Pacer replacement contract ... any news?

[tbtc]

not wiring the thames valley branches is enough to show there not thinking about DMU's entirely....

I agree that its daft not to. Bear in mind that a three coach 165 with 3/2 seating is broadly equivalent to two 142s (in capacity terms), there's a lot of "easy wins" if they do those branches. And, yes, I'm arguing for wiring lines in the Thames Valley instead of Sheffield because its easier to free Pacers that way.

My only hope was that they'd kept part of the announcement back (like the idea of Crossrail extending to Reading), so that they get the "praise" for a second wave (much like the odd decision not to wire Bolton - Wigan - Southport).

I'm not holding my breath though!

 

[WatcherZero]

The main stumbling block which prevents Pacers being made compliant is indeed their height, because of the bogie setup the cabin floor couldnt be lowered to make them stepless, something that is possible with the Sprinters design through replacing the suspension.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I agree that its daft not to. Bear in mind that a three coach 165 with 3/2 seating is broadly equivalent to two 142s (in capacity terms), there's a lot of "easy wins" if they do those branches. And, yes, I'm arguing for wiring lines in the Thames Valley instead of Sheffield because its easier to free Pacers that way.

My only hope was that they'd kept part of the announcement back (like the idea of Crossrail extending to Reading), so that they get the "praise" for a second wave (much like the odd decision not to wire Bolton - Wigan - Southport).

I'm not holding my breath though!

I hope no one holds their breath to wait for a good decision from DFT we'd all be dead....

I hope for the second wave too, i'd hope warrigton central line is covered too. And Valley lines and to swansea... maybe they have a surprise in store for us. *wakes up*

I think we need to just blanket an entire area in wires, im all for electrifying all lancashire ( i too not rooting for sheffield wires here....) to stop any under wires movements and just get as many DMU's out of lancashire as possible....

 

[tbtc]

I hope no one holds their breath to wait for a good decision from DFT we'd all be dead....

I hope for the second wave too, i'd hope warrigton central line is covered too. And Valley lines and to swansea... maybe they have a surprise in store for us. *wakes up*

I think we need to just blanket an entire area in wires, im all for electrifying all lancashire ( i too not rooting for sheffield wires here....) to stop any under wires movements and just get as many DMU's out of lancashire as possible....

Agreed. The problem is that if you wire something like the Warrington line then do you cut the Norwich/Scarborough - Liverpool services at Manchester (which would then free up another four or five DMUs), or do you maintain current frequencies (with DMUs running under the wires)?

I think that if we want to scrap Pacers then we are going to have to take some hard decisions over some DMU services which run under wires for significant parts of their journey - not popular I know.

 

[Mojo]

Lines to be electrified using a bottom contact ''third rail'' system with ex-District line trains once they are no longer required on LU

 

[TEW]

I agree that its daft not to. Bear in mind that a three coach 165 with 3/2 seating is broadly equivalent to two 142s (in capacity terms), there's a lot of "easy wins" if they do those branches. And, yes, I'm arguing for wiring lines in the Thames Valley instead of Sheffield because its easier to free Pacers that way.

My only hope was that they'd kept part of the announcement back (like the idea of Crossrail extending to Reading), so that they get the "praise" for a second wave (much like the odd decision not to wire Bolton - Wigan - Southport).

I'm not holding my breath though!

Wiring of the Thames Valley branches is one of the things FGW are said to be planning to offer as part of their bid for the next, longer GW franchise.

 

[tbtc]

Wiring of the Thames Valley branches is one of the things FGW are said to be planning to offer as part of their bid for the next, longer GW franchise.

Good news. I like the idea of TOCs suggesting these improvements in their bids (like Chester wiring on the WCML franchise) - its worked pretty well on Chiltern

 

[LE Greys]

Now let's see:

1) Lots of unhappy passengers being carried around in clapped out and crammed Pacers, longing for both new trains and more trains

2) Train building factory at Derby laying off workers because it does not have enough work.

Could there be a connection ?
.... err ... in Britain....... No.

Precisely.

I was calling for the Standard Local Multiple Unit (or Super-Duper Sprinter, as I called it) ten years ago. It should have been the priority rather than things such as the 185. We could manage with 158s on TPX, but not with Pacers going on for ever.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The contract award to Siemans today brings to mind a time scale for the preliminary discussions on actual numbers of stock units required and budgetry requirements, then the actual tendering documentation, then the bidding process, then the result of the successful bidder. Only then will construction be commenced.

What exactly is Siemens' timescale? I'm thinking more of the Thameslink contract here, when will the cascaded units from there become available? Will they give the 377s to Southern first, then cascade all the older units in 2016 or will the cascaded units become available gradually in the years before that? I also wonder what the timescale for GWML electrification is. Will it go to Oxford or Bristol first? and how many miles of wire a year will go up with their planned factory train? I assume the north-west electrification will proceed more slowly due to lack of a factory train, or is one going up there too?

Now let's see:

1) Lots of unhappy passengers being carried around in clapped out and crammed Pacers, longing for both new trains and more trains

2) Train building factory at Derby laying off workers because it does not have enough work.

Could there be a connection ?
.... err ... in Britain....... No.

I can see plenty of very useful work that could be given to Derby now the Germans have the Thameslink and Crossrail contracts.

1. 180 (possiblly a few more) Electrostar carriges for the ValleyLines including the Swansea/Maesteg - Cheltenham Spa/Bristol TM/Ebbw Vale stopping services (breaking the Cardiff - Bristol section off the Cardiff - Taunton)
2. Pantograph cars for all Voyagers, which if some more Pendos are ordered to replace the 221s with ICWC would mean all IEPs could be plain electric
3. Pantograph cars for the 222s, allowing partial wiring of MML (Nottingham and Corby wired, getting new electric stock leaving 222s on the other workings)
4. A fleet of new loco-hauled coaches to replace surviving mark 2s and the East Anglia mark3s by 2020 to save on some power-door fittment
5. A continued, gradual build of these new coaches to replace IC125s with push-pull electric LHCS (by 2035), then to replace the mark3 sleepers (by about 2035-2040) and finally the mark4s by about 2045-2050
6. If you really can't wire enough routes to replace Pacers by 2020 then an order of 172s for Northern to plug the gap

You probablly wouldn't need to do all of that to save the factory either, but you would need the lot to provide the benifits to passengers.

Failing that, maybe bombardier could offer to refurbish the 150's going north?

Surely they could think of something to do, even if it is entering preliminary negotiations. If They could keep the staff busy refurbishing old units (not only 150's there is a whole other thread about wha tneeds refurbishing) and have a big order on the horizon, then they could mitigate any job losses

And by refurbishment, I am talking major work, not new seat covers and carpets.

An expansive life-extension program will probablly be needed on all Sprinters, and possibly the 166s/165s too. Getting rid of Pacers will be hard enough, I don't think we can afford to loose any other DMUs for many, many years after that so life-extension work will be necessary.

So, with around fifty 158s freed up from ScotRail, plus the units freed up from Lancashire/ Thames Valley electrifications and you have almost a hundred units, which would wipe out the majority of Pacers were there not stock shortages and increasing passenger numbers on so many lines.

Not only that, there are a number of lines which deserve a much better service, and places where Beeching went too far, that would happily absorb any spare Sprinters going around. <silly/sarcastic comment>Ideally, we'd invent a time machine and get BR to make a load more of them and put them in stasis until they were needed.</silly/sarcastic comment>

PS: I still think that an additional 350 miles of electrification should allow all Pacers to be withdrawn, but realistically even if the political will/money was there, the logistics of sorting this out at the same time as electrifying lines in Lancashire/ Thames Valley would stretch experienced staff/ resources too far

Brings me back to my earlier question, how many miles per year can the two electrification teams, one with a factory train, each feesibly manage? The figures I've seen (no idea on truefullness of source) on the web for northwest electrification suggests the 1st 15.6 miles will be complete by the end of 2013 (when as yet un-ordered new stock is supposed to take over Manchester - Scotland). That will be followed by:

• 25.9 more miles complete by end of 2014
• Another 17.2 miles complete by the end of 2015
• And finally the 24.4 miles from Manchester to Preston complete by end of 2016

Assuming work on one section is not started before the previous one has finished (big assumption I know, can anyone clear this up?) then this team can manage a maximum of about 26 miles a year. Taking 3 years, and a figure of 25 miles per year to be on the safe side, that gives 75 more miles of wire. I think that gives you Cardiff Central to Treherbert, Cardiff Bay to Rhymney and the Maesteg and Ebbw Vale branches (but not the mainlines they contect to, or the Vale Of Glamorgan line). Hopefully the GWML team with it's factory train will have enough time to wire Swansea - Cardiff (via Vale Of Glamorgan and direct) and Severn Tunnel Junction - Cheltenham - Swindon to make it work. The first team would then finish off the Valleys by doing Aberdare (might be able to extend to Glyn-Neath while they are at it, assuming the track is done by a track team before hand, while the wires are going up everywhere else) and Merthyr in 2020 itself to cascade the remaining 150s to the rest of Wales. Sadly it looks like Northerns Pacers can only be got rid of completly by buying new DMUs, unless another electrification team materilises. The fleet needed can be reduced in size though, use a very small number of 150s from the Valleys to knock out FGW's very small fleet of Pacers and make the Newcastle area a mix of 165s and 156s by cascading 5 of FGW's 2-car 165s to Northern and all the 3-car FGW 165s to Chiltern, with Chiltern then sending some of their 2-car units (the same number as they received 3-car sets) off to Northern. That might still leave 2 142s for the Newcastle - Hexham services though, as I'm trying to avoid Northern needing more 156s there than they currently have (13 I think) and 165s apparently can't go west of either Newcastle or possibly MetroCentre on that line.

 

[ainsworth74]

I can see plenty of very useful work that could be given to Derby now the Germans have the Thameslink and Crossrail

Jumping the gun there a bit methinks as we've only got to the stage of announcing the bidders, the contract itself is still to be won!

 

[Rhydgaled]

Jumping the gun there a bit methinks as we've only got to the stage of announcing the bidders, the contract itself is still to be won!

I thought they said on the BBC 1 o'clock news that Seimens had won the Crossrail contract too. Maybe I'm loosing it, but I already knew Seimens has taken the Thameslink contract and that was a little while ago now so why would it be on the news today that the Derby plant was under threat if the Crossrail contract hadn't yet been anounced?

 

[ainsworth74]

I thought they said on the BBC 1 o'clock news that Seimens had won the Crossrail contract too. Maybe I'm loosing it, but I already knew Seimens has taken the Thameslink contract and that was a little while ago now so why would it be on the news today that the Derby plant was under threat if the Crossrail contract hadn't yet been anounced?

When the Thameslink contract was announced a few weeks ago Bombardier decided to carry out a full review of their UK operations. The results of that review were revealed yesterday hence why the job losses have only just been announced, they've only just decided to make them in the aftermath of their review. The Derby plant certainly isn't closing yet (basically their downsizing from 5 production lines to 1 as that's all they need to fulfill outstanding orders) and with Crossrail still to be won they would be stupid to close Derby totally.

Edit: Just had a look at Crossrails official website and there is nothing there about a contract announcement, neither is their anything on Googlenews (search term: Crossrail).

 

[WatcherZero]

On the news they said they lost out on the IEP and Thameslink contracts, your just imagining they said Crossrail instead of IEP I think. The fact that Bombardier had written to the government and warned they could axe 1200 jobs even if they won Thameslink shows I think that its only made things slightly worse (1400 jobs now) and the review was going to axe a lot of jobs anyway.

 

[sprinterguy]

Another option I'm not sure has been considered if mass electrification was embraced. Could a single electrically powered motor coach be developed that would be inserted between two de-motorised DMU vehicles, to extend the life of the DMU fleet, while converting to electric traction. A new class of emu from the bulk of the existing DMU fleet

Could a single emu vehicle have the grunt to to move two unpowered DMU coaches?

This is the method that the majority of the older (seventies/eighties) commuter EMUs use: A single motor coach and multiple unpowered trailers. Given that the mark 3 bodyshell based EMUs (315s, 317s, 319s, 455s, etc) share many commonalities with the class 150 and that most of those EMUs are four carriage units then it is perfectly feasible that a single electric motor coach could provide power to shift a pair of de-engined Sprinter coaches.

 

[northwichcat]

Those are all minor things really. The door controls have been replaced on ATW units and FGW 143s. The seating is easily replaced and installing destination displays wouldn't be too hard.

The question would be how much would it cost and how viable would it to be do to trains built in the early 1980s.

I doubt toilets are going to be fitted to new units without them such as 378s.

I agree but Northern Rail services do need toilets. Most stations don't have them and on many lines the frequency of service is only hourly - even less on some lines like New Mills to Sheffield. It's not like FCC, London Overground and Merseyrail who have regular services and a greater number of station toilets.

There is still the issue of double step trains where the only alternative in some cases would be rebuilding the whole station or compulsory land order purchases to allow deeper platforms.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Agreed. The problem is that if you wire something like the Warrington line then do you cut the Norwich/Scarborough - Liverpool services at Manchester (which would then free up another four or five DMUs), or do you maintain current frequencies (with DMUs running under the wires)?

I think that if we want to scrap Pacers then we are going to have to take some hard decisions over some DMU services which run under wires for significant parts of their journey - not popular I know.

You could always order dual powered trains, which would also have the added advantage that in the event of a power cut they wouldn't be stranded until the power is restored.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Presumably there's no requirement for trains to have a destination display at the front (unlike buses), so it'd be DDA complaint just to get rid of them on Pacers?

I think it's a case of either having LED display screens on every platform at every station or a destination display on the train. (A deaf person needs to know where the train is going to.) In an ideal world there'd be both in case one breaks but I think opting for the cheaper of the two would suffice.

 

[BestWestern]

Precisely.

I was calling for the Standard Local Multiple Unit (or Super-Duper Sprinter, as I called it) ten years ago. It should have been the priority rather than things such as the 185. We could manage with 158s on TPX, but not with Pacers going on for ever.

I agree. The decision to spend millions on new TPE units seemed to be a strange skewing of priorities, the 158s are good trains and with an SWT standard of refurbishment they are pretty much as good to the casual traveller as anything else (better in some cases). This is one of the problems with many different companies running our routes, there becomes a 'prestige contest' with everyone wanting some kind of 'flagship' boast, the most obvious being new trains. This ends up with too many conflicting shouts about where the priority should be and no clear national strategy. In x number of years, when the 185s come up for replacement, we will be left with yet another completely non-standard batch of trains (heavy and thirsty trains in this case!) which won't necessarily be ideally suited to anywhere else.

I'd have thought the obvious Pacer solution would be to remove the toilets (thus also increasing capacity) and operate them only on local branch line shuttle work or over short distances. In these cases no toilets shouldn't be a problem. Door controls, destination screens and seating etc are all easily upgraded. Solutions in the way of properly designed ramps appropriate to each location are easily provided if the units are working over set diagrams, removing the issues of double step entry. Whilst the Pacer units are not popular, if they are deployed appropriately they are perfectly competent trains and work well (see Bristol's Severn Beach line). If we could find suitable locations there really is no reason why they can't chug on for a few years more!

 

[tbtc]

Precisely.

I was calling for the Standard Local Multiple Unit (or Super-Duper Sprinter, as I called it) ten years ago. It should have been the priority rather than things such as the 185. We could manage with 158s on TPX, but not with Pacers going on for ever.

This is a bugbear of mine.

158s were still fairly modern at privatisation (younger than the 150s etc, expected to last a lot longer than the Pacers).

158s weren't good enough for ScotRail, so they got 170s on routes like Edinburgh - Glasgow.

Now 170s aren't good enough, so they are getting EMUs.

So, despite 158s having a lot longer life expectancy, TOCs have been ordering replacements for them (170/175 etc)...

...but (as far as I can think) no Pacers have been directly replaced by new stock since Privatisation (with the exception of the Oldham trams!). Pacer repalcement ought to be a bigger priority, but TOCs have been allowed to concentrate on buying new units for busy profitable lines instead.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I agree. The decision to spend millions on new TPE units seemed to be a strange skewing of priorities, the 158s are good trains and with an SWT standard of refurbishment they are pretty much as good to the casual traveller as anything else (better in some cases). This is one of the problems with many different companies running our routes, there becomes a 'prestige contest' with everyone wanting some kind of 'flagship' boast, the most obvious being new trains. This ends up with too many conflicting shouts about where the priority should be and no clear national strategy. In x number of years, when the 185s come up for replacement, we will be left with yet another completely non-standard batch of trains (heavy and thirsty trains in this case!) which won't necessarily be ideally suited to anywhere else.

I'd have thought the obvious Pacer solution would be to remove the toilets (thus also increasing capacity) and operate them only on local branch line shuttle work or over short distances. In these cases no toilets shouldn't be a problem. Door controls, destination screens and seating etc are all easily upgraded. Solutions in the way of properly designed ramps appropriate to each location are easily provided if the units are working over set diagrams, removing the issues of double step entry. Whilst the Pacer units are not popular, if they are deployed appropriately they are perfectly competent trains and work well (see Bristol's Severn Beach line). If we could find suitable locations there really is no reason why they can't chug on for a few years more!

I agree with all of that.

I've suggested a couple of locations for Pacers to run on (Bedford - Bletchley, Lymington) - ideally self contained branches (where they are less likely to crash into anything). As a repalcement for a 153 they'd be a capacity increase after all. You could maybe put some in East Anglia to replace single 153s too.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Brings me back to my earlier question, how many miles per year can the two electrification teams, one with a factory train, each feesibly manage? The figures I've seen (no idea on truefullness of source) on the web for northwest electrification suggests the 1st 15.6 miles will be complete by the end of 2013 (when as yet un-ordered new stock is supposed to take over Manchester - Scotland). That will be followed by:

• 25.9 more miles complete by end of 2014
• Another 17.2 miles complete by the end of 2015
• And finally the 24.4 miles from Manchester to Preston complete by end of 2016

Assuming work on one section is not started before the previous one has finished (big assumption I know, can anyone clear this up?) then this team can manage a maximum of about 26 miles a year. Taking 3 years, and a figure of 25 miles per year to be on the safe side, that gives 75 more miles of wire. I think that gives you Cardiff Central to Treherbert, Cardiff Bay to Rhymney and the Maesteg and Ebbw Vale branches (but not the mainlines they contect to, or the Vale Of Glamorgan line). Hopefully the GWML team with it's factory train will have enough time to wire Swansea - Cardiff (via Vale Of Glamorgan and direct) and Severn Tunnel Junction - Cheltenham - Swindon to make it work. The first team would then finish off the Valleys by doing Aberdare (might be able to extend to Glyn-Neath while they are at it, assuming the track is done by a track team before hand, while the wires are going up everywhere else) and Merthyr in 2020 itself to cascade the remaining 150s to the rest of Wales. Sadly it looks like Northerns Pacers can only be got rid of completly by buying new DMUs, unless another electrification team materilises. The fleet needed can be reduced in size though, use a very small number of 150s from the Valleys to knock out FGW's very small fleet of Pacers and make the Newcastle area a mix of 165s and 156s by cascading 5 of FGW's 2-car 165s to Northern and all the 3-car FGW 165s to Chiltern, with Chiltern then sending some of their 2-car units (the same number as they received 3-car sets) off to Northern. That might still leave 2 142s for the Newcastle - Hexham services though, as I'm trying to avoid Northern needing more 156s there than they currently have (13 I think) and 165s apparently can't go west of either Newcastle or possibly MetroCentre on that line.

Frustrating that with all our technology in 2011 we still can't electrify much more than a couple of miles a month. In that case I don't think we'll ever be able to replace Pacers with EMUs before 2019 - some new (basic) DMU required instead?

 

[northwichcat]

So, despite 158s having a lot longer life expectancy, TOCs have been ordering replacements for them (170/175 etc)...

I think you mean 185 not 175. The 175s were ordered to replace mk2 loco-hauled sets and 101s. Although, it did mean 150s got cascaded down as the 175s didn't directly replace 101s on routes like Manchester-Marple.

but TOCs have been allowed to concentrate on buying new units for busy profitable lines instead.

I don't think the TOCs make the decisions about when to order new stock. They just decide which type of stock to order when DfT tells them they can have new trains.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I agree with all of that.

I've suggested a couple of locations for Pacers to run on (Bedford - Bletchley, Lymington) - ideally self contained branches (where they are less likely to crash into anything). As a repalcement for a 153 they'd be a capacity increase after all. You could maybe put some in East Anglia to replace single 153s too.

I think its mroe likely everywhere else will get rid of pacers and send them to northern rather than us redistributing them.... Due to current capcity constraints (ie we need loads) and pacers freed up by electrification will most likely just be moved to double up existing DMU services. In my eyes electrification will never be done quick enough (avoiding having loads of staff left in 10 years so keep a steady electrification program running) so new units is the only way. I dont care if its FGW ATW replacing all their 150's and pacers with one order, and sending us the scraps. I really don't think we've seen an end to the 172's at all, i can't see anywhere else.

 

[tbtc]

I think you mean 185 not 175. The 175s were ordered to replace mk2 loco-hauled sets and 101s. Although, it did mean 150s got cascaded down as the 175s didn't directly replace 101s on routes like Manchester-Marple

I thought 175s directly replaced 158s on routes like Manchester - North Wales when ordered (the 158s then cascaded other units around).

This is the point I'm making, that TOCs have been buying new units to replace younger ones (which then cascade down the pecking order) rather than directly to replace their oldest ones

I don't think the TOCs make the decisions about when to order new stock. They just decide which type of stock to order when DfT tells them they can have new trains.

Nowadays its all DFT organised. But when it came to ScotRail ordering 170s/ FNW ordering 175s (the examples I gave) they had more freedom

 

[LE Greys]

This is a bugbear of mine.

158s were still fairly modern at privatisation (younger than the 150s etc, expected to last a lot longer than the Pacers).

158s weren't good enough for ScotRail, so they got 170s on routes like Edinburgh - Glasgow.

Now 170s aren't good enough, so they are getting EMUs.

So, despite 158s having a lot longer life expectancy, TOCs have been ordering replacements for them (170/175 etc)...

...but (as far as I can think) no Pacers have been directly replaced by new stock since Privatisation (with the exception of the Oldham trams!). Pacer repalcement ought to be a bigger priority, but TOCs have been allowed to concentrate on buying new units for busy profitable lines instead.

Now, I'm not exactly the 158's biggest fan. I think they're a fudge, a compromise between a local-lines Sprinter and a main-line unit, trying to do both, but not very well. However, they did work fairly well on TPX, and they could have continued to do so. The cascade-down theory, although attractive in some ways, inevitably results in low-priority lines getting outmoded stock. The Southern did it a lot, resulting in Terriers, M7s and 415 Radial Tanks on various coastal branch lines. These were Victorian suburban engines, yet they survived into the 1960s. No doubt they were maintenance-intensive and fuel-hungry, old-style front ends would cause that. So will that happen with the 158s one day?

I agree. The decision to spend millions on new TPE units seemed to be a strange skewing of priorities, the 158s are good trains and with an SWT standard of refurbishment they are pretty much as good to the casual traveller as anything else (better in some cases). This is one of the problems with many different companies running our routes, there becomes a 'prestige contest' with everyone wanting some kind of 'flagship' boast, the most obvious being new trains. This ends up with too many conflicting shouts about where the priority should be and no clear national strategy. In x number of years, when the 185s come up for replacement, we will be left with yet another completely non-standard batch of trains (heavy and thirsty trains in this case!) which won't necessarily be ideally suited to anywhere else.

I'd have thought the obvious Pacer solution would be to remove the toilets (thus also increasing capacity) and operate them only on local branch line shuttle work or over short distances. In these cases no toilets shouldn't be a problem. Door controls, destination screens and seating etc are all easily upgraded. Solutions in the way of properly designed ramps appropriate to each location are easily provided if the units are working over set diagrams, removing the issues of double step entry. Whilst the Pacer units are not popular, if they are deployed appropriately they are perfectly competent trains and work well (see Bristol's Severn Beach line). If we could find suitable locations there really is no reason why they can't chug on for a few years more!

I agree with all of that.

I've suggested a couple of locations for Pacers to run on (Bedford - Bletchley, Lymington) - ideally self contained branches (where they are less likely to crash into anything). As a repalcement for a 153 they'd be a capacity increase after all. You could maybe put some in East Anglia to replace single 153s too.

Squeezing the Pacers into a few corners of the country would help, and heavy refurbishments to make them DDA-compliant would have to happen. Thing is, we don't really need to. Could we not have 200-odd 172s over the next ten years or so, based in Northern England and the West Country? I'm assuming some sort of electrification will take place in that time (this has the added benefit of saving Derby). Pacers spreading wider might work as a stopgap, it's happened before. They would be non-standard in East Anglia, but that might work for a while, although I would prefer a few extra 153s to make scratch units out of, meaning that they would only run alone on rare occasions. Bedford-Bletchley seems like a good idea, although again they are non-standard.

Thinking a bit further on, the 172 seems a bit heavy and over-powered when all we really need is a 75 mph unit with good acceleration and about 350 hp per vehicle. However, it's a workable unit. Assuming we get 200 that go to Exeter, Canton, Longsight, Neville Hill and Heaton. Not exactly sure of the distribution. The idea there would be to use 156s and 153s to squeeze out the Pacers by distributing wider, whilst the 150s would concentrate on shorter-distance suburban routes. When one day the 185s leave Trans-Pennine, they could end up on other steeply-graded routes, the Highland Line and South Devon being possibilities.

 

[tbtc]

The cascade-down theory, although attractive in some ways, inevitably results in low-priority lines getting outmoded stock. The Southern did it a lot, resulting in Terriers, M7s and 415 Radial Tanks on various coastal branch lines. These were Victorian suburban engines, yet they survived into the 1960s. No doubt they were maintenance-intensive and fuel-hungry, old-style front ends would cause that. So will that happen with the 158s one day?

I agree.

Look at buses, where companies buy articulated ones (or the new "Borris-master"), which works fine on "mainline" routes, but is useless to be cascaded onto "secondary" duties once ten years old.

Same applies with the idea of buying new "fast" trains for "flagship" services (and hoping that a 158 can cope with branchlines)

They would be non-standard in East Anglia...

...Bedford-Bletchley seems like a good idea, although again they are non-standard

My thinking was that if they replaced all the 150/153s on the Bedford - Bletchley (and Coventry - Nuneaton) line then the'd be just as "standard"/"non-standard" as the units they replaced (assuming LM don't keep any 150s for Snow Hill, and stop using 153s coupled to 170s elsewhere).

Same thing with NXEA - if the Pacers replace 153s on a "like for like" basis then they'd be just as "standard"/"non-standard" as the 153s were (which ignores the fact that 153s can work better with 156s, I appreciate)

Thinking a bit further on, the 172 seems a bit heavy and over-powered when all we really need is a 75 mph unit with good acceleration and about 350 hp per vehicle. However, it's a workable unit

The 75mph idea for Chiltern made a lot of sense to me. We don't need more 100mph trains - Pacers tend to stop/start every five minutes - they do need to have good acceleration to get out of the way of faster trains (the reason why Chiltern were going to restrict theirs to 75mph)

 

[Rhydgaled]

This is a bugbear of mine.

158s were still fairly modern at privatisation (younger than the 150s etc, expected to last a lot longer than the Pacers).

158s weren't good enough for ScotRail, so they got 170s on routes like Edinburgh - Glasgow.

Now 170s aren't good enough, so they are getting EMUs.

So, despite 158s having a lot longer life expectancy, TOCs have been ordering replacements for them (170/175 etc)...

What bugs me is that the design of the new stock (175s excepted, although they are too heavy) is not really suited for the same sort of work that the 158s are. Now, I've not been on a 170, 171 or 185 myself, but my brother (who's a motorist and no fan of trains) used the Cardiff - Nottingham and complained the doors where in the wrong place. At least the 158s were cascaded, not scrapped (that would have been really daft), but in many cases the money would have been better spent on new units, somthing like a 75mph 170/172, to either replace 150s and cascade them to get rid of Pacers or replacing Pacers directly.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Just to make sure i got the right end of all relevant sticks here. If you lower the top speed or a 172 to 75 from 100 you can regear it to make better acceleration?

 

[northwichcat]

I thought 175s directly replaced 158s on routes like Manchester - North Wales when ordered (the 158s then cascaded other units around)

Holyhead/Llandudno to Manchester/Crewe was mainly class 37 hauled mk2s. With FNW any DMU could have appeared on any route - someone once photographed a Merseytravel 142 at Holyhead showing the destination "Manchester Piccadilly." 150s frequently appeared on FNW longer distance services until the 175 introduction when they were then restricted to Buxton-Blackpool.

Even if some 158s were cascaded down it would have been a proportionally small number, as the number of 175s ordered equalled 3.5 times the number of 158s they had - nothing like TPE where every 185 replaced a 158 (or a 175.)

 

[Lampshade]

Just to make sure i got the right end of all relevant sticks here. If you lower the top speed or a 172 to 75 from 100 you can regear it to make better acceleration?

Well by regearing it you lower the top speed anyway. For example if you regear a 91 to 125mph it'll improve the acceleration.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Well by regearing it you lower the top speed anyway. For example if you regear a 91 to 125mph it'll improve the acceleration.

K thanks for that just checking i had got it right that you can regear it therefore lowering speed and increasing aceleration

 

[185]

At this rate, when fossil fuels run out in years to come, by 2035 I'm envisioning a 142 with a small fusion reactor fitted near the toilet.

Was annoying that the stupid leasing companies pulled out a big stick the minute Northern in 2006 stated they were considering speaking to the Chinese over a replacement. They are to blame for this.

 

[KingBBoogaloo]

There is no need to order a single DMU to replace the class 142.

One Northern Train Driver has had the brains to ask the right FoI questions and found over 100 DMUs 'going spare'.

Heres a snippit of an email of his thats doing the rounds:

26 class 150 vehicles currently going of lease from London Midland. See http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/dft-f0007261

Electrification will save 40 DMU vehicles from TransPennine and 76 from Northern Rail. See: http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/dft-f0007441

Electrification of the Great Western Mainline will save around 40 diesel units. See: http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/dft-f0007353

Electrification of Edinburgh-Glasgow will save 15 class 158s and 17 class 170 units. See: attached

That's a total of around 120 units, excluding the TransPennine vehicles and there is only 94 class 142 units in existence.

While this solves the problem of class 142’s there is also the problem of over crowding, I cant see TPE giving up 40 vehicles when its got its own capacity problems, nor can I see the Scots giving up the 3-car class 170’s (on a different note, there is even gauging issues with the class 165’s effectively 'keeping them' in on the Great Western ) but I can see a 3-car class 170 replacing and allowing a 2-car class 156 to become available and I can see a 3-car 165 replacing a 2-car class 158 around Bristol, both of which increase capacity and frees units that can be sent to the North of England and even a 2-car class 158 has more seats than a class 142. See:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....ft.gov.uk/foi-responses/2010/06/f0006577.pdf/

Pass this on to anyone you think can help, while there’s no reason for the 142s to last longer than the current electrification program, I cant help but think unless we do something, they will.

Feel free to use any of this information as you see fit as I believe that the next Northern Franchise is a once in a generation chance to get rid of these machines.


That showes you can replace all the 142s and still have something left over to boost capacity. There is still the question of the 143s & 144s, but one step at a time.

 

[WatcherZero]

Yep the 23 143's and 23 144's, another 46 pacer trains in total. Nevermind crowding issues.