Retired Pacers?

[WatcherZero]

Theres a huge long lists of requirements, its on the Governments webpage.

/sigh guess I am bored enough to dig it up for you.

European regulations (for trains)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/catalogue-of-tsis

UK regulations (for light rail/non mainline)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/432/contents/made

UK Train Station requirements
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/accessible-train-and-station-design-for-disabled-people

 

[fowler9]

Theres a huge long lists of requirements, its on the Governments webpage.

/sigh guess I am bored enough to dig it up for you.

European regulations (for trains)
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/catalogue-of-tsis

UK regulations (for light rail/non mainline)
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/432/contents/made

UK Train Station requirements
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/accessible-train-and-station-design-for-disabled-people

Apologies mate and thanks for the info. I know all the info is out there and it was lazy of me to ask. No need for the forum I guess if we can't use it to get opinion and a few short cuts though.

Plus if I understood all the government jargon I'd be working for them and not asking for it to be put in to English. Ha ha.

 

[Darren R]

There are other reasons why the 142s couldn't be used in the way the OP suggested. On Northern it's often guards helping mobility-impaired passengers on to the train - and he/she has to be in the rear cab. So half of the time the guard is at the other end of the train from the compliant unit - that won't do much for puntuality figures!

And anyway, we're all missing the obvious. You couple a 142 to any other class and everyone instinctively boards the other unit. So the disabled passenger wouldn't be able to board the compliant unit because it's full of non-disabled passengers who could be on the non-compliant 142 without suffering any problems. (Apart from the problem of being on a 142, anyway!)

 

[Peter Sarf]

Oh dear I can see this causing a large urgent order for units that the UK manufacturing industry will not be able to meet. Then as a consequence this will then be followed by many years of very few orders leaving UK industry going to the wall. AGAIN.

Common sense needs to prevail - instead of providing extra requirements on the railways that make a nonsense of the long life a unit can achieve.

The likely solution, in my view, is the removal of toilet facilities wholesale from many services as this is not illegal I assume ?. We then gain extra seats in trains thus "enhanced" will be the justification. That then only leaves the other requirements which I imagine are not as hard to meet ?. And as for me with my weak bladder ?. Well I will go by bus or coach as its cheaper thus Ernest Marples wins again !.

 

[Beveridges]

They are extremely cheap nasty out of date units and are much lower quality than other trains built decades earlier, they should have been scrapped years ago anyway, they are the lowliest type of train that is still in mainline use. It is unbelievable how these are still performing 90- 120 minute journeys today.

 

[northwichcat]

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.

Regarding toilets on local services there are 2 options:
1. Provide a very frequent service and station toilets at the main stations en-route e.g. Merseyrail.
2. Provide toilets on trains due to the services not being that frequent and very few stations having toilets e.g. Northern.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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

Porterbrook don't own a single 142 and have not said anything about scrapping Pacers. They have unveiled a possible costly option to make the 143s and 144s mainly complaint. They have however said the 153s cannot be made complaint.

 

[Brian Aylott]

Porterbrook don't own a single 142 and have not said anything about scrapping Pacers. They have unveiled a possible costly option to make the 143s and 144s mainly complaint. They have however said the 153s cannot be made complaint.

Please see my latest post (18.44 Yesterday #29)
Brian

 

[Peter Sarf]

I imagine the problem with the 153s is that they are a single coach and putting a DDA toilet in would leave too little seating capacity.

Assuming the 153s body is sound enough it would be easier to remove one or both cabs and form them into 2-car and/or 3-car units. The cabs are modular and supposed to be easy to remove - they were added to convert them from 2-car to 1-car anyway. Would that make them worth gaining one DDA toilet. Failing that I guess they could be used as centre cars in 156s. I am assuming a 3-car unit would be useful.

Inevitable that some "new" units are going to be needed to cover past growth and units spread less thinly. Hopefully this will be achieved quickly by enough electrification.

 

[northwichcat]

Please see my latest post (18.44 Yesterday #29)
Brian

In 2011:

Consideration was also given to undertaking similar work on the Class 153 stock but it was felt that, currently, it was more difficult to make the economic case because of the level of work needed on a single car unit.

However, further investigation work will be carried out as will the possibility of reconfiguration into fixed 2-car units.

http://www.globalrailnews.com/2011/07/21/porterbrook-awards-overhaul-contract-to-railcare/

A number of people have said since that the latter has been dismissed due to sagging body shells on the 153s but I'm not sure where and when that originated from. I think it was a story that originated from the FGW area.

 

[Brian Aylott]

J Collins
Thank you for that
Things do of course change (2001 was a long time ago!) but currently (last week) whilst they have not decided to make the 153s compatible at present, a case can be made for the big expenditure required and if a TOC want it done, they will do it
Obviously, they don't know what Angel's decision is and scrapping hasn't been mentioned
Brian

 

[Peter Sarf]

Does occur to me that if one type of unit is given up on then another type will become more valuable and hence be more likely to be upgraded. Maybe the ROSCOs involved are looking at each other to see who blinks first.

The ROSCOs might be thinking can we afford to upgrade only the 153s, only the pacers or perhaps both. No one will pay for abortive design work. They need to know a reasonable amount of upgrades will be done to the relevant class of unit and that fare revenues will justify it.

What is certain is we want rid of the Pacers but cannot manage without them. Oh and also that time is running out.

Contrast that with TFL improving/creating LOROL, investing in buses and now looking to improve other routes.

 

[Wolfie]

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.

Agreed but, based on my personal experience elsewhere in Govt, any attempt at issuing a derogation will almost certainly be followed by an application for judicial review (most likely funded by legal aid) of the reasonableness of such a decision.

The reality is that the railways have known for a long time that this work is necessary and when it must be done by (they were given a long leadtime to avoid problems) and have chosen, as an industry, to do nowt about it. I can easily see a judge taking the view that in such circumstances they should not be allowed to profit from their tardiness.

 

[HSTEd]

That assumes legal aid will even still exist in 2019, which is far from certain the way things are going.

Additionally, the reasonableness of the decision is still up in the air since the Pacer withdrawal deadline will cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Additionally, the reasonableness of the decision is still up in the air since the Pacer withdrawal deadline will cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds.

For how many years has the 2019 deadline been known. It is 2013 now and a deathly silence on matters that regard this date deadline is still in process.

 

[northwichcat]

Additionally, the reasonableness of the decision is still up in the air since the Pacer withdrawal deadline will cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds.

There would be a bill for tens of millions to keep the 142s in service beyond 2019 ignoring accessibility - the seats on many of the Northern 142s don't even have 6 years left in them and new seats need to meet the latest crash standards even though the existing ones have dinosaur rights (I think it's actually grandfather rights.)

Also don't forget currently a disabled passenger can buy something like a £5 rail ticket and be put on a taxi costing £25 even though there is a rail service due to not being able to access it at the station they want to travel from.

 

[ainsworth74]

For how many years has the 2019 deadline been known. It is 2013 now and a deathly silence on matters that regard this date deadline is still in process.

I believe it was 2005 when the DDA amedments that affected public transport were made law. So they gave themselves about fifteen years to solve the issues that raised.

 

[northwichcat]

For how many years has the 2019 deadline been known. It is 2013 now and a deathly silence on matters that regard this date deadline is still in process.

It was decided on in 1994 (the 1995 Act was made law in December 94) and the 2019 date for rail carriages was based on the fact that all Pacers and Sprinters should either be withdrawn or have an extensive refurbishment/life extension program by then. (The 158s will be 30 years old, which is the standard DMU shelf life without a life extension program.)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I believe it was 2005 when the DDA amendments that affected public transport were made law. So they gave themselves about fifteen years to solve the issues that raised.

So the first eight of these fifteen years have elapsed without any hard and fast decision in 2013 as to what will occur to the Class 142 non-compatible units that Angel Trains have in their fleet that is leased to TOC, where Angel Trains are adamant will not receive the required compliancy work.

 

[northwichcat]

So the first eight of these fifteen years have elapsed without any hard and fast decision in 2013 as to what will occur to the Class 142 non-compatible units that Angel Trains have in their fleet that is leased to TOC, where Angel Trains are adamant will not receive the required compliancy work.

It's actually more than that: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/50/contents The 'Rail vehicles' section looks like it's been there all along as it appears in both 'Original' (made law in December 1994) and 'Latest Available' (before becoming part of the Equalities Act.)

There was at one time a plan to replace the Northern Pacers with new trains manufactured by CSRE: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2004/oct/20/china.transportintheuk

Those plans were scrapped but Northern hoped to use cascaded Sprinters to replace Pacers but due to rising passenger numbers Northern still have all the Pacers they originally had in service, alongside some cascaded 150s and 158s, that were new to the franchise.

 

[WatcherZero]

There was never a plan to buy CSRE trains, there was a plan to get additional rolling stock but they required a proven builder. CSRE offered to ship a couple of units to the UK for trials (to prove their competence) and made arrangements with two TOC's to trial them (Northern was one of them) but they never delivered.

 

[JackClare]

I hear Arriva Trains Wales are debating upgrading their 142's and 143's to be DDA Compliant after December 31st 2019 as a high percentage of their stock are pacers. The issue with it is that they are anticipating the valley lines to be electrified by not long after 2020, and so what's the point when they can use EMU's instead of, at the time, 35+ year old pacers? Plus, wouldn't a similar situation apply to Northern? 30.98% of their stock are pacers, is it possible they could get viable replacements in the next 6 years (if anything, preferably EMU's to run the major lines and the remaining 173 DMU's to operate the routes that aren't to be electrified)?

I do hope pacers remain after 2020. I was brought up on them and absolutely love them (although they are a bit daunting in the Cowburn tunnel between Edale and Chinley )

Those figures were from Wikipedia

 

[Brian Aylott]

Most appear to be worried that Pacers will remain after 31/12/2019
However, the Electrification & Rolling Stock Cascade Impact Review thread surely proves that there shouldn't be any reason for this to be so unless TOCs still want them instead of the units available from cascading due to electrification and new EMUs .
Brian

 

[northwichcat]

I hear Arriva Trains Wales are debating upgrading their 142's and 143's to be DDA Compliant after December 31st 2019 as a high percentage of their stock are pacers.

I've heard slightly differently.

FGW won't need their small fleet of 143s after Great Western/Thames Valley electrification, while Metro and SYPTE will have no influence on where the 144s will be used after the end of the current franchise.

Porterbrook, who own the 143s and 144s but none of the 142s see ATW as an operator who could take on all their Pacers if the complaint refurbishment goes ahead.

Most appear to be worried that Pacers will remain after 31/12/2019
However, the Electrification & Rolling Stock Cascade Impact Review thread surely proves that there shouldn't be any reason for this to be so unless TOCs still want them instead of the units available from cascading due to electrification and new EMUs .
Brian

I don't think it does at all. Anyone who thinks that must be assuming very little passenger growth and unelectrified routes aren't going to get extra capacity which won't work. Either we need additional CP5 electrification or a new order of DMUs in CP5.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The first four of eight rolling stock projects have been awarded funding as part of the ‘Radical Train’ competition.

The contest, which was launched by the Railway Safety Standards Board’s (RSSB) Enabling Innovation Team (EIT) earlier in the year, invited organisations to submit designs and concepts that could transform train production in the UK.

Judges looked at the potential improvements each of the concepts could bring to operators and passengers, as well as the their potential place in the international market.

Around £2.5 million of funding will be made available for the successful entrants, of which eight have now been shortlisted from 56 original entries.

The first four projects to receive funding are:

1. Revolution VLR Consortium (Very Light Rail) consisting of TDI (Europe) Ltd (Transport Design International), Unipart Rail Ltd, Warwick Manufacturing Group centre HVM Catapult, Trelleborg PPL Ltd , Allectra Ltd and GKN Land Systems for their low carbon, very-lightweight whole passenger railcar demonstrator.
2. Holdtrade Ltd, Transnet, Huddersfield University and HBA Ltd for their radical freight bogie concept.
3. Thales and NewRail for their active adhesion monitoring project.
4. A confidential investment in emissions reduction and fuel efficiency technology.

David Clarke, Director of the Future Railway Enabling Innovation Team, said: ‘We are delighted to announce these four investments which bring a mixture of new technologies and organisations to the UK rail sector.

“We’re looking forward to the winners demonstrating their proposals to show how they can deliver a tangible benefit to both the UK rail sector and to the economy through exports.”

http://www.globalrailnews.com/2013/...o-innovative-rolling-stock-research-projects/

To me number 1 sounds like something that could be used as Pacer and 153 replacement on some routes.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I hear Arriva Trains Wales are debating upgrading their 142's

Have they had any response from Angel Trains with regard to their Class 142 units ?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The problem really is that if the ROSCOs do carry out refurbishments to the pacers they'll want guarantees of at least 10 years further use of them, in order to get a return on that investment. In the case of the Valley Lines, there might only be 2-3 years of use post-2020 before the electrification is complete. It's also fair to assume that if an expensive refurbishment is carried out, one of the key advantages of pacers (cheap to lease/run) will no longer apply (ROSCOs will bump up the leasing costs to cover the cost of refurbishment, and all the extra kit (Accessible loo, etc) will add to the weight, not to mention the drop in capacity).

A little bit of common sense is required (On the railways? Never!) particularly with regard to the Valley lines- as much as it might sound harsh, special dispensation for the pacers to continue operating for another 2-3 years without being fully DDA-compliant is possibly the least-worst option:
The current costs borne by the industry when a passenger is unable to use a service (taxis or easement of ticket validity to allow doubling-back) I would imagine are significantly less than the cost of refurbishing old trains to only get another 2-3 years of use.

Spending large amounts on the pacers might even lead to them outlasting far superior stock such as 156s/158s- something which I doubt many passengers want to see!

 

[Haydn1971]

FGW won't need their small fleet of 143s after Great Western/Thames Valley electrification, while Metro and SYPTE will have no influence on where the 144s will be used after the end of the current franchise.

SYPTE & Metro won't exist after next April... And whilst their replacement ITA's will have similar small clout in isolation, Rail North will be responsible to all the ITA's north of the midlands and will have as much clout as TfL has now, so don't expect to see more dross dumped in the north once the Northern / TPE franchise comes to an end.

 

[northwichcat]

SYPTE & Metro won't exist after next April... And whilst their replacement ITA's will have similar small clout in isolation, Rail North will be responsible to all the ITA's north of the midlands and will have as much clout as TfL has now, so don't expect to see more dross dumped in the north once the Northern / TPE franchise comes to an end.

Patrick McLoughlin has stated that Rail North will not be the franchisor for the next Northern and TPE franchises but will work with DfT, who will still be the franchisor, in the bidding process. So the next franchises will be more like the ATW franchise rather than the LO, Merseyrail and Scotrail franchises.

 

[Buttsy]

If it were not for the sag on the 153s, would they need to be DDA compliant if they were permanently the 'middle' coach in a 156 making it 3 car, subject to the 156 being compliant of course?

 

[northwichcat]

If it were not for the sag on the 153s, would they need to be DDA compliant if they were permanently the 'middle' coach in a 156 making it 3 car, subject to the 156 being compliant of course?

Yes but it would be permissible for the 3 car train to have one complaint toilet and one standard toilet in the same way a 3 car 185 has both rather than 2 complaint toilets.

 

[455driver]

If it were not for the sag on the 153s, would they need to be DDA compliant if they were permanently the 'middle' coach in a 156 making it 3 car, subject to the 156 being compliant of course?

No because the 'train' would be compliant with the converted 156 coach, every coach does not have to be compliant but one (or 2) coaches need to be compliant on each train.