Northern Pacer Withdrawals - Info?

[anamyd]

From northernchris:

Admittedly, with the Northern random unit generator, what's booked isn't necessarily what turns up, so I have made a bit of an assumption!

Thanks, I missed that somehow. Ah yes, Northern's random generators. Their fluorescent light tube one produced a lovely mix of Philips and Osram on 156-460

 

[thenorthern]

Given that the Pacer withdrawal is supposed to be done by December but so far none have been withdrawn is it likely that the December deadline for withdrawing Pacers will the deadline be met?

 

[Mathew S]

Given that the Pacer withdrawal is supposed to be done by December but so far none have been withdrawn is it likely that the December deadline for withdrawing Pacers will the deadline be met?

At the moment it all depends on the introduction of the new trains. The more that are in service, the more Pacers can be withdrawn sooner. It's not impossible to achieve - nothing is if enough people throw enough effort and money at it.
My personal prediction is they'll have a choice: keep Pacers in service or get a derogation on DMU PRM mods. I don't think both projects can be completed by Dec.

 

[krus_aragon]

At the moment it all depends on the introduction of the new trains. The more that are in service, the more Pacers can be withdrawn sooner. It's not impossible to achieve - nothing is if enough people throw enough effort and money at it.
My personal prediction is they'll have a choice: keep Pacers in service or get a derogation on DMU PRM mods. I don't think both projects can be completed by Dec.

Though, of course, keeping any Pacers in service beyond December will require a PRM derogation too.

 

[Mathew S]

Though, of course, keeping any Pacers in service beyond December will require a PRM derogation too.

True. I do think, though, that a short term PRM derogation for, say, 150s would be a lot less politically (with a small p) damaging for all involved than keeping the Pacers.

 

[PHILIPE]

Delete

 

[R G NOW.]

True. I do think, though, that a short term PRM derogation for, say, 150s would be a lot less politically (with a small p) damaging for all involved than keeping the Pacers.

I seem to remember on BBC 1 news sometime ago, it was stated that the Government wanted to rid the network of pacers by 2020. Wonder if this was just talk.

 

[Killingworth]

Pacers aren't the only units that will be required far longer than anticipated. Politically there has been so much attention to them that it would be very difficult to continue any plan that relies on their use after the December timetable changes.

Some other non-compliant stock will have to be reprieved in small numbers and for relatively short periods, like HSTs.

 

[darloscott]

If you think today introducing 3 319s on Bolton corridor and 2 158s in North East could have potentially written off 8 142 diagrams (they haven't, they've bolstered some existing diagrams, or maybe helping to speed up the refurb program too) then it's easy to see just how quickly they could be got rid of.

 

[thenorthern]

Given that we are now in February and there is still no officially published date for the introduction of the Class 195 I would think a derogation for pacers will become almost inevitable as there is going to be teething problems lets face it.

 

[driver_m]

Given that we are now in February and there is still no officially published date for the introduction of the Class 195 I would think a derogation for pacers will become almost inevitable as there is going to be teething problems lets face it.

Been announced elsewhere though that a big bang training package has been sorted now for the 195s with a number of depots ready to start the training on them.

 

[Paul_10]

My worry is that if things are still behind scheldue by the end of this year then small branch lines or lines with 142s operating like Morecambe to Lancaster, Preston to Ormskirk, Preston to Blackpool South etc will once again suffer with busitution all because of the DDA act, it will not put the railway in good light at all.

I do hope common sence will apply and if the pacers have to be kept on then they should.

Also what will happen to all the 153s and those lines in Lincolnshire which are operated by single 153s.. i do fear more negative headlines im afraid.

 

[Glenn1969]

I thought the Barton Line service was supposed to transfer to EM. Has that now been abandoned?

 

[Sankey Wire]

Radio 4’s PM programme featured a report on the Pacer this evening; it was suggested (and denied) that Northern bosses don’t expect to withdraw them in time.

 

[Chester1]

My bet is that if derogations are granted then 153s and any sprinters not finished on time will be granted them long before Pacers are. There is a media and forum obession that Pacers will not be removed by the end of the year. There are other emergency options that will be done first. Northerns short forming should stop in the May timetable when EMUs run Manchester-Bolton-Preston services. The first pacers should be able to go off lease then. As @driver_m has said, a training package has been agreed for 195s. Hopefully a couple should enter service for the May timetable change. Two 769s have been tested for a while, introduction in May is looking likely. That is roughly equivalent to 24 pacers out of 102.

 

[superkev]

With most of the Calder Valley services and few others being 3 or 4 car would it be acceptable to couple a prm compliant unit to a non compliant unit?
K

 

[PHILIPE]

With most of the Calder Valley services and few others being 3 or 4 car would it be acceptable to couple a prm compliant unit to a non compliant unit?
K

This has been discussed on several threads and the answer is a definite NO

 

[R G NOW.]

Radio 4’s PM programme featured a report on the Pacer this evening; it was suggested (and denied) that Northern bosses don’t expect to withdraw them in time.

When are they going to make up their minds? It was stated on that programme I saw, that they were all going by the end of 2019. Why do we here one thing, then a few days later, something else!!!.

 

[thenorthern]

Back in the early 2000s I remember there were issues with the Class 175s introduced by First North Western (something to do with brakes I think) which meant that the Class 101s were not withdrawn fully until the end of 2003.

I can see a similar thing happening with the Pacer trains, I know the last branch to have Class 101s was the Rose Hill Marple Branch, I think a similar thing will happen with the Pacers on the Rose Hill Marple Branch.

I thought the Barton Line service was supposed to transfer to EM. Has that now been abandoned?

I think it's going to happen when the new East Midlands Franchise starts.

 

[R G NOW.]

What is happening to all of the class 387s That I heard are being introduced?. I have been told that they are very comfortable and am wondering if any are going up north.

 

[sprinterguy]

I can see a similar thing happening with the Pacer trains, I know the last branch to have Class 101s was the Rose Hill Marple Branch, I think a similar thing will happen with the Pacers on the Rose Hill Marple Branch.

That seems like one of the more realistic predictions at this juncture.

What is happening to all of the class 387s That I heard are being introduced?. I have been told that they are very comfortable and am wondering if any are going up north.

There are no plans to introduce any class 387s in northern England. The class 387 fleets have been in service for at least a couple of years now and are fully committed on Great Northern, GWR Thames Valley, Gatwick Express and C2C services. I don't believe that this is expected to change.

 

[Chester1]

With most of the Calder Valley services and few others being 3 or 4 car would it be acceptable to couple a prm compliant unit to a non compliant unit?
K

This has been discussed on several threads and the answer is a definite NO

Its only a definite no without a derogation. The Secretary of State has freedom to specify the length of derogations and the conditions. I think the 153s will be granted short term derogations specifying they can only be used with compliant units. Station anoucements can state people of reduced mobility should use the other coaches. There are 70 units nationwide and sending spare ones to Northern would provide significant leeway on PRM mods and new unit introduction without requiring pacers to stay past the end of the year. Derogations for Pacers would be very politically toxic and will be at the bottom of the list of options.

 

[thenorthern]

If there is a derogation for Pacers I think that it will be the Class 144s that will be kept in service as they seem in better condition than the Class 142s.

There are other variables as well not just the Class 195s being ready on time. Back in the late 2000s there were attempts to withdraw some of the Class 142s by Northern Rail but they were re-introduced due to increasing passenger demand (for more seats not Pacers as such I should say).

 

[Chester1]

If there is a derogation for Pacers I think that it will be the Class 144s that will be kept in service as they seem in better condition than the Class 142s.

There are other variables as well not just the Class 195s being ready on time. Back in the late 2000s there were attempts to withdraw some of the Class 142s by Northern Rail but they were re-introduced due to increasing passenger demand (for more seats not Pacers as such I should say).

It is very unlikely that Northern passenger numbers are exceeding their 2016 estimates. Now that electrification of Manchester-Preston is done, pacer withdrawal is dependent on getting 195s and 769s into service. 153s will get derogations before 144s.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If there is a derogation for Pacers I think that it will be the Class 144s that will be kept in service as they seem in better condition than the Class 142s.

There are other variables as well not just the Class 195s being ready on time. Back in the late 2000s there were attempts to withdraw some of the Class 142s by Northern Rail but they were re-introduced due to increasing passenger demand (for more seats not Pacers as such I should say).

In the case of 144012 you may be correct*, as that unit had the experimental modifications done, large toilet and so on (with some derogation for minor things). As for the rest, the original plan was to get rid of the 144s first (presumably due to being a smaller fleet) with the 142s following after. Although withdrawal is delayed, I can't see any reason that order will change. The oft-suggested move of 144s to South Wales may yet happen, but I'll believe it when I see it.

*=apart from being non-standard of course.

 

[AMD]

There is a media and forum obession that Pacers will not be removed by the end of the year.

About right. As another poster has noted other options eg PRM derogations for sprinters will happen first, and with the new trains training package about to kick off the fleet will increase substantially later this summer, so the politically unsustainable option of keeping pacers post 31st December won't be happening with Northern. (I can't speak for Wales tho)

 

[krus_aragon]

To throw in my view on the Welsh situation, we've only got 30 pacers, compared to Northern's 100 or so, which means our problem is of a different scale.

We're expecting 12 170s and a gaggle of 153s in this year, as well as 5 230s and (hopefully) some nice, long 769 units that will each replace a double Pacer (originally 4, now 9 on order).

On that evidence, there shouldn't be any issue with withdrawing all Welsh Pacers at the end of the year. The trouble is getting all the Sprinter fleets upgraded to PRM specs before 2020 as well.

 

[_toommm_]

If there is a derogation for Pacers I think that it will be the Class 144s that will be kept in service as they seem in better condition than the Class 142s.

There are other variables as well not just the Class 195s being ready on time. Back in the late 2000s there were attempts to withdraw some of the Class 142s by Northern Rail but they were re-introduced due to increasing passenger demand (for more seats not Pacers as such I should say).

I suspect they'll keep the 142s longer, as even though the 144s are nicer and, for half of the fleet, provide more capacity, the 142s are the (pretty much) go everywhere train for Northern, so it'll be easier to keep them going.

 

[anamyd]

To throw in my view on the Welsh situation, we've only got 30 pacers, compared to Northern's 100 or so, which means our problem is of a different scale.

We're expecting 12 170s and a gaggle of 153s in this year, as well as 5 230s and (hopefully) some nice, long 769 units that will each replace a double Pacer (originally 4, now 9 on order).

On that evidence, there shouldn't be any issue with withdrawing all Welsh Pacers at the end of the year. The trouble is getting all the Sprinter fleets upgraded to PRM specs before 2020 as well.

The 170s transfer in October but the 230s, 769s and temporary 153s are due soon. It's rumoured that Canton depot will PRM modify some of the TfW 150/2s "in house". But yeah if we can get some lovely Pacers from Northernland then they will help get that work done quicker for sure.

 

[anamyd]

I suspect they'll keep the 142s longer, as even though the 144s are nicer and, for half of the fleet, provide more capacity, the 142s are the (pretty much) go everywhere train for Northern, so it'll be easier to keep them going.

Send the 144s to Cardiff