What will replace Pacers?

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Since all the Secretary of State for Transport has to do to keep them is write a note explaining that he wants to keep them.

How many would he like?...

 

[LE Greys]

What they need is a modern equivalent of a 150. Better seating than the original but suitable for slower suburban runs and longer branches. A good all rounder like the FGW 150's.

100% agreed!

The nearest we've found so far is the 172, which would certainly work for any remaining diesel suburban runs (probably as a 150 replacement as well, looking farther into the future). One issue with 172s involves having doors at ¼-¾ positions rather than at the ends, another being (oddly) that 100mph might make it too high-geared for some routes, the ones where speeds rarely exceed 60 such as the Norfolk branches or in the West Country, so our rural Pacer/Sprinter replacement might have to be modified somewhat.

 

[anthony263]

100% agreed!

The nearest we've found so far is the 172, which would certainly work for any remaining diesel suburban runs (probably as a 150 replacement as well, looking farther into the future). One issue with 172s involves having doors at ¼-¾ positions rather than at the ends, another being (oddly) that 100mph might make it too high-geared for some routes, the ones where speeds rarely exceed 60 such as the Norfolk branches or in the West Country, so our rural Pacer/Sprinter replacement might have to be modified somewhat.

aren't the London Overground class 172's geared for only 75mph?

I am sure we had an argument on this forum over whether or not the case was the same with the chiltern examples

 

[LE Greys]

aren't the London Overground class 172's geared for only 75mph?

I am sure we had an argument on this forum over whether or not the case was the same with the chiltern examples

Just checked my P5, and so they are! That's one solved then.

 

[rebmcr]

the way the economy is, Pacers are more likely to be replaced by Horse and cart.

I don't think there's the money for such an upgrade.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Pacers will be replaced by cascaded sprinters (153, 155, or 156)

The sprinters will be replaced by cascaded 158s/turbostars and they in turn will be replaced by whatever regional DMU is current at the time

 

[northwichcat]

There's also various "wishlist" ideas for where any "spare" DMUs could go (just look at all of the fantasy suggestions on here, like giving infrequently served stations like Denton and Brigg a regular service...).

Some of them are a bit more than 'wishlist' ideas. The Ordsall Chord and Todmorden Chord projects have been confirmed. Undertaking the infrastructure projects but not putting them to good use is not an option.

Yeah went Brid - Scarborough on it mid 2000s

I asked if it was via Beverley. I'm sure that was south of Bridlington last time I checked!

Was this by any chance in 2004 when for 6 months TPE operated Manchester-Hull-Bridlington using 158s and ATN operated a Bridlington-Scarborough shuttle?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Since all the Secretary of State for Transport has to do to keep them is write a note explaining that he wants to keep them.

It would have to say a lot more than that and would need to explain:
1. Why he has granted the exemption order.
2. The exact terms of the exemption order including an expiry date for it.

He would also need to evaluate which services should get the exemption order. For instance, non-complaint toilets on the Hope Valley stoppers all day where the service isn't short, is infrequent and station toilets are not available would need more explaining than restricting their use to running a frequent Kirby to Wigan shuttle.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As has been explained, Porterbrook are showing how a Pacer could be modified to be sufficiently accessible (for a cost)

And note the reduction in capacity which would mean they would be best suited to replace single 153s after refurbishment instead of staying on their existing services. However, Pacers aren't suitable to replace 153s on some routes - look at the Cornish branch lines where Pacers didn't work and consider the HOW line services can be operated by single 153s.

The plans are also for 143s and 144s only which are newer and a slightly better build than the 142s. According to another thread Angel Trains have said the option of making 142s complaint is not being explored. Maybe after seeing the costs Porterbrook have come up they've decided it isn't economically viable to do.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Pacers will be replaced by cascaded sprinters (153, 155, or 156)

According to Porterbrook making 153s complaint in single formation is a less viable option than making 143s complaint.

 

[cjmillsnun]

According to Porterbrook making 153s complaint in single formation is a less viable option than making 143s complaint.

Fair point. They may well be reformed into 155s

 

[HSTEd]

It would have to say a lot more than that and would need to explain:
1. Why he has granted the exemption order.

Four words: "There is No Alternative"

2. The exact terms of the exemption order including an expiry date for it.

He could set any date he liked, likely simply the same day next year.
He could then grant another exemption at that stage.

He would also need to evaluate which services should get the exemption order. For instance, non-complaint toilets on the Hope Valley stoppers all day where the service isn't short, is infrequent and station toilets are not available would need more explaining than restricting their use to running a frequent Kirby to Wigan shuttle.

He would simply state that attempting such restrictions would be damaging to the operational flexibility of the railway and is thus impractical.

"There is no alternative".

 

[northwichcat]

Four words: "There is No Alternative"

"There is no alternative".

There are lots of alternative options available:
1. New standard diesel trains.
2. New trains which can run off diesel but can be adapted to run off electric.
3. A cheaper diesel or bi-mode option such as tram-train or heavy tram.
4. Reducing the number of strengthened trains to allow the complaint trains to stretch further.
5. Replacement bus services.

If any minister was stupid enough to just stand up and say 'there is no alternative option' without saying in detail why they have dismissed each of the alternatives they'd look like an idiot and the opposition would be all over them.

To actually dismiss new diesel trains the minister would have to prove that electrification will happen faster than diesel trains will become life-expired. Given the number of DMUs built between 1984 and 1990 the current electrification progression rate is no way near fast enough to rule out future DMU orders. Even the ATOC report which states that most life expired diesel trains can be replaced as a result electrification projects allows for a future order of new DMUs but not on the same scale as Sprinters or Turbostars.

 

[anthony263]

Fair point. They may well be reformed into 155s

That is if they are still in good enough shape to continue use beyond 2020.
You can see the body on a lot of the 153's is bending slightly.

That said if they are reformed back into class 155's and have the small cab removed that may help with this issue since some of the equipment is likely to be removed from that small cab.

2 carriage trains are needed these days on the Pembroke Dock and Heart of wales lines with passenger numbers rising.

 

[HSTEd]

There are lots of alternative options available:
1. New standard diesel trains.
2. New trains which can run off diesel but can be adapted to run off electric.

He would simply go on about how in this age of austerity, new trains would far too expensive, especially bespoke "adaptable" electric/diesel trains.
He can also throw in a vague commitment to more electrification to undermine the case for new diesels.

3. A cheaper diesel or bi-mode option such as tram-train or heavy tram.

Tram stock is not that much cheaper than simple heavy rail units, especially once you consider the ultra-bespoke nature of a "bi-mode" or pure diesel "heavy tram". (At least the Turbo/electrostar family is actually used elsewhere).

4. Reducing the number of strengthened trains to allow the complaint trains to stretch further.
5. Replacement bus services.

If any minister was stupid enough to just stand up and say 'there is no alternative option' without saying in detail why they have dismissed each of the alternatives they'd look like an idiot and the opposition would be all over them.

If they stand up and say they are going to cut the number of carriages in half and introduced mass bustitution all over the map, they are going to be in far more trouble.
They would look like more than an idiot when the red top press cuts between pictures of dozens of vehicles on the scrapline and endless lines of busses parked outside railway stations.

To actually dismiss new diesel trains the minister would have to prove that electrification will happen faster than diesel trains will become life-expired. Given the number of DMUs built between 1984 and 1990 the current electrification progression rate is no way near fast enough to rule out future DMU orders.

For the definition of 'life expired' that you espouse.
By many definitions of 'life expired' they can continue in service for quite some time yet. A significant number of First Generation units lasted nearly fifty years didn't they?
Pacers are nowhere near that old yet.

Even the ATOC report which states that most life expired diesel trains can be replaced as a result electrification projects allows for a future order of new DMUs but not on the same scale as Sprinters or Turbostars.

Again, in this age of austerity the governments view of 'life expired' could quite easily differ from ATOCs.

 

[northwichcat]

For the definition of 'life expired' that you espouse.
By many definitions of 'life expired' they can continue in service for quite some time yet. A significant number of First Generation units lasted nearly fifty years didn't they?
Pacers are nowhere near that old yet.

Pacers are a much more shoddy build than the 1st gen DMUs!

Only 6 of 1st gen 101s managed to get near 50 years. What percentage of the total number of 101s is that? Also remember 101s were the only 1st gen DMUs to stay in operation that long. Some of the 105s only managed 29 years in service, while the longest lasting of the 103s only lasted 25 years.

If we take a like for like comparison maybe we can keep a handful of the 150s in operation until around 2030 (like the 101s) but the Pacers should have already been withdrawn (like the 103s.)

If they stand up and say they are going to cut the number of carriages in half and introduced mass bustitution all over the map, they are going to be in far more trouble.

I wasn't saying it's an option that should be considered viable but it's an alternative that they would have to put forward and say it's inferior to the deadline extension and why it is inferior. (The minister needs inferior alternatives to help defend any extension.) When explaining that they are likely to be asked why can't the non-complaint units be used for strengthening only as that would seem to be a better option, unless the minister already covers that off in their reasoning.

You categorically said there are no other options which is blatantly incorrect.

He would simply go on about how in this age of austerity

In doing so he would be admitting that George Osborne's growth plan isn't going to work. The last chance to order new trains to be in place before the end of 2019 is not for a few years yet, so if Osborne's growth plan works then by 2017 we won't be in an age of austerity and can order new trains.

Also considering large new orders for Southern and Thameslink have been placed and a new order for Crossrail is set to be placed he would face the same back lash that Ms Villiers faced when she suggested that the Northern Hub budget may need to be reviewed in view of how much is being spent elsewhere with elsewhere effectively meaning the Greater London area.

 

[Surreyman]

Just for a moment lets imagine: .....

1. Conversation at Angel Trains 'We're not going to spend money on class 142, cheap 'n nasty design, passengers hate them, can't see a business case for keeping them when the current lease runs out.'

2. Conversation at Northern TOC, 'Our franchise has been extended to February 2016, after that it's anybodies guess who will be running the new franchise, certainly not going to worry about the future of class 142s.'

3. Conversation at Dft - 'General Election in 2 years time, no idea which party or individual people will be in charge then, there's some squabble going on about the future of Pacer trains (whatever they are?)after 2019 but that's more than 5 years away, we can't even think about that now".

4. Conversations at various potential future Franchise bidders 'Of course if we put a bid in for the new Northern Franchise, there is a potential rolling stock issue around class 142, not to worry, when we submit our bid, we will include a number of options on rolling stock availability and let the Dft decide.'

As a non-fantasy aside, does anybody know what the lease period expiry date(s) between Angel Trains and Northern are for class 142/143/144?

 

[tbtc]

Just for a moment lets imagine: .....

1. Conversation at Angel Trains 'We're not going to spend money on class 142, cheap 'n nasty design, passengers hate them, can't see a business case for keeping them when the current lease runs out.'

Why would any ROSCO worry about whether passengers "hate" their trains?

They are only concerned in maximising the profit for the trains that they own - if they can make Pacers sufficiently "accessible" then they may be guaranteed many more years of service from them - the only question is whether the cost of upgrading a Pacer will be justified by all of those extra years of use.

Otherwise, I expect that demand for 75mph DMUs will be significantly lower come 2024 (given that the electrification in CP5 will mean a lot of "quick wins" in CP6 that eliminate a lot of the need for 75mph DMUs), which means little chance of justifying new builds (other than, say, if a PTE dominated franchise want to be seen to investing and therefore buy a token amount of new DMUs).

 

[Simon11]

Check out modern railways- may 2013. There is a 3 page article on will we have pacers in 2030.

It makes for interesting reading! The key point is that pacers are cheap to run and there isn't any money to purchase new trains, considering that the franchise is already running at a loss of 7.3p per passenger km and it could go up to 12.6p if new trains were purchased to replace pacers.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Pacers will be replaced by cascaded sprinters (153, 155, or 156)

The sprinters will be replaced by cascaded 158s/turbostars and they in turn will be replaced by whatever regional DMU is current at the time

No.

We have no current DMUs as no one is building any. The 172s have been built over a year and no one is offering to buy more.
There aren't enough EMUs to cascade the DMUs down.

Pacers will still be with us in 2030 because the numbers simply don't add up.

Make them compliant and get another 15 years out of them while we continue with major electrification projects.

 

[30mog]

Pacers will still be with us in 2030 because the numbers simply don't add up.

What I thought all along. And why I posted originally.

 

[tbtc]

No.

We have no current DMUs as no one is building any. The 172s have been built over a year and no one is offering to buy more.
There aren't enough EMUs to cascade the DMUs down.

Pacers will still be with us in 2030 because the numbers simply don't add up.

Make them compliant and get another 15 years out of them while we continue with major electrification projects.

I agree that the numbers don't allow full Pacer withdrawal by the end of CP5, but I think that (once the unelectrified "main lines" are done in CP5- MML, GWML, TPE) that we could get rid of huge numbers of 75mph DMUs in CP6 by filling in the gaps (e.g. "quick wins" like Sheffield - Swinton - Moorthorpe/Doncaster).

That makes it hard to justify building large numbers of new DMUs if Pacers can be made accessible at a reasonable price.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Has any question be raised at the Palace of Westminster in recent times with regard to rail vehicle compliance with the 2010 Act ?

 

[Greybeard33]

The Office of Rail Regulation is the body charged with enforcing the accessibility legislation. The relevant page on its website has this to say about the 2020 deadline (my bolding):

DfT has the policy lead on accessibility across all transport modes, including the target for all rail vehicles, both heavy and light rail, to be accessible by no later than 1 January 2020 (unless appropriate exemptions are in place).

Further guidance can be found on their website.

The linked page on the DfT website says in part:

Working towards 2020

While the latest fleets of trains are fully compliant with accessibility requirements, there are still trains in service that are not fully compliant. It’s too expensive to withdraw and update these trains, so effort is being concentrated on those non-compliances which truly prevent disabled people from accessing trains.

We are working on a case-by-case basis, in consultation with the rail industry and the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC), to identify those areas, such as passenger information systems, where compliance by 2020 will be required.

While an accessible rail fleet will be achieved by 1 January 2020, it is likely that a small number of trains will not fully comply with the PRM TSI or RVAR by that time. It’s inevitable that some exemptions will remain necessary and we are working with the rail industry and DPTAC to keep these to a minimum.

I guess the phrases "truly prevent", "such as passenger information systems" and "a small number of trains will not fully comply" are open to interpretation and give the DfT some political "wriggle room" to try to avoid new DMU orders.

 

[cjmillsnun]

No.

We have no current DMUs as no one is building any. The 172s have been built over a year and no one is offering to buy more.
There aren't enough EMUs to cascade the DMUs down.

Pacers will still be with us in 2030 because the numbers simply don't add up.

Make them compliant and get another 15 years out of them while we continue with major electrification projects.

I said current AT THE TIME... Not current NOW. They are totally different things. We're talking 7 years from now, so could theoretically be ordered by 2016/7

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Just to put my mind at rest on one particular matter. How well are the Pacer bodyshells faring at the present time, noting their age and method of construction ? Will there be a standard method of ensuring a greatly extended life in excess of the normal life-cycle originally envisaged for these bodyshells and will the cost of this procedure be on that has to enter the costings for such an extended life-cycle ?

 

[northwichcat]

Check out modern railways- may 2013. There is a 3 page article on will we have pacers in 2030.

It makes for interesting reading! The key point is that pacers are cheap to run and there isn't any money to purchase new trains, considering that the franchise is already running at a loss of 7.3p per passenger km and it could go up to 12.6p if new trains were purchased to replace pacers.

Not those misleading figures again! The reason Pacers are cheaper is because they are the train equivalent of a mini-bus with their little 15.5m long carriages and don't have the almost 24m length carriages that most new trains have -such as the Turbostars and the 185s.

As Porterbrook have demonstrated a complaint Pacer will have around 80 seats, a complaint 3 car 172 has just under 190 seats so one 3 car 172 could run a service which would otherwise require a 5 car Pacer combination to get the same sort of capacity.

If your start comparing leasing and running costs for 5 Pacer carriages against 3 Turbostar carriages you get completely different figures.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

does anybody know what the lease period expiry date(s) between Angel Trains and Northern are for class 142/143/144?

Northern don't have any 143s and the 144s belong to Porterbrook.

AFAIK all Northern stock is leased until April 2014. The announced second franchise extension isn't a signed and sealed deal yet and if it can't be agreed it would likely mean a short term franchise would be awarded like happened with Anglia or DOR taking over for 10 months.

 

[Surreyman]

Originally Posted by Surreyman
'does anybody know what the lease period expiry date(s) between Angel Trains'and Northern are for class 142/143/144?'

Northern don't have any 143s and the 144s belong to Porterbrook.

Apologies, I guess I knew that, but in any case, what are lease expiry dates for 143s & 144s from Angel for both FGW & ATW?

 

[CC 72100]

Originally Posted by Surreyman
'does anybody know what the lease period expiry date(s) between Angel Trains'and Northern are for class 142/143/144?'

Northern don't have any 143s and the 144s belong to Porterbrook.

Apologies, I guess I knew that, but in any case, what are lease expiry dates for 143s & 144s from Angel for both FGW & ATW?

I think I've read on here that FGW own a few of theirs, with the rest on lease but no idea on dates I'm afraid.

 

[northwichcat]

I think I've read on here that FGW own a few of theirs, with the rest on lease but no idea on dates I'm afraid.

When this came up previously someone said that FGW own them but as assets of the franchise so they will be automatically sold on to the new franchise in the same way that a TVM that has been installed by FGW would be.

 

[Simon11]

"Not those misleading figures again! The reason Pacers are cheaper is because they are the train equivalent of a mini-bus with their little 15.5m long carriages and don't have the almost 24m length carriages that most new trains have -such as the Turbostars and the 185s.

As Porterbrook have demonstrated a complaint Pacer will have around 80 seats, a complaint 3 car 172 has just under 190 seats so one 3 car 172 could run a service which would otherwise require a 5 car Pacer combination to get the same sort of capacity.

If your start comparing leasing and running costs for 5 Pacer carriages against 3 Turbostar carriages you get completely different figures."

Yes a 3 car 172, has the same seats as a 5 car pacer, however the cost of new trains will still be huge.

A 2 car pacers is not going to be replaced by a 1.3 carriage 172, more like 4 like so 2 car 172 which offers more seats to accomodate growth. Therefore costs will still be increasing, although there will be more seats available.

 

[tbtc]

Not those misleading figures again! The reason Pacers are cheaper is because they are the train equivalent of a mini-bus with their little 15.5m long carriages and don't have the almost 24m length carriages that most new trains have -such as the Turbostars and the 185s.

As Porterbrook have demonstrated a complaint Pacer will have around 80 seats, a complaint 3 car 172 has just under 190 seats so one 3 car 172 could run a service which would otherwise require a 5 car Pacer combination to get the same sort of capacity.

If your start comparing leasing and running costs for 5 Pacer carriages against 3 Turbostar carriages you get completely different figures

The problem is that many Pacers are on routes that don't require a five car Pacer - that'd be complete overkill - a 150 would still give a capacity increase compared to most Pacers (as would a three coach 313 etc) - no need to order three coach 172s as direct Pacer replacement

 

[northwichcat]

The problem is that many Pacers are on routes that don't require a five car Pacer - that'd be complete overkill - a 150 would still give a capacity increase compared to most Pacers (as would a three coach 313 etc) - no need to order three coach 172s as direct Pacer replacement

Well it's good to know that you know of many Sheffield area services that where 80 seater complaint Pacers can be used, given that there's very few peak time services in the Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds areas where even a pair of 80 seater Pacers would be adequate, given that that's only slightly more seats than a single 156 has currently.