• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Northern Pacer Withdrawals - Info?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

tom1649

Member
Joined
5 Jul 2010
Messages
961
I'll let you all try and work that out. It sounds to me if the toilet on the 142 fails the train can run, but if only the PRM toilet goes OOU the unit should be failed. But if both toilets are OOU the unit can still run.????????????????????

So someone could go and shove too much bog roll down the non-PRM toilet in such a situation to save the unit from being failed?!
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
This will start off topic but should go back on.
If the 195s (3 car) had been built with two toilets one PRM com. one not. If the non Com. one goes OOU the unit could still run but if the PRM one goes OOU the unit has to be failed. But if the unit only has one toilet and it goes OOU IIRC it's up to the guard to decide whether to fail the unit or not.

I'll let you all try and work that out. It sounds to me if the toilet on the 142 fails the train can run, but if only the PRM toilet goes OOU the unit should be failed. But if both toilets are OOU the unit can still run.????????????????????

The lunatics have truly taken over the asylum.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
This will start off topic but should go back on.
If the 195s (3 car) had been built with two toilets one PRM com. one not. If the non Com. one goes OOU the unit could still run but if the PRM one goes OOU the unit has to be failed. But if the unit only has one toilet and it goes OOU IIRC it's up to the guard to decide whether to fail the unit or not.

I'll let you all try and work that out. It sounds to me if the toilet on the 142 fails the train can run, but if only the PRM toilet goes OOU the unit should be failed. But if both toilets are OOU the unit can still run.????????????????????

I am not so sure if that is correct, do you have anything that confirms it? After all, the Class 700 have got a single universal access toilet and 2(or 4) standard toilets, but I am not aware of a requirement for the whole train to be taken out of service in the event of the UAT going out of service. And looking through the PRM-TSI requirements, there is implicit acceptance of operation with only standard toilet in the event of UAT failure, although whether that is also enshrined in UK law I don't know
 

Colby James

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2019
Messages
65
Location
New Zealand
I did hear from a roumer that I think a ex-skipper 142 Pacer 142023 is destined for someplace in Devon England does anyone know this roumer?
 

SteveyBee131

Member
Joined
28 Oct 2017
Messages
651
Location
Grimsby Town
I did hear from a roumer that I think a ex-skipper 142 Pacer 142023 is destined for someplace in Devon England does anyone know this roumer?
Be cool if it's true. I seem to remember reading it was the first one to receive Regional Railways livery.

Keep hoping someone can save a Northern Spirit refurb
 

IamTrainsYT

Member
Joined
8 Dec 2018
Messages
1,073
Location
Glossop
I think even the "PRM modded" Pacer is technically non-compliant, might be the step...
A wheelchair ramp can still fit on the step, old people have said they find it easier boarding pacers as they are 2 steps up rather than one large step. I don’t understand why new trains aren’t being built to the exact height of the palatform? Merseyrail are doing it with there 777s and it would make wheelchair access so easy
 

3270

Member
Joined
8 Mar 2015
Messages
150
This will start off topic but should go back on.
If the 195s (3 car) had been built with two toilets one PRM com. one not. If the non Com. one goes OOU the unit could still run but if the PRM one goes OOU the unit has to be failed. But if the unit only has one toilet and it goes OOU IIRC it's up to the guard to decide whether to fail the unit or not.

I'll let you all try and work that out. It sounds to me if the toilet on the 142 fails the train can run, but if only the PRM toilet goes OOU the unit should be failed. But if both toilets are OOU the unit can still run.????????????????????
I believe it's all about whether or not there's discrimination.
If a train has a PRM toilet and a non-PRM toilet and the latter fails then there is no discrimination because everyone (wheelchair users included) can access the PRM toilet. If however the PRM toilet fails leaving only the non-PRM toilet in use there is discrimination because wheelchair users can't access it. Therefore action needs to be taken (e.g. take the unit out of service at the end of that journey). A train that only has one toilet (a PRM one) can remain in service if the toilet fails because then nobody has access to a toilet so there is no discrimination.
I suppose we could quite easily get into the law of unintended consequences here. If the PRM toilet failed on our 2 toilet train we could presumably keep the train in service by locking the non-PRM toilet out of use so that nobody had access to a toilet (i.e. there was no discrimination)!
 

mde

Member
Joined
17 Nov 2016
Messages
513
I think even the "PRM modded" Pacer is technically non-compliant, might be the step...
You'd struggle to find anything built up to the early 2000's that was 100% compliant; there are RVAR exemptions in place for Pendolinos, Turbostars and more.

To put this one to bed, 144 012 (aka the 144e) has a dispensation from complying with certain parts of PRM-TSI; the issues at hand are mostly technical non-compliances which are present in many other units that have had PRM treatment (for example, this version which covers certain 150s).
 

IamTrainsYT

Member
Joined
8 Dec 2018
Messages
1,073
Location
Glossop
You'd struggle to find anything built up to the early 2000's that was 100% compliant; there are RVAR exemptions in place for Pendolinos, Turbostars and more.

To put this one to bed, 144 012 (aka the 144e) has a dispensation from complying with certain parts of PRM-TSI; the issues at hand are mostly technical non-compliances which are present in many other units that have had PRM treatment (for example, this version which covers certain 150s).
There is this however I don’t quite understand it
 

Chris217

Member
Joined
7 Nov 2018
Messages
620
I am reading all this discrimination rubbish about locked out PRM toilets and non PRM toilets and failing the trains.
Its ludicrous tbh.
People just want the trains to run on time and with enough carriages.
Toilets are a privilege and although ideal,they are not absolutely essential unless it's a long journey.
You wouldnt fancy waiting for your train only to be told its cancelled because the toilet was broke.
What sort of excuse is that.
I fear this will be the new 2020 excuse for cancelled trains.
If in doubt,go before you board!
What's next?
Cancelled because the wi-fi isn't working!
If you went by bus,you'd have something really to complain about especially if you wanted a number 2 lol.
Just another nanny state rule we have made up which will come back to kick us all in the teeth one way or another.
Like scrapping perfectly useable Pacers whilst we still see short forms and cancellations. We allow it to happen because we are the nanny state that demands it without consequence.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,162
They are indeed.

The anti Pacer brigade
Seem to think they have more common sense than the rest of us who just want a train home!
Enjoy your short forms and cancellations in the name of sheer lunacy!
Just because they are all we have doesn’t make them fit for purpose. They should have been replaced long ago with sufficient replacement vehicles. To suggest otherwise is just an enthusiast view of the world where old = good.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Just because they are all we have doesn’t make them fit for purpose. They should have been replaced long ago with sufficient replacement vehicles. To suggest otherwise is just an enthusiast view of the world where old = good.

Fact is that they haven’t been, and many people would prefer an older train if it means their train can be longer and their journey isn’t so overcrowded.

It seems the industry is more interested in getting rid of stuff like 321s than providing sufficient diesel trains.
 

Chris217

Member
Joined
7 Nov 2018
Messages
620
The problem we have is....
Old is good as it works.whereas new is
p1$spoor as it doesnt.
Let's get rid of the old stuff even though all the new stuff still doesnt work properly.
Always better off better the devil you know

I am not anti new or anything.
Just seems there is zero common sense
on todays railways.
Like I have already said,our demands will be our downfall.
Pacers are the scapegoat tbh.
If it works,leave it be.
People will still complain regardless.
As for not being fit for the 21st Century.
I will ask you this....
If Pacers were only 5 years old with all the mod cons,will people STILL moan about them because they are a pacer.
And the answer to that is yes!
We have decided the fate ourselves and the problems that come with them with the demands we make!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top