Pacer replacement contract ... any news?

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The Pacers are said to have to be replaced by 2019 to conform to legislation and there are numerous of these units which are currently still running for the foreseeable future.

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.

When should the process for Pacer replacement as described above actually start, as I am sure the Class 172 programme does not cover everything.

 

[Lampshade]

It's an enormous class to have to replace wholesale, the sooner the better.

 

[WatcherZero]

Closest thing ive seen is last weeks RAIL stating that the government had reopened negotiations with Northern over the possible purchase of a fleet of EMU's.

 

[ainsworth74]

If we've not got something concrete going on by 2015 be that a tender or even a possible contract then I would be very dubious about getting all 290 pacer vehicle replaced by 2019. I suppose it wouldn't be impossible but certainly if we've not even got a tender out by 2015 then I think it would be an ambitious delivery program.

 

[PhilipW]

I don't expect there ever will be a new order for lots of DMUs. Some perhaps but nots lots.

The pattern for the future (which I agree with) seems to be:

- electrify lines
- buy new EMUs
- cascade displaced DMUs (perhaps with some refurbishment) to deisel lines
- send some old DMUs (like Pacers) to the scrapyard.

 

[northwichcat]

I don't expect there ever will be a new order for lots of DMUs. Some perhaps but nots lots.

The pattern for the future (which I agree with) seems to be:

- electrify lines
- buy new EMUs
- cascade displaced DMUs (perhaps with some refurbishment) to deisel lines
- send some old DMUs (like Pacers) to the scrapyard.

The problem is that there are over 100 Pacers to dispose of before the DDA deadline in 2019, plus many extra carriages are needed to deal with overcrowding on non-electrified routes. There is already a plan drawn up for which lines will be electrified over the next 8 years or so and it will be nowhere near enough to allow all Pacers to be replaced by EMUs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Closest thing ive seen is last weeks RAIL stating that the government had reopened negotiations with Northern over the possible purchase of a fleet of EMU's.

Seems a strange thing considering the current climate and proposed Thameslink cascades. Could these be to replace 323s to give LM more commuter EMUs as was proposed quite a few years ago?

 

[sprinterguy]

A pretty intensive electrification programme is needed in the next decade to allow Pacers to be withdrawn and avoid the need to procure new DMUs until Sprinters need to be replaced, but realistically it won't happen as I would envisage it:

Valley Lines
Midland Mainline (Would cover a few South Yorkshire services if done properly)
Transpennine North (Would wire up much of the rest of central Yorkshires' local services in combination with the MML scheme if done properly)
Scottish electrification allowing the cascade of their 48 158s to England. This one at least is taking shape.

But back in the real world, no I have heard nothing of any Pacer replacement policies (Not that I'm any sort of authority on such matters).

 

[WatcherZero]

The problem is that there are over 100 Pacers to dispose of before the DDA deadline in 2019, plus many extra carriages are needed to deal with overcrowding on non-electrified routes. There is already a plan drawn up for which lines will be electrified over the next 8 years or so and it will be nowhere near enough to allow all Pacers to be replaced by EMUs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Seems a strange thing considering the current climate and proposed Thameslink cascades. Could these be to replace 323s to give LM more commuter EMUs as was proposed quite a few years ago?

Possible, would also help Northerns average fleet age which the government were getting some stick for, since the 319's will keep getting older. More likely is its tied into further unannounced electrification work in the next franchise period, replacing Sprinters with electrics and using those to remove pacers.

Northern also is acquiring a lot of electric micro fleets, 321, 322, 323, 333, etc, sending them to London Midlan which has much larger stocks of each fleet would be in keeping with their traditional concentrating of classes strategy.

 

[Lampshade]

Seems a strange thing considering the current climate and proposed Thameslink cascades. Could these be to replace 323s to give LM more commuter EMUs as was proposed quite a few years ago?

This was considered a few years ago, WYPTE threw their toys out of the pram when they learned GMPTE would get new EMUs and demanded they get new ones as well, so the plans were quietly dropped.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

This was considered a few years ago, WYPTE threw their toys out of the pram when they learned GMPTE would get new EMUs and demanded they get new ones as well, so the plans were quietly dropped.

If Northern got Shafted again there would be a passenger revolt, there is only so long succesive governments can treat the north west rail network like s**t and get away with it, anywhere south of Crewe gets new stock on a reasonable regular basis and what do we get up in Northern land 6 more Pacers, its utter sickening seeing the depressed looks on pax faces paying what they do for the quality of stock that they have to use (tho they are amazed that Northern keep as many trains running as they do)

 

[northwichcat]

This was considered a few years ago, WYPTE threw their toys out of the pram when they learned GMPTE would get new EMUs and demanded they get new ones as well, so the plans were quietly dropped.

Not quite.

The proposals were for the Northern 323s to be replaced by new EMUs and the Northern 323s to go to LM. Then the Yorkshire RUS suggested that extra capacity could be obtained by tagging on extra EMUs for Yorkshire to the already proposed order.

However, there were then suggestions that the 323 cascade would be reversed and that paired up 323s would be running in Yorkshire, which is where the fuss kicked up.

 

[PhilipW]

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.

 

[schwa]

If Northern got Shafted again there would be a passenger revolt, there is only so long succesive governments can treat the north west rail network like s**t and get away with it, anywhere south of Crewe gets new stock on a reasonable regular basis and what do we get up in Northern land 6 more Pacers, its utter sickening seeing the depressed looks on pax faces paying what they do for the quality of stock that they have to use (tho they are amazed that Northern keep as many trains running as they do)

That divisional line starts again south of Birmingham and West of Didcot Parkway.

 

[Yew]

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.

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.

 

[route:oxford]

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.

Also the Class 220 and Class 221 series that are crying out to be strenthened to 7 or 8 coaches. Perhaps one of those being a pantograph coach.

Not forgetting, that it would be probably be useful if Scotrail were to order a batch of say 10 3 car 170s with corridor connection for strengthening the Edinburgh-Glasgow services... Probably need to explain this one...

Take 10 new 3 car sets and 20 existing 3 car 170 units.

Wave a magic shunter.

And create a new semi-permanently coupled unit in the following formation...

DMS-MS-DMCS-DMCS-MS-MS-DMF

Then sublease the remaining twenty 2 car 170s to a desperate English TOC.

 

[BestWestern]

I recall something in the McNumpty jokebook about further 'asset sweating' in the coming years, plus the highly dubious suggestion about buying in second hand stock from abroad; so I'd think a fleet of 100 or so brand new DMU's within the next 8 years is incredibly unlikely. It should be remembered that the DDA can be pretty flexible where railways are concerned, and I wouldn't be at all suprised if lots of exemptions appear towards the deadline. Regardless of what the intended law and legislation says, if it isn't happening then it isn't happening!

I'm curious - as someone who signs Pacer sets! - as to exactly what it is that will outlaw them, but not their Sprinter cousins?! They have a wheelchair bay, they are accessible by means of a ramp as per all trains, so I don't see see where the shortcomings are?! They might not be popular (at all!) but they start and stop, and they shift people from A to B, so I'd have thought they're good to keep going for a few years yet bearing in mind the current climate!

 

[Yew]

I recall something in the McNumpty jokebook about further 'asset sweating' in the coming years, plus the highly dubious suggestion about buying in second hand stock from abroad; so I'd think a fleet of 100 or so brand new DMU's within the next 8 years is incredibly unlikely. It should be remembered that the DDA can be pretty flexible where railways are concerned, and I wouldn't be at all suprised if lots of exemptions appear towards the deadline. Regardless of what the intended law and legislation says, if it isn't happening then it isn't happening!

I'm curious - as someone who signs Pacer sets! - as to exactly what it is that will outlaw them, but not their Sprinter cousins?! They have a wheelchair bay, they are accessible by means of a ramp as per all trains, so I don't see see where the shortcomings are?! They might not be popular (at all!) but they start and stop, and they shift people from A to B, so I'd have thought they're good to keep going for a few years yet bearing in mind the current climate!

Could the wheelchair bounce a bit, and hence moving. something that you wouldnt see on a smoother sprinter

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm curious - as someone who signs Pacer sets! - as to exactly what it is that will outlaw them, but not their Sprinter cousins?! They have a wheelchair bay, they are accessible by means of a ramp as per all trains, so I don't see see where the shortcomings are?!

I have a feeling that it's the impossibility of fitting easy access toilets to them that's the main stumbling block now.

 

[BestWestern]

I have a feeling that it's the impossibility of fitting easy access toilets to them that's the main stumbling block now.

Hmm, yes that was my thinking too, but I'd have thought it would be no less impractical on any other unit not built with disabled-access toilets. Modifying a 150/455/318 etc would be just as difficult as doing it on a Pacer I'd imagine.

 

[northwichcat]

I'm curious - as someone who signs Pacer sets! - as to exactly what it is that will outlaw them, but not their Sprinter cousins?! They have a wheelchair bay, they are accessible by means of a ramp as per all trains

Pacers need a special extended ramp due to the double step. The extended ramp can't be used at certain stations and the doors are too flimsy to allow for someone in an electric wheelchair hitting them while boarding. There's also the issue with the wheelchair space not being near an accessible toilet and with the Pacers having three doors per carriage it creates complications around how that could be done.

The door controls would also need replacing, the destination displays would need replacing and I think there is an issue with the seating being too low on all Northern's 142s, but not on the 143s, 144s and ATW 142s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Modifying a 150/455/318 etc would be just as difficult as doing it on a Pacer I'd imagine.

Not really. FNW changed the non-accessible 150 toilets for accessible ones with a reduction in seating in that part of the train. There's also external doors near the toilet on a 150 on both sides of the train, without having to go through the entire carriage length or the bit that joins the two carriages together.

 

[ainsworth74]

Hmm, yes that was my thinking too, but I'd have thought it would be no less impractical on any other unit not built with disabled-access toilets. Modifying a 150/455/318 etc would be just as difficult as doing it on a Pacer I'd imagine.

Perhaps but have you seen the inside of a Pacer? On a 142 if you put in an easy access toilet firstly I doubt you could put it where the existing toilet is as you would block a door. If you put it towards one of the driving ends you would only have room for a very narrow corridor and I suspect there would be no room for a wheelchair anymore at the toilet end so the wheelchair user would have to board at the other end, defeating the point of having a toilet as they would have to traverse the whole train to use it! (Yes I know there are other forms of disabilty than wheelchair users, but surely the main reason for easy access toilets is for a wheelchair user?).

Seriously those units are tiny, I'm not convinced there is the physical room for easy access toilets.

 

[strange6]

If Northern got Shafted again there would be a passenger revolt, there is only so long succesive governments can treat the north west rail network like s**t and get away with it, anywhere south of Crewe gets new stock on a reasonable regular basis and what do we get up in Northern land 6 more Pacers, its utter sickening seeing the depressed looks on pax faces paying what they do for the quality of stock that they have to use (tho they are amazed that Northern keep as many trains running as they do)

I don't have a problem with them. They get me from A to B safely with a good view out of the saloon. They're also mechanically very simple machines which are reasonable to maintain and fix if anything goes wrong. They could run for a lot longer in my opinion.

 

[northwichcat]

It should be remembered that the DDA can be pretty flexible where railways are concerned, and I wouldn't be at all suprised if lots of exemptions appear towards the deadline.

It is already been decided that minor infringements will be allowed beyond 2019 as long as all the major ones are addressed.

I imagine a 158 destination display would be a minor infringement - not really meeting the current requirements but still reasonable.

 

[BestWestern]

Pacers need a special extended ramp due to the double step. The extended ramp can't be used at certain stations and the doors are too flimsy to allow for someone in an electric wheelchair hitting them while boarding. There's also the issue with the wheelchair space not being near an accessible toilet and with the Pacers having three doors per carriage it creates complications around how that could be done.

The door controls would also need replacing, the destination displays would need replacing and I think there is an issue with the seating being too low on all Northern's 142s, but not on the 143s, 144s and ATW 142s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Not really. FNW changed the non-accessible 150 toilets for accessible ones with a reduction in seating in that part of the train. There's also external doors near the toilet on a 150 on both sides of the train, without having to go through the entire carriage length or the bit that joins the two carriages together.

Interesting point about the doors, that makes some sense. I'd have thought that an easy option solution could be found by restricting the use of Pacer sets to short distance routes where there is no requirement for toilet facilities to be provided, which of course would also go some way to removing them from totally unsuitable mainline services. The ramps are indeed a nightmare, though only at locations where there is a steep drop to the platform. The ramps on ours are simple one-piece affairs, but are a faff to use as they don't fold in the centre as most do. As for door controls and destination screens and suchlike, that's a pretty minor cost in the grand scheme of things, and if the stock leasing companies want to artificially jack up the value of their assets in order to charge ridiculous lease fees, they need to spend the money when it's time to upgrade those assets to keep up with the times.

I wasn't aware that any mods had been carried out on 150 units, that's obviously good news if there is an existing 'template' to work to!

 

[SC318250]

Scottish electrification allowing the cascade of their 48 158s to England. This one at least is taking shape.

I wouldnt hold hope on getting the Class 158 from Scotrail. Think the Class 156 will be released rather than the Class 158.
Remember when Nat Ex tried to swap 20 x Class 156 for 20 Class 158 with Central Trains, MSPs put a stop to that.

 

[TEW]

The door controls would also need replacing, the destination displays would need replacing and I think there is an issue with the seating being too low on all Northern's 142s, but not on the 143s, 144s and ATW 142s.

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 main problem is the lack of a place to install a disabled toilet. Perhaps that could be got round by removing the toilet entirely? I doubt toilets are going to be fitted to new units without them such as 378s.

 

[Nonsense]

plus the highly dubious suggestion about buying in second hand stock from abroad;

Slightly off topic maybe, but is there anything abroad that would even be suitable for our network? Apart from some Irish Stock that might fit, which probably isn't for sale, what is there that would match our safety standards, platform height, loading gauge, track gauge, power supply? Are there perhaps any parts of the network where it would be cheaper to modify the infrastructure to fit foreign stock, than to procure new UK standard trains. I gather the Cumbrian Coast line, for example, has numerous low platforms and limited inter-operation with the rest of the network, could that take something from the continent.

Definitely not in the interests of the passenger, but certainly make the railway more interesting if this was pursued.

 

[tbtc]

I wouldnt hold hope on getting the Class 158 from Scotrail. Think the Class 156 will be released rather than the Class 158.
Remember when Nat Ex tried to swap 20 x Class 156 for 20 Class 158 with Central Trains, MSPs put a stop to that.

The reason its been suggested the 158s come south is that they can't work on the West Highland or South Western, so it makes sense for 156s to continue on these lines. Plus 156s are perfectly okay for the Far North, Anniesland etc.

Most of the electrification will free up 170s (e.g. sixteen needed for the doubled up peak service on the Falkirk High line) which will free up the need for 158s on routes like Central Belt - Aberdeen (so there's more routes upgraded from two-car 158 to three-car 170 than there are "downgraded" from two-car 158 to two car 156).

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.

Then again, when the Bathgate branch was electrified the plan was for the Northern 158s to head south, but they ended up being kept in Scotland (despite being needed at Northern), so maybe ScotRail will get 50 new EMUs and then keep all displaced DMUs too...

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

Slightly off topic maybe, but is there anything abroad that would even be suitable for our network? Apart from some Irish Stock that might fit, which probably isn't for sale, what is there that would match our safety standards, platform height, loading gauge, track gauge, power supply? Are there perhaps any parts of the network where it would be cheaper to modify the infrastructure to fit foreign stock, than to procure new UK standard trains. I gather the Cumbrian Coast line, for example, has numerous low platforms and limited inter-operation with the rest of the network, could that take something from the continent.

Definitely not in the interests of the passenger, but certainly make the railway more interesting if this was pursued.

I've argued for this previously on lines like C2C/LTS which are pretty self contained
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

the destination displays would need replacing

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?

(not saying its user friendly, but if it complies with the regulations then...)

 

[Nonsense]

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? Or maybe just have one electric driving motor coach paired with each half of the existing sprinter fleet?

 

[YorkshireBear]

I personally think the government is going to let them carry on till 2119 :P would it be that much of a surprise.....

They seem to have no plan as to what is going to happen, i mean not wiring the thames valley branches is enough to show there not thinking about DMU's entirely....
It wouldnt be difficult to add 172s to the order thats all it needs..... They are the perfect DMU for what we need right now... 75 or 100mph gangway conneccted...

What i want to know is how stations like sheffield are going to cope when we need 4 car 150s in the peaks..... I think that could be just as pressing a concern.