Pacer replacement contract ... any news?

[tbtc]

The double counting problem is counting new vehicles as additional but then also counting cascaded vehicles as additional. It doubles the figure for net additional carriages. Of course everything is quoted as vehicles not units as it makes the numbers bigger and look more impressive.

The quotes about the 322s coming to Yorkshire being part of the "hundreds of new carriages in the UK" promised by the Government really annoyed me, since they are clearly older trains being shuffled around

 

[northwichcat]

The quotes about the 322s coming to Yorkshire being part of the "hundreds of new carriages in the UK" promised by the Government really annoyed me, since they are clearly older trains being shuffled around

Yes it's the 380s that are the new trains. Counting the 322s released by this as new trains effectively means the same carriages are being counted twice.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If FGW didn't have the need for them, they wouldn't have been replaced. I think originally they were kept on a short term lease to cover capacity problems, and then it was decided that they would be moved off FGW to long term lease with Northern. That left FGW without 12 trains they needed, hence the 142s.

This seems to clear things up: http://www.saveseverntunnel.co.uk/news.htm

FGW were allocated extra 158s on short term lease to deal with overcrowding. They then didn't bother to ask to extend the lease as they thought they'd be automatically extended. However, when Northern pointed out overcrowding issues DfT allocated them those 158s which they saw as unallocated so allocated them to Northern. (Possibly DfT saw them as only being need for the summer timetable for the holiday makers visiting Devon and Cornwall?)

Then when FGW said that they still want those units, DfT said "it's too late to say you want to keep them now"

I think the bottom line is that indirectly the 142s were still extra units as they replaced units that FGW had obtained on short term lease for additional capacity. However, they let their Wessex Trains 158s (which were their units) leave rather than the TPE 158s (which were subleased on short term lease.)

 

[TEW]

FGW also had too many 158s, they needed more 150s or other commuter style units at the time. 158s were working all the stopping services around Devon which they just weren't suited to. Now it's the other way round and FGW could do with a few more 158s for the long distance services.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Transpennine will most likely not be giving up the 185s freed up by electrification, as they are required for strengthening other TPE services. However the 32 units out of Northern Rails' fleet that will be freed up is definitely good news and is almost exactly the same size as Newton Heaths' 142 fleet. The problem is that additional capacity will still be needed on Northerns' remaining diesel routes above that provided by the arrival of LMs' 150s.

I am in agreement that there is no need to order a single new DMU to replace the Pacer fleet, and not just the 142s, but only with the authorisation of further electrification works above those already authorised. By the end of the next five years I would like to see a lot more four carriage Sprinter (and Pacer, in the areas where they operate.

It is good to note that comment is made about the units at Newton Heath in the first paragraph and also of additional capacity requirements. However, whilst in the second paragraph, mention is made of four carriage Sprinter units which is to be welcomed, I disagree with the idea of four carriage Pacer units. I know that this is my personal opinion, but the sooner that electrification can release cascaded Sprinters to supplement the existing diesel fleet in these areas, the better that it will be for the general travelling public, who have had to endure third-rate rolling stock for far too long.

 

[Rhydgaled]

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?

A little update on that. The Great Western scheme, assuming a 2013 - 2017 work window, seems to manage a more inspiring 40 miles a year. However, there is hope in the form of the factory train. Reports from when Labour anounced wires to Swansea suggest a factory train could do almost a mile a night, working out at two hundred and thirty somthing miles per year I think.

If we assume there'll be lots of bridges and complicated junctions etc. to slow things down it should still be pretty safe to push it to 100 miles per year in the later years, once staff have got used to the technology.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Folowing on from an earlier view on another thread, some time ago, there was thought of smaller contracts for a modicum of units, which would concurrently in production terms, rather than one master contract.

I note that in Eire, the first four of the Korean-built DMU arrived at the end of May in Dublin Port. These were the first shipment of 17 x 3-car units from Mitsui, in partnership with Hyundai Rostem and Tokyu Car Corporation.

Iarnrod Eireann have stated that these new units will be used for where demand for additional seats is the greatest.

 

[Bevan Price]

Well, if it comes to the question of the Government (DfT) providing more money (for new trains) when it doesn't want to, or changing DDA compliance dates, I know what I expect to happen, and it won't be releasing money for new trains. So, Pacers could be around long after 2019 if the economy is still having problems.

Having said that, as others have posted, currently planned electrification should lead to some Pacer elimination.

 

[stanley T]

What is needed is a basic DMU design so as to reduce cost:
- articulated with 18-20m coaches, cuts down the number of bogies, 2 and 3 car options
- no air con (they are mostly Up North, it is hardly ever warm enough not to survive with an open window. More reliable as well)
- 3+2 seating
- an end to overpowered engines as per 185s. 350 hp per coach maximum
- confront HSE: either regular size toilets or none at all, and we will blame you for the latter. Few of the stations they serve have full disabled access. offer to pay for taxis for the disabled, it would be cheaper.

Still a huge improvement, assuming that they have the unheard of luxury of bogies and a modern crashworthy body.

The only "luxury" I would insist on are sliding doors (so much more reliable) .

I don't think there is anything suitable to British gauge on offer off -the-shelf. Come on, Bombardier, now is your chance given that all the politicans now want something to be built in Derby. However if it is to be cheap suspect it will be eastern Europe or China..

I suppose there is no reliable alternatives to Voith transmission and Gmeinde drives, but do MTU and Cummins have to scoop the pool for engines? whatever happened to good old British made Perkins? yes, they are still around, and they work fine in Network Turbos.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What is needed is a basic DMU design so as to reduce cost:
- articulated with 18-20m coaches, cuts down the number of bogies, 2 and 3 car options
- no air con (they are mostly Up North, it is hardly ever warm enough not to survive with an open window. More reliable as well)
- 3+2 seating
- an end to overpowered engines as per 185s. 350 hp per coach maximum
- confront HSE: either regular size toilets or none at all.

Still a huge improvement, assuming that they have the unheard of luxury of bogies and a modern crashworthy body.

The only "luxury" I would insist on are sliding doors (so much more reliable) .

Is this a typical "Southern" view that because fate chose to decree that, to use your terminology we "UP NORTH" have had to suffer Pacer units in the past, we will be expected to carry on using such new-style "basic" units in the future? I note your specification calls for no air-conditioning, but does allow for the "luxury" of sliding doors. The toilet stated position is incredulous. And as far 3 + 2 seating...!!!!

What would be the "London" view if Crossrail were to be run by units of your specification? Shock and horror I would well imagine, with numerous "Offended of Orpington" letters sent to the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail.

Class 185 units have much hill-climbing to do in the region in which they operate. What do you suggest happen to the Class 185 fleet. It surely would not be a cascadation to The Home Counties..or would it.:roll:

I see that the "Let them eat cake" belief is still alive and well in the areas that view people "UP NORTH" as something taken straight from the canvas of a L.S.Lowry oil painting.

I note a recent thread stated that it was correct to say "UP" to London, yet the same logic allows London people to say "UP NORTH"...what strange magnetic compasses we have in Britain.:roll:

 

[YorkshireBear]

- no air con (they are mostly Up North, it is hardly ever warm enough not to survive with an open window. More reliable as well)

Sorry, are you aware that the north of england is not actually in scandanvia.

I tell you what you come on a packed pacer in height of summer with all windows open then tell me again we dont need aircon!

 

[northwichcat]

Having said that, as others have posted, currently planned electrification should lead to some Pacer elimination.

I don't see how that'll happen. Cascaded EMUs replaced a proposed order for 200 new diesel vehicles as additional capacity (i.e. replacing 0 vehicles) for Northern, FGW and TPE a few years back, since then passenger numbers have continued to rise and the cascaded EMUs are a few years away yet so the 340 odd cascaded vehicles aren't unlikely to replace any Pacers - maybe 1 or two if they're in very bad nick.

 

[anthony263]

i personally think they should have just gone ahead and ordered the 11, 4 carriage class 172's for FGW. The proposal to use class 166's is stupid really and 3+2 seating will be terrible for the journey and they are only 3 carriages.

The only way around that would be to reduce a number down to 2 carriage sets by taking out the centre carriage and installing them in some 3 carriage sets thus creating a 4 carriage train.

 

[northwichcat]

- no air con (they are mostly Up North, it is hardly ever warm enough not to survive with an open window. More reliable as well)

I'm sorry have you ever been north of Watford? That is one of the most ridiculous comments I've ever heard. I've had to work in an office 'up north' where the temperature exceeded 25oC almost every day in summer with open windows. People within a confined space create a lot of heat.

- 3+2 seating

When most operators down south have replaced 3+2 seating with 2+2 seating, why do you think 3+2 is still good enough for the north?

- an end to overpowered engines as per 185s. 350 hp per coach maximum

While the 185s were overpowered a bit too much there were given extra power to allow fast acceleration when climbing mountains - something which First Capital Connect, London Overground, Southern and Southeastern don't have to deal with.

- confront HSE: either regular size toilets or none at all, and we will blame you for the latter. Few of the stations they serve have full disabled access. offer to pay for taxis for the disabled, it would be cheaper.

There's two options here:
1. Very high frequency service without toilets e.g. First Capital Connect, London Overground and Merseyrail.
2. Average hourly frequency with toilets e.g. Northern Rail and ATW.

I take it you're suggesting a quadrupling in frequency for most Northern Rail, ATW and FGW local services along with no toilets, so I don't see where the cost saving is as we'll need 4 times as many trains ordered, so I think the DDA toilet will be cheaper.

 

[stanley T]

A slightly tongue in cheek comment which backfired because it hit chips on shoulders. Howls of northern outrage duly noted by someone who does indeed come from well north of Watford. Anyway, few London commuter trains have aircon. Oh you might get an Electrostar with it if you head further south, but then it's 3+2 seating...aircon consumes a lot of energy and is unreliable, and I'm sorry is only required in the British climate, anywhere in these islands, for a few weeks a year even in hot summers. Deep level tubes are another matter, but there it can't be done...

Pacers or their replacements should not be used for journeys of over 60-90 minutes. In fact they have largely turned into commuter trains, which was not the original intention.

The best is the enemy of the better. Gold plating requirements is one reason for fewer, more expensive and more overcrowded trains, and the survival of those monstrous 4 wheel carts way past when they should have died.

3+2 seating is more problematical. 2+2 more comfortable off peak, but more standing during the peak. I am cynical about the move from 3+2 to 2+2, it seems to be mainly so as to squeeze more in standing. Personally I would rather squeeze into a narrow seat than stand for 30-60 minutes.

As for power, we are talking about commuter and branch line trains, not 185's - even with hills, isn't 350 hp per vehicle adequate for a 75mph train? Would be interested to know how fuel costs rise with engine capacity, not linear if a bigger engine does not work as hard. As for 185's, 750 hp per vehicle does seem over the top. If (as should happen) the TPEs are converted to 4 cars, don't see why the extra carriage should need an engine.

 

[tbtc]

chips on shoulders... Howls of northern outrage

I think you made an interesting point about the "gold plated" trains.

Take the toilets, for example. From memory (on 2+2 seating) a disabled toilet takes up around a dozen seats (please correct me if I'm wrong here).

On a route like Manchester Piccadilly - Rose Hill Marple (half hourly service, short journey time), is that a trade off worth making? However, on another Pacer route like Sheffield - Huddersfield (hourly service, takes around 75 minutes) you'd need toilets. There are a few units around London with no toilets after all (and the rest of the South, e.g. 313s from Brighton to Portsmouth). The fact that (post 2019) it'll be either "disabled toilet or no toilet" (with no middle ground) makes things complicated.

Hey, I'd love to see each Pacer replaced by a nice four coach 172 (or an EMU), but how realistic is this? Even a two coach 172 (46m) is going to be a good bit longer than a two coach Pacer.

Similarly I'd rather we had 75mph units with decent acceleration than worried about Pacer services getting anywhere near 100mph. We need something bigger and better than Pacers, but that doesn't mean getting carried away.

Certainly not a black/white argument (and I say that living in Yorkshire).

 

[YorkshireBear]

A slightly tongue in cheek comment which backfired because it hit chips on shoulders. Howls of northern outrage duly noted by someone who does indeed come from well north of Watford. Anyway, few London commuter trains have aircon. Oh you might get an Electrostar with it if you head further south, but then it's 3+2 seating...aircon consumes a lot of energy and is unreliable, and I'm sorry is only required in the British climate, anywhere in these islands, for a few weeks a year even in hot summers. Deep level tubes are another matter, but there it can't be done...

No chip, just dont think you comment saying its cold up north so we dont need aircon, its regardless of whether your from john a groats or portsmouth.....

I believe most stock hould have air con simply because overcrowding causes unbearable condition heat wise. london scotland wales etc etc

 

[WestCoast]

Anyway, few London commuter trains have aircon. Oh you might get an Electrostar with it if you head further south, but then it's 3+2 seating...

How do you define "few"? Lets face facts...

-All of London Overground's fleet is air-conditioned.
-LUs new sub-surface stock is air-conditioned
-All of SWTs and LMs Desiros (so most of their respective fleets) are air conditioned.
-All of FCCs, Southern's and Southeastern's Electrostars are air-conditioned.
-Heathrow Connect and NXEAs Desiros have AC
-C2C has full AC
-FGW 166s have AC
-Chiltern's 168s have AC
..need I go on?

Yes, most of the LU fleet doesn't have AC (but they are rapid transit rather that "commuter trains"), but that is for a very good reason, it is impossible. If they could, they would...

Northern - no AC on 142, 144, 150, 153, 155. 156, plus 158 (unreliable AC).

BR suggested pacers for the GOBLIN line, they were refused. :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No chip, just dont think you comment saying its cold up north so we dont need aircon, its regardless of whether your from john a groats or portsmouth.....

Plus the South East isn't exactly España...

 

[LE Greys]

I think you made an interesting point about the "gold plated" trains.

Take the toilets, for example. From memory (on 2+2 seating) a disabled toilet takes up around a dozen seats (please correct me if I'm wrong here).

On a route like Manchester Piccadilly - Rose Hill Marple (half hourly service, short journey time), is that a trade off worth making? However, on another Pacer route like Sheffield - Huddersfield (hourly service, takes around 75 minutes) you'd need toilets. There are a few units around London with no toilets after all (and the rest of the South, e.g. 313s from Brighton to Portsmouth). The fact that (post 2019) it'll be either "disabled toilet or no toilet" (with no middle ground) makes things complicated.

Hey, I'd love to see each Pacer replaced by a nice four coach 172 (or an EMU), but how realistic is this? Even a two coach 172 (46m) is going to be a good bit longer than a two coach Pacer.

Similarly I'd rather we had 75mph units with decent acceleration than worried about Pacer services getting anywhere near 100mph. We need something bigger and better than Pacers, but that doesn't mean getting carried away.

Certainly not a black/white argument (and I say that living in Yorkshire).

I quite agree. Providing everywhere with shiny, new trains with loads of horsepower, air-con, 100 mph performance and 2+2 seating is somewhat over the top. It adds weight (not good for the permanent way), uses an awful lot more fuel and costs a lot of money. All of that means that new trains are much less likely to be bought. A decent, solid unit that has relatively small engines, can only do 75, has 3+2 seating as an option and opening windows instead of air-con is going to be a lot cheaper. Basically, the same spec as a 150, just updated. 150s may not be exactly brilliant, but they are getting on a bit now. Give them modern engines, better soundproofing, better toilets and look after them properly, and we should have a decent train. Hopefully, they would also release some 156s to replace Pacers on long runs like Leeds-Morecambe or Newcastle-Carlisle.

Can we have some dual-system electric ones to replace the 313s? In fact, lets have some 3-car a.c. ones to replace the 314s, some 4-car a.c. ones to replace the 315s, some 3-car d.c. ones to replace the 50Xs and some 5-car and 4-car d.c. ones to replace the 45Xs (5+5 instead of 4+4+2). I'd recommend them for Crossrail as well.

 

[northwichcat]

Anyway, few London commuter trains have aircon.

But how many new commuter trains in London don't have air con? The 377s, for instance, do have air con.

As for power, we are talking about commuter and branch line trains, not 185's - even with hills, isn't 350 hp per vehicle adequate for a 75mph train?

If, as proposed, there are additional fast trains between Huddersfield and Leeds then these will need to be fast enough to not hold up following long distance services so we may well need 90 or 100mph trains for services of under 30 minutes in length.

If (as should happen) the TPEs are converted to 4 cars, don't see why the extra carriage should need an engine.

True but then the eco-mode will probably be switched off or at least be altered if that happens so overall they'll probably use more diesel even with no extra engines.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Take the toilets, for example. From memory (on 2+2 seating) a disabled toilet takes up around a dozen seats (please correct me if I'm wrong here).

I don't think it's quite that many. The FNW 150s may have lost that many seats but they replaced the originals with larger seats and gone for 2+2 or 2+ longitudinal in place of 3+2 to allow a wheelchair to access the toilet.

On a route like Manchester Piccadilly - Rose Hill Marple (half hourly service, short journey time), is that a trade off worth making? However, on another Pacer route like Sheffield - Huddersfield (hourly service, takes around 75 minutes) you'd need toilets.

I agree about short frequent local services not needing toilets but where do you draw the line? For instance, something may think Piccadilly-New Mills is OK for toilet-less operation but what about the 2 hourly extension to Sheffield? In my opinion that definitely needs a toilet.

 

[Phil6219]

What good would opening windows be on a crowded train which is stationary for a good while due to a hold up (signal failure, fatality etc...). Even traveling at a relatively low speed (30 mph or so) on a hot day they can be of little use. A few months ago I was on an MK1 running down the HoW line and thanks to a glorious summer day (despite it being April) it was unbelievably hot in the passenger compartment, all of our windows were open but it was still just too hot. Even going to the droplights in the vestibules didn't help much. That was only a charter with every seat taken but nobody standing, imagine that in rush hour with people standing down the isle.

FCCs 365s have aircon too, do Southern's 455s have it fitted (I'm thinking of the equally unaesthetic front end mod there).

I'd say what needed to be done would be a simple lightweight pacer replacment, basically build them again but with a lower floor and a better crash resistance. The problem would then be that we (probably all of us in the North) would be stuck with them even longer than the Pacers have overstayed their welcome.

I said last year in another forum that a novel idea for solving overcrowding and being able to replace pacers on a number of routes would be to re-introduce loco hauled trains. Remember when TPX services were hauled by locos and had 5-8 carriages? No overcrowding issues there, yet we get the joys of being crammed into 3 car units (to the point I now take the longer trip on the Pacer to and from Sheffy).

LHCS could be brought back on longer distance services allowing the freed up units to replace the pacers on the shorter runs. Plus if done correctly even a number of commuter runs could be returned to LHCS, a number of platforms retain their old lengths (just fenced off) and coaching stock could be added or removed as needed. Cost wise all that would be required would be repairs to the stations to bring the platforms back up to scratch, the extra bits of trackwork at some stations for stabling points, the cost of reinstating some locos and coaching stock and then crew training.

While the first wave of LHCS is in use someone (preferably our guys in Derby) would be designing and building a new generation of Locomotive and coaching stock. That would mean that the original wave of locos and carriages would only be in service for a few short years before being replaced by (hopefully) the better next gen of locos and carriages.

Controversial I know, I also know that a lot of people will disagree or just say I'm harping on about the olden days but the thing is it is practical although it seems like it's getting more impossible by the day.

Phil

 

[northwichcat]

One thing I should have added in an earlier post is that heat from the engines warms up the trains' interior, particularly on the 150s and Merseytravel 142s.

 

[Buttsy]

The toilet on a pacer could be moved to the old 'lockable' area by one set of doors with wheelchair space opposite & drop down seats if you want them to last longer...

Only joking!

Even if gauge is sufficient for a 165 oop north ( ), you don't get something much better with one of those (apart from ride). Hot when full and 3+2 is cramped.

As for toilets, all of the Overground EMU stock and a lot of the Southeastern stock doesn't have toilets, which is a pain if you're going from Stratford to Willesden and are on duretics...

Quite simply, more new EMU and DMU stock is required to meet capacity requirements, so how about bringing back heritage units!!!!! Nothing like the ride of a Met-Cam twin.

 

[northwichcat]

Even if gauge is sufficient for a 165 oop north ( ), you don't get something much better with one of those (apart from ride). Hot when full and 3+2 is cramped.

You'll find that the 323s (used in the Manchester and Birmingham areas) were built with similar interiors and identical seating to the 165s and 465s - just the 323s are a slightly older style, 3 car and have no FC.

 

[Rhydgaled]

As for power, we are talking about commuter and branch line trains, not 185's - even with hills, isn't 350 hp per vehicle adequate for a 75mph train? Would be interested to know how fuel costs rise with engine capacity, not linear if a bigger engine does not work as hard. As for 185's, 750 hp per vehicle does seem over the top. If (as should happen) the TPEs are converted to 4 cars, don't see why the extra carriage should need an engine.

According to wikipedia Wales was supposed to have the 400hp 158s due to our hills, however now we seem to get on alright with 350hp ones (apart from the air-con when it fails, and then the windows won't open).

I quite agree. Providing everywhere with shiny, new trains with loads of horsepower, air-con, 100 mph performance and 2+2 seating is somewhat over the top. It adds weight (not good for the permanent way), uses an awful lot more fuel and costs a lot of money. All of that means that new trains are much less likely to be bought. A decent, solid unit that has relatively small engines, can only do 75, has 3+2 seating as an option and opening windows instead of air-con is going to be a lot cheaper. Basically, the same spec as a 150, just updated. 150s may not be exactly brilliant, but they are getting on a bit now. Give them modern engines, better soundproofing, better toilets and look after them properly, and we should have a decent train. Hopefully, they would also release some 156s to replace Pacers on long runs like Leeds-Morecambe or Newcastle-Carlisle.

Can we have some dual-system electric ones to replace the 313s? In fact, lets have some 3-car a.c. ones to replace the 314s, some 4-car a.c. ones to replace the 315s, some 3-car d.c. ones to replace the 50Xs and some 5-car and 4-car d.c. ones to replace the 45Xs (5+5 instead of 4+4+2). I'd recommend them for Crossrail as well.

Reducing the massive weight of new trains when compared to Sprinters (the 172s are getting there, but not quite) would help reduce maintainance costs. If we can't electrify enough to buy only electric stock then I think the new DMUs we need are basicly Sprinters. FGW needs new updated 158s (with working aircon etc.) but no heavier to lengthen Portsmouth - Cardiff to 4-car and Pacer operated commuter routes need something like an updated 150 (with air-con, so sort-of close to an LM 172). Meanwhile Pacer operated branch lines need something like a 156 (or a single car version, the 153/155 is a bit heavier I seem to remember) as do longer distance Pacer services (although in some cases a 90/100mph 158 style unit might be needed for these). All new DMUs need through corridor connections when working in multiple.

 

[northwichcat]

which is a pain if you're going from Stratford to Willesden and are on duretics...

A 40 minute journey without toilets and trains every 10 minutes - that's much better than Merseyrail - Liverpool South Parkway to Southport is just under an hour and every 15 minutes with no on-board toilets.

As I've mentioned previously the frequency of service is just as important as the length of service. If there's a 2 hourly service and a train is cancelled then it's a long wait for the toilet even if it's just a 15 minute journey and in the middle of the Hope Valley - where there is a 2 hourly service - you probably won't find any public toilets nearby.

 

[Buttsy]

You'll find that the 323s (used in the Manchester and Birmingham areas) were built with similar interiors and identical seating to the 165s and 465s - just the 323s are a slightly older style, 3 car and have no FC.

I think that 165s and 166s were built wider to take advantage of the better GW loading gauge (historical from the days of broad gauge). While I'm happy to be corrected on this, you tend not to get as big a 'whoomp' when HSTs pass on the GWML than you do when Pendolinos pass on the WCML because of this extra room.

 

[Class172]

I think that 165s and 166s were built wider to take advantage of the better GW loading gauge (historical from the days of broad gauge). While I'm happy to be corrected on this, you tend not to get as big a 'whoomp' when HSTs pass on the GWML than you do when Pendolinos pass on the WCML because of this extra room.

Yes, the 165/6s were built to take advantage of Brunel's loading gauge and the gauge on the Grand Central. There are a few maps on the thread here that will show you where they're allowed: (post #1) - [THREAD=46759]Future for 165/166s?[/THREAD]

 

[tbtc]

I don't think it's quite that many. The FNW 150s may have lost that many seats but they replaced the originals with larger seats and gone for 2+2 or 2+ longitudinal in place of 3+2 to allow a wheelchair to access the toilet

I'd be interested in the figures, if anyone has them.

In my mind it was something like:

• Disabled toilet = Twelve seats
• Old fashioned toilet = Six seats

(correct me if I'm wrong)

Now, as the small toilets aren't an option for newbuild stock, we are left with a decision of either "one toilet" or "twelve seats". If we are getting three coach 172s to replace Pacers then you have room for a disabled toilet and still around double the number of seats. However, if we only get two coach 172s (still longer than Pacers) then I'm not sure whether toilets are needed on every service.

Whilst most units down south have Air-Con, they certainly don't all have toilets.

 

[northwichcat]

In my mind it was something like:

• Disabled toilet = Twelve seats
• Old fashioned toilet = Six seats

(correct me if I'm wrong)

Ah, I thought you were referring to the difference between a 142 style toilet and a DDA complaint toilet when you said 12 seats which is why I said 12 seems a bit excessive.

I would have thought the space a 142 toilet takes up would only leave room for 4 seats, unless Merseytravel are involved!

Now, as the small toilets aren't an option for newbuild stock, we are left with a decision of either "one toilet" or "twelve seats". If we are getting three coach 172s to replace Pacers then you have room for a disabled toilet and still around double the number of seats. However, if we only get two coach 172s (still longer than Pacers) then I'm not sure whether toilets are needed on every service.

As people have suggested before a non-DDA complaint unit attached to a DDA-complaint unit should suffice if neither unit is locked out-of-use. So in theory I imagine 153s could be permanently attached to the non-FNW 150s to provide a wheelchair accessible toilet on all 150 operated services without building new DDA toilets for 150s. This could be co-ordinated with operators getting new 2 car DMUs as 153 replacement.

 

[tbtc]

Ah, I thought you were referring to the difference between a 142 style toilet and a DDA complaint toilet when you said 12 seats which is why I said 12 seems a bit excessive.

I would have thought the space a 142 toilet takes up would only leave room for 4 seats, unless Merseytravel are involved!

You're probably right in your maths. I should have explained myself better with my "twelve" figure - I was referring to the marginal cost of a disabled toilet (in terms of the number of seats you'd "lose" on a new unit).

Its part of a general point where I wonder whether some DDA improvements will actually make things worse (Look at London buses, for example, they used to have lots of "via" points on the destination blind - then people complained that they were too small to read, so now there's just a destination shown in big print - meaning less information for people)