Pacers have a future.

Manchester77 · 26 Feb 2013

For those who don't have access to Modern Railways here is the said article:-

DDA pacer article by Manchester_77, on Flickr

RailUK Forums

WatcherZero · 26 Feb 2013

Cars are already required to meet Stage IV emmisions standards, Off Road vehicles will have to do them from 2014. Theres issues with scaling up the emmisions cleaning technologies for larger engines but one of the technology paths is using a seperate catalysing additive for the exhaust. The rail industry would be better suited to introducing this kind of new support infrastructure with its fewer locations, easy access to depots and engineering staff, to store and supply the engines than the road haulage industry.

Lewisham2221 · 26 Feb 2013

What, exactly, is the point of having these regulations, if "Non compliance" for various items is "accepted"?? I'm sure anything could be made PRM TSI compliant if you're just going to ignore anything that you can't be bothered to modify!

WatcherZero · 26 Feb 2013

I also noticed on reading that Modern Rail article that it presented verbatim the upgrade brochure without comment and ommitted any mention of cost (huge!) or time out of revenue service required for such a huge rebuild. Your also talking about reducing the capacity from 106 seats to 86 seats (78 with two wheelchairs/prams on board), a pretty substantial reduction in capacity.

Silv1983 · 26 Feb 2013

jcollins said:
when you've got a TPE service 3 minutes behind the Northern service, that can cause knock on delays.

TPE NEVER follow 3 mins behind Northern Services. We fester in loops and at red signals (e.g. Lostock Jnct) for them - even when their services are running late. :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

317666 said:
On the note of keeping time, 170s replacing Sprinters on semi-fast or stopping trains is a bad move. I find that when a 170 ends up on a 156 diagram in Norfolk, it struggles to keep to time due to having slower acceleration. Higher top speed, yes, but on a stopping train that isn't as important as acceleration.

The unfortunate thing now is that Northern are experimenting in reducing the power of the engines on some their sprinters to lower emissions and save fuel expenses. I took a one such 150/1 from Clitheroe to Vic last week that never went above 35mph all the way to Bolton. The service was about 6 minutes late into Vic for this reason alone.

Greybeard33 · 26 Feb 2013

yorksrob said:
Unless we do go for electrification of the entire network in the next 30 years or so (which I find fairly unlikely), the chances are, we're going to have to obtain some new DMU's at some stage - EU or no EU.

You might well say that about the Swiss network, if it was not electrified already! As the remaining diesel "islands" become smaller and more isolated, and so more expensive to operate, the business case for electrifying them improves, particularly if low cost OLE (e.g. trolley wire) can be developed for low speed branch lines.

Maybe an interim option might be to procure emissions-compliant generator cars that could be added to an off-the-shelf EMU, as a lower cost alternative to a purpose-built DMU?

Haydn1971 · 27 Feb 2013

Greybeard33 said:
Maybe an interim option might be to procure emissions-compliant generator cars that could be added to an off-the-shelf EMU, as a lower cost alternative to a purpose-built DMU?

Genius ! I really like that idea

yorksrob · 27 Feb 2013

Greybeard33 said:
You might well say that about the Swiss network, if it was not electrified already! As the remaining diesel "islands" become smaller and more isolated, and so more expensive to operate, the business case for electrifying them improves, particularly if low cost OLE (e.g. trolley wire) can be developed for low speed branch lines.

Maybe an interim option might be to procure emissions-compliant generator cars that could be added to an off-the-shelf EMU, as a lower cost alternative to a purpose-built DMU?

I'm not ruling it out - there's always the possibility of innovation. It's the long straggly lines in the Celtic nations i'm sceptical about.

pemma · 27 Feb 2013

Silv1983 said:
TPE NEVER follow 3 mins behind Northern Services. We fester in loops and at red signals (e.g. Lostock Jnct) for them - even when their services are running late. :roll:

In theory Liverpool-Scarborough services arrive at Oxford Road 4 minutes after the Northern stopper. Although, in practice it's usually around 7 or 8 minutes.

Greybeard33 · 27 Feb 2013

yorksrob said:
I'm not ruling it out - there's always the possibility of innovation. It's the long straggly lines in the Celtic nations i'm sceptical about.

Last week I rode on the Kyle of Lochalsh line and it was encouraging to see how well patronised the services were, midweek in winter (with 5 trains per day each way). It seems to me a case might eventually be made for low-cost electrification - quiet, non-polluting EMUs would surely enhance the tourist potential of this line (the 158s really labour on the steep gradients). Similarly for the Far North, Mallaig and Cambrian Coast lines.

pemma · 27 Feb 2013

Manchester77 said:
For those who don't have access to Modern Railways here is the said article:-
DDA pacer article by Manchester_77, on Flickr

One thing to note regarding the ramp not being complaint is it depends what platform it is used on. Some platforms can't easily be made wider without expensive construction work or compulsory land order purchases - is it really worth going through all that hassle when more modern trains can use the existing platforms without any problems?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Lewisham2221 said:
What, exactly, is the point of having these regulations, if "Non compliance" for various items is "accepted"?? I'm sure anything could be made PRM TSI compliant if you're just going to ignore anything that you can't be bothered to modify!

The Act always allowed the secretary of state for transport to made exemptions for minor infringements. 'Minor infringements' wasn't defined. I personally would define it as the following:
1. Non-accessible toilets on very short services or where all the stations en route have accessible toilets.
2. Minor infringements to do with the size of visual displays being something like 2mm too small or scrolling 0.5 seconds too fast.
3. Some carriages not being fully accessible as long as over half the carriages are fully accessible and aren't locked out-of-use for part of the journey.
4. Infringements relating to the display on the exterior of the train if all the stations called at have fully compliant next train displays.

One thing I've just noticed relating to the modern railways article is some modern trains like the 185s will need the door controls reversing. I always thought it was strange that there didn't seem to be common convention for whether the open or close button was at the top.

Toots · 27 Feb 2013

Although the powers that be have gone quiet on the subject, as the need for a replacement for local services becomes more apparent the Train/Tram option will probably gain favour once more, probably the dual mode version.
With schemes such as the Manchester to Liverpool and Blackpool electrifications in the pipeline and the exisisting tram schemes in Manchester,Newcastle and Sheffield,I think it's inevitable that if money is to be invested, then they will choose the flexible option.

Surreyman · 27 Feb 2013

DAB_Move said:
Exactly what I've been saying.

Yes but with a bit of luck, assuming funding and engineering resources are available for ongoing electrification, then there will be @ 20 year break before anymore DMU (or whatever self powered vehicles will be then) are required to replace 17X & 22X.
Difficult to see into the future but it's a safe bet to say Fossil fuels are only going to rise in price, who knows, might even be economic then to electrify even the most rural branch lines!

pemma · 27 Feb 2013

Surreyman said:
Difficult to see into the future but it's a safe bet to say Fossil fuels are only going to rise in price, who knows, might even be economic then to electrify even the most rural branch lines!

Indeed it's difficult to see in to the future. Who knows we might be removing overhead electrics in the future and building trains that run on Hydrogen.

swt_passenger · 27 Feb 2013

Lewisham2221 said:
What, exactly, is the point of having these regulations, if "Non compliance" for various items is "accepted"?? I'm sure anything could be made PRM TSI compliant if you're just going to ignore anything that you can't be bothered to modify!

It's very much political, as Roger Ford explains in the article. Remember the outcry about 458 PIS LED displays? That was about the odd millimetre, and was more a matter of principle on both sides. What happens is that someone will select a dimension with best intentions, say 1000 mm for a door button position or some such, and when they measure the train it turns out the existing dimension is 1010mm. So do you take that as a reason to move the button, or do you seek a dispensation? Now let's call that dimension 'subjective', for want of a better word.

However if a dimensional tolerance is decided absolutely, (ie on a go/no go basis), eg with respect to an internationally agreed standard wheelchair width or something similar, then that's somewhat different, and it cannot be relaxed.

pemma · 27 Feb 2013

Just noticed the proposed DDA complaint 143 would have less seats than a class 153 does currently. If that is the idea for complaint Pacers then the complaint Pacers certainly won't be suitable for current Pacer operated services. Even in multiple they won't be suitable for many Northern Rail services after that style of refurbishment. For instance, some Southport to Manchester services would need 6 car Pacers to meet demand and then you wouldn't have platforms long enough at some of the smaller stations and you might need to also order new DMUs to fill the gaps that had been left on other routes by using more carriages.

tom1649 · 27 Feb 2013

Couldn't they just take the toilets out and restrict the remaining units to short services? Wouldn't this be a more cost effective option for trains which will by 2020 not have many years life left and hopefully dwindling in numbers?

pemma · 27 Feb 2013

tom1649 said:
Couldn't they just take the toilets out and restrict the remaining units to short services? Wouldn't this be a more cost effective option for trains which will by 2020 not have many years life left and hopefully dwindling in numbers?

Unless they are withdrawn they are certainly going to need to be moved to new routes. All the talk seems to be about keeping them in service and is ignoring the fact that they are currently used on some quite long services with high loadings, so removing the toilet or making DDA complaint and keeping them on the same routes isn't going to work.

tom1649 · 27 Feb 2013

If rail growth is more than expected up to 2020 then they might not be suitable for new routes either. It's no good making a train DDA compliant if services are so crammed that they can't fit a disabled person on board! I have visions of passengers having to stand in the DDA compliant toilet.

At least if you take the toilet out this compensates for the loss of seats made by the other DDA requirements.

tbtc · 27 Feb 2013

tom1649 said:
Couldn't they just take the toilets out and restrict the remaining units to short services? Wouldn't this be a more cost effective option for trains which will by 2020 not have many years life left and hopefully dwindling in numbers?

Ideally, yes, but the problem is that there aren't *that* many short self contained services (compared to over a hundred Pacers).

There's certainly some short services(Cardiff Bay shuttle) but a lot of them interwork with longer ones (like the Newcastle - Metro Centre diagrams are actually Morpeth - Newcastle - Metro Centre - Newcastle Metro Centre - Newcastle - Morpeth), so you couldn't split off the short "shuttle" part very easily.

Otherwise you start tinkering with services to try to find suitable "Pacer Islands" (like chopping the Kirkby services back to Wigan Wallgate and running self contained Pacer shuttles from Wigan to Kirkby).

OR, you permenantly couple them to units with "universal" toilets (like refurbished 150s), though this would mean no corridor connection.

tom1649 · 27 Feb 2013

It seems there's no easy answer here. If push came to shove they'd have no choice but to start tinkering with services I suspect. I'm not saying it would morally be the right thing to do, but a 2020 exemption hasn't been completely ruled out yet has it?

MattRobinson · 27 Feb 2013

jcollins said:
Just noticed the proposed DDA complaint 143 would have less seats than a class 153 does currently. If that is the idea for complaint Pacers then the complaint Pacers certainly won't be suitable for current Pacer operated services. Even in multiple they won't be suitable for many Northern Rail services after that style of refurbishment. For instance, some Southport to Manchester services would need 6 car Pacers to meet demand and then you wouldn't have platforms long enough at some of the smaller stations and you might need to also order new DMUs to fill the gaps that had been left on other routes by using more carriages.

Complaint pacers? Freudian slip there...

tbtc said:
Ideally, yes, but the problem is that there aren't *that* many short self contained services (compared to over a hundred Pacers).

There's certainly some short services(Cardiff Bay shuttle) but a lot of them interwork with longer ones (like the Newcastle - Metro Centre diagrams are actually Morpeth - Newcastle - Metro Centre - Newcastle Metro Centre - Newcastle - Morpeth), so you couldn't split off the short "shuttle" part very easily.

Otherwise you start tinkering with services to try to find suitable "Pacer Islands" (like chopping the Kirkby services back to Wigan Wallgate and running self contained Pacer shuttles from Wigan to Kirkby).

OR, you permenantly couple them to units with "universal" toilets (like refurbished 150s), though this would mean no corridor connection.

They could build a centre vehicle with a compliant toilet and extra seats. But if they're going to do this, they may as well build completely new stock...

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

Surreyman · 27 Feb 2013

tbtc said:
Ideally, yes, but the problem is that there aren't *that* many short self contained services (compared to over a hundred Pacers).

There's certainly some short services(Cardiff Bay shuttle) but a lot of them interwork with longer ones (like the Newcastle - Metro Centre diagrams are actually Morpeth - Newcastle - Metro Centre - Newcastle Metro Centre - Newcastle - Morpeth), so you couldn't split off the short "shuttle" part very easily.

Otherwise you start tinkering with services to try to find suitable "Pacer Islands" (like chopping the Kirkby services back to Wigan Wallgate and running self contained Pacer shuttles from Wigan to Kirkby).

OR, you permenantly couple them to units with "universal" toilets (like refurbished 150s), though this would mean no corridor connection.

Hopefully, come 2020, we are not just talking about Pacers, 150s & 156s will probably cascade from GW/Wales/Scotland plus electrification @ Liverpool - Manchester will result in a few surplus DMUs, no idea where the 222s will end up but they will produce a cascade somewhere.

pemma · 27 Feb 2013

MattRobinson said:
Complaint pacers? Freudian slip there...

The Pacers do complain when they are heavily loaded and in protest they accelerate very slowly and run late. :smile:

Buttsy · 27 Feb 2013

Surreyman said:
Hopefully, come 2020, we are not just talking about Pacers, 150s & 156s will probably cascade from GW/Wales/Scotland plus electrification @ Liverpool - Manchester will result in a few surplus DMUs, no idea where the 222s will end up but they will produce a cascade somewhere.

222s to Waterloo - Exeter, Inverness - Thurso/Wick/Kyle, Liverpool - Norwich, Birmingham - Stansted?????

Zoe · 27 Feb 2013

Buttsy said:
222s to Waterloo - Exeter, Inverness - Thurso/Wick/Kyle, Liverpool - Norwich, Birmingham - Stansted

There was a suggestion that 222s could be cascaded to the Paddington to Plymouth/Penzance route to allow the remaining HSTs to be withdrawn.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

jcollins said:
Indeed it's difficult to see in to the future. Who knows we might be removing overhead electrics in the future and building trains that run on Hydrogen.

The issue here is the energy that is required to obtain the Hydrogen has to be generated somewhere and I'm not sure if it would be as efficient as just directly using the generated electricity to power the trains. There was also a suggestion elsewhere that if for example in the future the wires were to end at Exeter (which often gets suggested on here) then power could be stored in batteries to allow the trains to run through to Plymouth without needing diesel engines so where most of a route is under the wires (which in the future it would seem the majority of the intercity network will be) then batteries could be used to allow through services to continue without needing bi-mode.

Yew · 27 Feb 2013

The CGI image looks pretty nice though.

pemma · 27 Feb 2013

Zoe said:
The issue here is the energy that is required to obtain the Hydrogen has to be generated somewhere and I'm not sure if it would be as efficient as just directly using the generated electricity to power the trains. There was also a suggestion elsewhere that if for example in the future the wires were to end at Exeter (which often gets suggested on here) then power could be stored in batteries to allow the trains to run through to Plymouth without needing diesel engines so where most of a route is under the wires (which in the future it would seem the majority of the intercity network will be) then batteries could be used to allow through services to continue without needing bi-mode.

Well at present a hydrogen train may not be viable but neither is a train running off a rechargeable battery at present. That technology only just about works for short sections of light rail at low speeds.

The Ham · 27 Feb 2013

Buttsy said:
222s to Waterloo - Exeter, Inverness - Thurso/Wick/Kyle, Liverpool - Norwich, Birmingham - Stansted?????

Only if there are enough seats, the Waterloo to Exeter sevices are very busy during the peak hours out to Salisbury
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Zoe said:
The issue here is the energy that is required to obtain the Hydrogen has to be generated somewhere and I'm not sure if it would be as efficient as just directly using the generated electricity to power the trains. There was also a suggestion elsewhere that if for example in the future the wires were to end at Exeter (which often gets suggested on here) then power could be stored in batteries to allow the trains to run through to Plymouth without needing diesel engines so where most of a route is under the wires (which in the future it would seem the majority of the intercity network will be) then batteries could be used to allow through services to continue without needing bi-mode.

If you electrify to Exeter and the branch line to Exmouth get electrified you really do need to electrify to Plymouth anyway. Once you get to Plymouth then there isn't a lot stopping it going to Newquay and Penzance. Especially if because of the possibility of extra trains through Reading there are more services to Plymouth and possibly into Cornwall.

yorksrob · 27 Feb 2013

Greybeard33 said:
Last week I rode on the Kyle of Lochalsh line and it was encouraging to see how well patronised the services were, midweek in winter (with 5 trains per day each way). It seems to me a case might eventually be made for low-cost electrification - quiet, non-polluting EMUs would surely enhance the tourist potential of this line (the 158s really labour on the steep gradients). Similarly for the Far North, Mallaig and Cambrian Coast lines.

If they do manage it there, they'll manage it everywhere.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Lewisham2221 said:
What, exactly, is the point of having these regulations, if "Non compliance" for various items is "accepted"?? I'm sure anything could be made PRM TSI compliant if you're just going to ignore anything that you can't be bothered to modify!

Frankly arbitrary deadlines of this sort are stupid and quite pointless IMO. The only sensible thing to have done would have been to insist on such innovations for all new stock and wait for time to take its course.

Pacers have a future.

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member