150/1s have to be refurbished or withdrawn. With the 150/2s, for instance, you could get away with making them permanently 3 car units and having 1 accessible toilet for every 3 carriages instead of every 2, to reduce refurbishment costs. However, you would still need to make sure every carriage had PIS, complaint door controls etc.

 

[ainsworth74]

Classes 142-144 have to be withdrawn by 2020 to meet disability discrimination requirements.

That is something people like to claim but 1) Don't be surprised if the Secretary of State issues a derogation and 2) Porterbrook (or it might have been Angel) have already released plans that demonstrate they could modify their Pacers to be compliant.

So it is far from being a 100% certainty.

 

[Spaceflower]

In reality will this boil down to loss of service to everyone if that service is not deemed accessible by everyone?

I'm all for enhancing accessibility, but I'm wondering how this will play out in practice. Will it be another crude example of how good intentions become nothing more than extra barriers in practice.

 

[YorkshireBear]

That is something people like to claim but 1) Don't be surprised if the Secretary of State issues a derogation and 2) Porterbrook (or it might have been Angel) have already released plans that demonstrate they could modify their Pacers to be compliant.

So it is far from being a 100% certainty.

Porterbrook

 

[ainsworth74]

Porterbrook

Should have gone with my first instinct rather than hedging

 

[northwichcat]

That is something people like to claim but 1) Don't be surprised if the Secretary of State issues a derogation and 2) Porterbrook (or it might have been Angel) have already released plans that demonstrate they could modify their Pacers to be compliant.

So it is far from being a 100% certainty.

But note that the complaint 143s and 144s would have about 80 seats (except for the 3 car 144s) and Porterbrook have also said the 153s will be scrapped by 2019. Therefore, logically if both those things happen the refurbished Pacers would replace 153s on the shortest/quietest routes opposed to running on existing Pacer routes.

 

[CalderRail]

Should have gone with my first instinct rather than hedging

I've got the PDF of the file if you want it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How do you make sure the disabled passengers board the accessible unit? You can't necessarily spot a deaf passenger in the same way you can spot a wheelchair bound passenger.

If a passenger with limited mobility is waiting for the train, how do you ensure they don't finish up having to walk 40 metres to board the accessible train after it has stopped?

We're not necessarily talking about doing nothing to the pacers though. We're talking about what minor alterations (digital stop signage for the deaf, better lit and braille coded exit buttons for the partially sighted) could be done to make the pacer units acceptable if the big per-train requirements were handled on an adjoining unit.

 

[northwichcat]

We're not necessarily talking about doing nothing to the pacers though. We're talking about what minor alterations (digital stop signage for the deaf, better lit and braille coded exit buttons for the partially sighted) could be done to make the pacer units acceptable if the big per-train requirements were handled on an adjoining unit.

Does that make it better though? To a passenger with limited mobility it'll look like both trains are complaint but then they might find 40 minutes in to their journey that the train they are on doesn't have an accessible toilet and there's no way of reaching the accessible toilet on the other train without alighting the train they are on.

 

[route:oxford]

These units did the job for which they were intended and for considerably longer than anyone ever imagined.

It's time to let go and accept there isn't a future for them on the national network.

At the same time, the first current or future RoSCO that blinks and orders a batch of super-lightweight units that are exceptionally fuel efficient and fully compliant with disabled legislation will probably make a lot of money over the next 30 years.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Would anyone agree that a railbus approaching 30 years of age is somewhat different to a standard DMU of the same age ?

 

[anti-pacer]

Would anyone agree that a railbus approaching 30 years of age is somewhat different to a standard DMU of the same age ?

Agree 100% Paul. The only place for a Pacer for me is the scrap yard!

 

[Brian Aylott]

Where have Porterbrook said that they will be scrapped by 2019 or by 1/1/2020 for that matter?
Brian

 

[455driver]

Angel have stated that they do not at the moment have plans to make the 142s compliant, everyone is assuming that means they will be withdrawn, its just a shame there wont be enough cascaded coaches available to replace them so its either carry on using them or cancel some services until such time as sufficient units are cascaded.

Personally I think they will be used to strengthen services that are made up of a compliant 150 etc.

How many coaches on a HST/ mk4 set/ mk3 set are going to be made fully compliant?

Probably 2 out of 8/10 so I dont see why every coach needs to be made compliant on (effectively) a 4 coach DMU where 1 is enough to comply.

 

[CalderRail]

Where have Porterbrook said that they will be scrapped by 2019 or by 1/1/2020 for that matter?
Brian

Porterbrook have released a prospectus on how they could update their pacers to comply with PRM-TSI (entirely comply, not what we are talking about here) if anyone was committed to leasing them.

Angel have outright said they aren't going to.

 

[Domh245]

I remember hearing that there was a time when SWT needed to re-introduce some 458s to cover for a drop in capacity, and they were prevented from doing so because the PIS displays were a cm or so too small, meaning that thousands were inconvenienced because the few who needed the larger lettering said they didn't want the units. If the transport secretary of the time doesn't give any exemptions, I can see there being more than a few angry passengers - it will be more of a hindrance than a help to begin with!

 

[WillPS]

Remember DDA. Is not all about wheelchairs. It also includes PIS systems and door button changes.

The question about if a combination of accessible and non accessible carriages is an acceptable formation is much debated. Personally I expect to see many concessions for stock that would be uneconomical to upgrade (papers, maybe 150's and Mk3's

I don't see why concessions should be given to 150s! They have huge doors and can easily be made accessible; FNW started the process ages ago - the ex-FNW 150s are completely DDA accessible (loo and all) except for the lack of a PIS and accessible door buttons.

 

[Brian Aylott]

I agree that Porterbrook's 143/144 could be made compliant for 1/1/2020 and also agree that it would be very difficult to make Ange'ls 142s fully compliant for 1/1/2020 (and definitely wouldn't be cost effective)
However JCollins was saying that Porterbrook have said that 153s will be scrapped by 2019 and this is not what they've said this week and anyway they couldn't have said it for the whole153 fleet for many are Angel owned
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear
Brian

 

[fowler9]

I would love to know how accessibility works in full. Looking in my local area 142's do not have toilets which would pass as accessible to someone in a wheelchair. The 507's and 508's don't have toilets at all though. Mossley Hill station has ramps for access to the platform but there is a hell of a jump up to the trains heading in to the city centre. West Allerton station has no no ramp or lift access to the platforms but less of a leap up on to the train.

Any info would be gratefully received, I know that what I have said doesn't really take in to account anyone other than people who have impaired mobility, such as people with sight and hearing issues.