Pacer replacement contract ... any news?

[LE Greys]

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

I've seen that idea a few times. It might work, but only if we had something worthwhile to haul it. Let's imagine we order a large number of MkV coaches from CAF or somewhere, with DVTs to avoid the need for running round. The lack of distributed traction might make the train slower up hills, but the tradeoff is additional capacity, and I for one would be willing to accept 5-10 minutes slower travel for additional capacity. It would probably help. Something with at least Class 50 speed and power would be needed to haul/shove it.

That frees all the 185s, which can go either to Scotland for the Highland Line or to FGW for Devon and Cornwall. In both cases, weight is not a priority, but extra horsepower would be useful in getting up the gradients. ScotRail could probably put them on the Aberdeen Road as well, assuming that they still have sufficient 170s to work the lighter Aberdeen-Inverness route, which does not have such a high route availability. That shakes out quite a few 170s and 158s. FGW can keep their 158s, cascade them to replace some 150s (Bristol-Weymouth might be a good 158 route) and increase capacity while squeezing out Pacers, and we can sort out the rest.

Just a few problems. Firstly, we don't have any suitable locos at the moment, no time to design them from scratch and no plant capable of building them. 67s are geared too high, making them useless at going up hills. 66s are goods engines with no ETS, and the top speed is too low anyway. 50s might work, but they are too old and anyway there are not enough operation ones. 37s are a bit underpowered for the job, and there aren't enough of them anyway. 47s have plenty of power, but accelerate like supertankers, and again there cannot be enough operational ones. That leaves us with 57s, and are there enough of them available? Even if the Freightliner ones could be refitted with ETS, then there still might not be enough.

Secondly, we don't have enough coaches. If we still had the ex-Anglia MkIIs with the DBSOs, and perhaps the GatEx vehicles, then we might be able to scrape together a decent service. Thing is, we don't. Therefore, new stock is needed. I'm suggesting CAF because of the Irish MkIVs, which would fit through our loading gauge with narrower bogies. It takes time to build them.

I wish we could get this to work, but it's not an option for at least five years.

 

[NXEA!]

I saw an idea on here (I can't think who it was, sorry) that suggested overhauling the Mark 2 DBSO's and Mark 3 DVT's and adding a Diesel Generator like they've done with 82304, and making them compatible for AAR working. You could marshall them at the end of a rake of say 5 or 6 overhauled Mark 2's as there are plenty laying spare, and then use these on relatively short-distance commuter runs with a 66 on say Manchester-Blackpool as there are plenty of 66's around, and by having the diesel generator this negates the need for an ETH fitted locomotive. If you had about 10 of these rakes, you could displace a lot of 150/156's to cover longer-distance Pacer runs and add a lot of capacity. Personally I think this is a good idea.

 

[LE Greys]

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.

I hope that that will appear because of electrification in Scotland. There are quite a few 156s and 170s operating around Glasgow. If some of them go north to Inverness, then the Inverness-based 158s will be freed to come to England. Quite possibly the Haymarket 158s as well, plus a few 170s and 156s. I'm not sure where they are supposed to go afterwards, or indeed whether they ever will electrify more than just the Edinburgh-Glasgow line. That would provide a temporary 'patch-and-mend' cascade until whatever replaces the Pacers comes in. With Northern, I would put 158s on the Settle-Carlisle, moving a few 156s to cover Leeds-Morecambe and Newcastle-Carlisle. The ex-Alphaline services are a possibility for the 158s as well, especially since it might provide an opportunity to rotate out the original Alphaline units and rebuild them to Scotrail standards (meaning better seating and air-con). Not sure about the 170s as yet, but Norwich-Liverpool is a possibility, thus displacing a few 158s for somewhere else.

If anyone knows more about this, please post.

 

[YorkshireBear]

I hope that that will appear because of electrification in Scotland. There are quite a few 156s and 170s operating around Glasgow. If some of them go north to Inverness, then the Inverness-based 158s will be freed to come to England. Quite possibly the Haymarket 158s as well, plus a few 170s and 156s. I'm not sure where they are supposed to go afterwards, or indeed whether they ever will electrify more than just the Edinburgh-Glasgow line. That would provide a temporary 'patch-and-mend' cascade until whatever replaces the Pacers comes in. With Northern, I would put 158s on the Settle-Carlisle, moving a few 156s to cover Leeds-Morecambe and Newcastle-Carlisle. The ex-Alphaline services are a possibility for the 158s as well, especially since it might provide an opportunity to rotate out the original Alphaline units and rebuild them to Scotrail standards (meaning better seating and air-con). Not sure about the 170s as yet, but Norwich-Liverpool is a possibility, thus displacing a few 158s for somewhere else.

If anyone knows more about this, please post.

Just gonna change some of your northern stuff, The settle and carlisle line si exclusively operated by 158s already (occasional workings have 1 153 attached and 1 sunday diagram is 3 153s) newcastle carlisle already does have 156s but 142s as well so getting rid of them entirely is an option.
I would like 156s on leeds morcombe but unfortunately the units for that service originate from neville hill so unless we move some 156s back to neville hill you can do much with that service, unless you move 158s there. it is currently in the general 142/4 and 150 catagory. 170s are good for norwich liverpool but youd need 4 car

 

[stanley T]

How much would it cost to convert a stored 47 to 57, and clean up a rake of Mark II coaches? Point is, that would meet the additional demand at the peaks for Leeds and Manchester commuters (possibly Sheffield as well), while the DMUs double unit in the peaks and single unit off peak. Are there stored 47s left to do this?

Seems much of the problem in west Yorks is more commuting and thus more of a travel peak, or are the TPEs busy all day?

 

[jon0844]

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

365s have air con for the driver only, nowhere else!

 

[northwichcat]

or are the TPEs busy all day?

TPE's are busy all day. Piccadilly-Airport, Doncaster-Cleethorphes, Leeds-Hull and Northallerton-Middlesbrough aren't too bad off-peak. However, Leeds-Manchester, Bolton-Manchester and Liverpool-Manchester in particular are sometimes standing room only even off-peak - at peak times it's last to arrive can't board as the train will be too full.

 

[anthony263]

I agree that loco hauled trains should be used on long distance work. (Crosscountry is an example of this, such as scotland to penzance etc)


There are plenty of MK3 stock sitting in sidings in ireland which could be converted to run on uk rails. As for locomotives, what about those locomotives that DRS were rumoured to be looking at buying? besides why not also convert the HST mk3 trailers which should become available when a lot of FGW's hst's are replaced by IEP's in 2016?

As for ordering new loco hauled carriages, either CAF or CSRE, just use the MK3 design, but modify it slightly so that they have powered doors and other safety stuff on them.

 

[Rhydgaled]

How much would it cost to convert a stored 47 to 57, and clean up a rake of Mark II coaches? Point is, that would meet the additional demand at the peaks for Leeds and Manchester commuters (possibly Sheffield as well), while the DMUs double unit in the peaks and single unit off peak. Are there stored 47s left to do this?

Seems much of the problem in west Yorks is more commuting and thus more of a travel peak, or are the TPEs busy all day?

RAIL (magazine issue 660 - JAN 2011) says the following locos are stored:

• 30 class 37
• 30 class 47
• 61 class 60
• 4 class 56
• 3 class 57
• 19 class 66

And electric locos:

• 15 class 90
• 15 class 86
• 4 class 87
• 25 class 92

No idea how much reactivating that lot would cost. While the majority of these locos are only really good for freight, how many passenger locos (eg. 67s) are currently use for frieght? Reactivating some 92s or 90s and 60s or 66s could push passenger locos off frieght workings to enable them to run passenger LHCS services. If the DfT see sense rather than going for enviromental suicide then the 67s will be needed to drag electric IEPs on the East Coast routes and to Weston-Super-Mare from Bristol. A small number of TDM fitted 47/57 locos will also be needed to take over from 91s on GW services beyond Swansea. If those stored 47s are in any fit state to be resurected though that should still leave over 20 locos. The problem is there are only 6 mark2 DBSOs left that could maybe be used.

I agree that loco hauled trains should be used on long distance work. (Crosscountry is an example of this, such as scotland to penzance etc)

There are plenty of MK3 stock sitting in sidings in ireland which could be converted to run on uk rails. As for locomotives, what about those locomotives that DRS were rumoured to be looking at buying? besides why not also convert the HST mk3 trailers which should become available when a lot of FGW's hst's are replaced by IEP's in 2016?

As for ordering new loco hauled carriages, either CAF or CSRE, just use the MK3 design, but modify it slightly so that they have powered doors and other safety stuff on them.

If you are basing the specification on the mark3 (which sounds like a good idea) then surely the threatened plant in Derby (who I think own the rights to the mark3 design) would be best placed to win such a contract? Personally I think they should order a fleet of modernised, ultra-light weight mark3-based carriges to replace the sleeper and East Anglia mark3s, and the mark2s we are suggesting be put into use to cut overcrowding, by the 2020 deadline for power doors. Deliveries should then continue replacing the rest of the mark3 coaches by their 2035 scrap-by-date and then the mark 4 coaches between then and 2050. That would be just the sort of long term order needed to keep the plant going (albeit slowly).

 

[Hydro]

besides why not also convert the HST mk3 trailers which should become available when a lot of FGW's hst's are replaced by IEP's in 2016?

Why not just keep them as HST sets? It's not as if the power cars can be used for much else. It'd save on renewing all of the electrical equipment.

 

[LE Greys]

RAIL (magazine issue 660 - JAN 2011) says the following locos are stored:

• 30 class 37
• 30 class 47
• 61 class 60
• 4 class 56
• 3 class 57
• 19 class 66

And electric locos:

• 15 class 90
• 15 class 86
• 4 class 87
• 25 class 92

No idea how much reactivating that lot would cost. While the majority of these locos are only really good for freight, how many passenger locos (eg. 67s) are currently use for frieght? Reactivating some 92s or 90s and 60s or 66s could push passenger locos off frieght workings to enable them to run passenger LHCS services. If the DfT see sense rather than going for enviromental suicide then the 67s will be needed to drag electric IEPs on the East Coast routes and to Weston-Super-Mare from Bristol. A small number of TDM fitted 47/57 locos will also be needed to take over from 91s on GW services beyond Swansea. If those stored 47s are in any fit state to be resurected though that should still leave over 20 locos. The problem is there are only 6 mark2 DBSOs left that could maybe be used.

I think I'd go for the 60s, since they are the newest freight diesels, and can shift as much as a 66. They might need some modification, though. From what I hear, 66s are incredibly fuel-efficient and extremely reliable, and the 60s would have to match that. Still, they would clearly be better on freight than the 67s which we see occasionally, although I really don't like the idea of taking a 67 over the gradients on TPX. It might be possible to fit them with Dellners and swap them for some of the Virgin 57s, but that's unlikely.

As for the others, the 37s have probably had it by now and are a bit underpowered for modern schedules, although they might work over some of the longer Pacer routes with any available MkIIs. I'm not sure how many of the stored 47s have TDM equipment, but that would be very useful if the 6 DBSOs are still around by the time this happens. DVTs might be able to do the same job, but how many of those are still viable? Can 47s work with MkIV DVTs? If so, then they might be able to share duty with 91s on some services. Still, they are pretty old by now, and anyway they are horribly sluggish at accelerating. The 90s would serve best on East Coast, especially the Leeds and York semi-fasts, provided they have diesel locos to back them up by replacing 91s and provided there are sufficient MkIIIs to work with. That would free up all the EC HSTs for use elsewhere, perhaps to replace or supplement Voyagers on XC, thus freeing them for use elsewhere. Alternatively, they could go to the MML, freeing the Meridians for use elsewhere (again, perhaps XC).

If you are basing the specification on the mark3 (which sounds like a good idea) then surely the threatened plant in Derby (who I think own the rights to the mark3 design) would be best placed to win such a contract? Personally I think they should order a fleet of modernised, ultra-light weight mark3-based carriges to replace the sleeper and East Anglia mark3s, and the mark2s we are suggesting be put into use to cut overcrowding, by the 2020 deadline for power doors. Deliveries should then continue replacing the rest of the mark3 coaches by their 2035 scrap-by-date and then the mark 4 coaches between then and 2050. That would be just the sort of long term order needed to keep the plant going (albeit slowly).

That sounds like a good idea. The MkIII is a very solid coach, we've found that out in several accidents. With some modifications to prevent corrosion, sliding doors, crumple zones and a new DBFO based on the DVT, they would be a good design to carry on with in the future. I would stick with steel construction, it's stronger and cheaper than aluminium alloy, despite being heavier. Only thing I would change is the window pattern on TSOs, with nine per side instead of eight, matching the maximum number of table seats possible on either side. This gives you a capacity of 72 in an all-table arrangement, but you could go higher with airline-style.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think I'd go for the 60s, since they are the newest freight diesels, and can shift as much as a 66. They might need some modification, though.

They would certainly need some modification firstly they don't have any ability to supply power to LHCS so that means you either need to fit it to the loco or lug around a generator car in the consist. Secondly top speed of the 60 is ironically enough 60mph, it might be possible to get some more speed out of them by regearing but I doubt you'll get them doing 100mph which means they're going to be causing issues on the ECML (more so than the 185s already do) but also the 60s weren't built for high speeds so there could well be maintenance issues.

I'm not convinced that using freight locomotives is a viable option for introducing more LHCS services.

 

[Yew]

Why not just keep them as HST sets? It's not as if the power cars can be used for much else. It'd save on renewing all of the electrical equipment.

Maybe reduce them to 4-5 car sets, to give better acceleration and

 

[ainsworth74]

Maybe reduce them to 4-5 car sets, to give better acceleration and

Damnit man you can't leave us hanging like that! And what!!

 

[LE Greys]

They would certainly need some modification firstly they don't have any ability to supply power to LHCS so that means you either need to fit it to the loco or lug around a generator car in the consist. Secondly top speed of the 60 is ironically enough 60mph, it might be possible to get some more speed out of them by regearing but I doubt you'll get them doing 100mph which means they're going to be causing issues on the ECML (more so than the 185s already do) but also the 60s weren't built for high speeds so there could well be maintenance issues.

I'm not convinced that using freight locomotives is a viable option for introducing more LHCS services.

That's not quite what I meant. I was suggesting that DBS could use the 60s on freight and make the 67s available for passenger operators.

 

[ainsworth74]

That's not quite what I meant. I was suggesting that DBS could use the 60s on freight and make the 67s available for passenger operators.

Ahh my apologies

 

[tbtc]

I'm not convinced that using freight locomotives is a viable option for introducing more LHCS services.

Neither am I, but I guess it avoids the need for dozens of miles of track to get electrified at a non-standard system.

I suppose that one issue not mentioned on here is that replacement stock for the Harrogate line (whether Underground Ernie, Tank Engines etc) would mean at least a dozen 150s freed up (based on a number of services being doubled up - the ones I've seen tend to be) - that'd give quite a boost to capacity on Northern services.

Even if these are made into three-coach units like the Snow Hill 150s tend to be, that's twenty four services which can be extended by a coach. Harrogate's loss could be a lot of people's gain.

 

[LE Greys]

Maybe reduce them to 4-5 car sets, to give better acceleration and

And (a) increase all FGW sets to 2+9
(b) keep up with Voyager timetables
(c) no longer provide more seats than the Voyagers they replace, defeating the object of replacing them
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ahh my apologies

Say no more about it, I didn't make myself very clear. I can be a bit long-winded sometimes.

 

[exile]

From a regular commuter on the Warrington Central - Liverpool line - my spec for a pacer replacement is:

Same length as a 156, the pacers and 150s are just too short.
120 seats plus a disabled toilet. Most stopping trains go through from Manchester to Liverpool, a journey of over an hour.
Air conditioning but with a few openable windows.
Reliable heating (in winter, not all year round as now)
Seats to the standard seen in 156s. Tables not necessary but drop-down shelves on the backs of seats.

Top speed - 85 (though the all-stations services rarely exceed 60, the "semi-fasts" probably need to reach this speed to keep ahead of the TPE and EMT trains)

Currently we usually get 156s but about once a week each we get pacers or 150s, either of which means standing for some and discomfort for everyone.

 

[Yew]

And (a) increase all FGW sets to 2+9
(b) keep up with Voyager timetables
(c) no longer provide more seats than the Voyagers they replace, defeating the object of replacing them
.

I was thinking using them on some mid length services, to displace things like 3 car 170's or where there are 4 car sprinter combos (Nottingham - Liverpool?)

However I can see that replacing voyagers (then voyagers working these services) could overall be better. (although doesnt a 4 car 158 have more seats than a 5 car voyager? maybe remove/reduce first class?

 

[Rhydgaled]

I'm not sure how many of the stored 47s have TDM equipment, but that would be very useful if the 6 DBSOs are still around by the time this happens. DVTs might be able to do the same job, but how many of those are still viable? Can 47s work with MkIV DVTs? If so, then they might be able to share duty with 91s on some services.

From what I've heard in the past, even if there are still 47s with TDM you'd need to fit new TDM as the 47s had a different type of TDM designed to work with the DBSOs which have since been fitted with the class 90/91/43 varient of TDM for their use in East Anglia.

Basicly, all the DBSOs and DVTs now have the same version of TDM, which isn't the one 47s had.

 

[KingBBoogaloo]

All this talk of Loco Haulds is missing a very big point. They are expensive to operate and track access charges are high.

Personaly I think the key is electrification. Its something that can be planned for over the long term and the company that will do it, Network Rail, doesnt have to worry about short term franchises like the TOCs do. Also there will soon be a glut of cheep to run EMUs becoming available.

With the Thameslink order we know when the 319s will be available and where they are going but has anyone wondered whats going to happen to those 317s, 321s and 365s the same order will replace on the Great Northern part of FCC?

Finaly for comparison heres the price per mile to run a train on Network Rail at 09/10 prices.

67 + 4 mk2s = 67.16 pence
158 (four car) = 24.28 pence
365 (four car) = 17.16 pence

 

[exile]

Are those prices correct - is it really only 17p a mile to run a train? Surely more like £17?

 

[KingBBoogaloo]

Those figures are the Track Usage Charges given by Network Rail for 09/10 and are in pence per mile.

One note is that I left out the Electrification Asset Usage charge for the 365 which for any AC passenger train is 1.13 pence per mile which makes the 365 figure 18.29 pence per mile, the reason I did this is because I don't know the equivalent coast for diesel trains i.e. the cost of the fuelling points etc.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

My spec for a pacer replacement is:

Same length as a 156, the pacers and 150s are just too short.
120 seats plus a disabled toilet.
Air conditioning but with a few openable windows.
Reliable heating (in winter, not all year round as now)
Seats to the standard seen in 156s. Tables not necessary but drop-down shelves on the backs of seats.

To add to your wish list, can you add BOGIES, please

 

[150222]

I think a 170 based unit with 1992 tube stock style doors but with standard 170 seats.

 

[Skimble19]

There's two options here:
1. Very high frequency service without toilets e.g. First Capital Connect, London Overground and Merseyrail.

VHF.. First Capital Connect?! Besides, there's plenty of toilets on the trains (excluding the 313's).

 

[northwichcat]

VHF.. First Capital Connect?! Besides, there's plenty of toilets on the trains (excluding the 313's).

I was meaning high frequency of service on lines that have no on-board toilets. If you think FCC is a poor frequency you obviously haven't seen the timetable for Manchester to Sheffield via New Mills Central and the fact that the trains on that route are well utilised.