• 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.

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
But much of this is trumped by the requirements of the RVAR and PRM-TSI. The Pacers don't meet these requirements (with the possible exception of 144012), so they'd need either a derogation from the SoS to be used as they are (as per the DDA 1995, section 47), or authorisation from the SoS to undertake the modifications, on top of permission to renew the lease on the trains. So it ends up being a political decision either way.
The DDA 1995 has been superseded by the Equality Act 2010. But Section 182 of that Act, rail vehicle accessibility regulations, specifically excludes mainline rail vehicles from its scope:
“rail vehicle” means a vehicle constructed or adapted to carry passengers on a railway, tramway or prescribed system other than a vehicle used in the provision of a service for the carriage of passengers on the trans-European rail system located in Great Britain.
(The "trans-European rail system located in Great Britain" comprises the entire National Rail network). Likewise the Rail Vehicle Accessibility (Non-Interoperable Rail System) Regulations 2010 (RVAR), which were made under the provisions of the Act, are only applicable to light rail (metro, underground and tram) systems.

For mainline rail vehicles the EU PRM-TSI is the relevant legislation, implemented in the UK by The Railways (Interoperability) Regulations 2011 (RIR). However, at the pan-European level the PRM-TSI is applicable only to new vehicles and vehicles undergoing major refurbishment. The 2020 deadline is a UK national requirement, specified by Regulation 45 of the RIR:
Accessibility for people with reduced mobility
45. No person is to use a vehicle in the provision of a service for the carriage of passengers on the trans-European rail system located in the United Kingdom on or after 1st January 2020 unless it has been constructed, renewed, upgraded or modified to comply with the technical standards, and is operated to comply with the operational standards, required by—

(a)the TSI relating to persons with reduced mobility set out in the Annex to Decision 2008/164/EC of the European Commission of 21st December 2007, or any amended version of it, or any TSI which replaces it;
(b)Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Rail Vehicle Accessibility (Non-Interoperable Rail System) Regulations 2010;
(c)the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2001; or
(d)the TSI, or amended version of it or TSI replacing it, referred to in paragraph (a) except to the extent that—
(i)the vehicle or its operation complies with the technical or operational standards required by the provisions referred to in paragraphs (b) or (c),
(ii)a derogation from part of it has been granted under regulation 14,
(iii)a determination that part of it does not apply has been made under regulation 13(8), and
(iv)a dispensation that part of it does not apply for the purposes of this regulation has been granted under regulation 46.
(Clause (b) permits compliance with the RVAR as an alternative to the PRM-TSI, but the two sets of regulations are very similar).
Although there has been much discussion of derogations in this forum, in respect of the RIR regulation 45 the correct term is dispensation, as the DfT explained in this FOI request:
Dispensation policy

I have provided below a background to the Department’s policy on derogations and
dispensations. You may find this helpful to clarify how we reach decisions on granting
dispensations.

Derogations
A dispensation differs from a derogation in that a derogation can only be granted by the
European Commission and applies in particular circumstances – either the design of a
new vehicle or major renewal of an existing vehicle which triggers the renewals threshold.
Compliance with the PRM-TSI is mandated by the Railways (Interoperability) Regulations
2011. Under section 46 of these Regulations, the Secretary of State has powers to grant
dispensations from particular standards to allow a vehicle to continue in operation after 1
January 2020.

Dispensations
The Department permits older vehicles undergoing refurbishment ahead of the 2020
deadline to apply for dispensations under a policy of ‘targeted compliance’. Assessments
were carried out between 2007 and 2012 on site visits to example vehicles on a type
(class) basis. The level of compliance achievable for each vehicle was considered in
conjunction with and agreed by DPTAC. The Department issued formal notification of the
areas in which improvement of accessibility levels were expected and confirmed where
we would consider issuing dispensations for the vehicles under our targeted compliance
policy. An example of such a letter can be found here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/203711/cla
ss-158-all-covering-letter.pdf
It is clear from this that dispensations are intended to permit minor deviations from specific PRM-TSI requirements, where full compliance would be unreasonably costly. For example, the height and arrangement of door buttons. And all dispensations have to be agreed with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC).

For unmodified Pacers to continue operating in passenger service next year, they would require exemption from pretty much all the PRM-TSI requirements. It seems to me that this would be beyond the scope of dispensations against regulation 45 of the RIR, so amendment of the regulation itself would be required.

Either way, it would be politically highly embarrassing for the Transport Secretary to grant such an exemption, with the risk of a clash with the DPTAC. I think there will be considerable DfT pressure on Northern to get rid of all the Pacers by year end.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,493
Prior to the big timetable change in May last year, I have occasionally seen 142/158 combos on the Leeds to Manchester Vic via Brighouse service. Since this service has been extended through to Southport, it tends to be in the main 150s and 156s with the odd 142. However, I have travelled on a WYPTE livered 158 to Southport around 2005 at the start of the previous Northern franchise, so the line must be cleared for them.
It happens fairly frequently in South Wales. Ebbw Vale trains are mainly pairs on Saturdays so anything can turn up. Pacer+158 combos can also go to Maesteg, the maximum length is around 80 metres.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,806
Location
Sheffield
Surely if Pacers were really Museum pieces as Burnham claims then people would be queuing up to get on them (and leaning off platforms to take selfies obvs)?

On my line we are queuing up to get on them, we're packing ourselves aboard in eager throngs hoping to get to our destination by any train that appears. We'd like to see two units when we get only one.

And there are photographers and enthusiasts on the platforms trying to record or, better still, travel on one. Apparently there are some who need to bag them all from every aspect, external and internal. They have quite a following.
 

js1000

Member
Joined
14 Jun 2014
Messages
1,011
It is clear from this that dispensations are intended to permit minor deviations from specific PRM-TSI requirements, where full compliance would be unreasonably costly. For example, the height and arrangement of door buttons. And all dispensations have to be agreed with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC).

For unmodified Pacers to continue operating in passenger service next year, they would require exemption from pretty much all the PRM-TSI requirements. It seems to me that this would be beyond the scope of dispensations against regulation 45 of the RIR, so amendment of the regulation itself would be required.

Either way, it would be politically highly embarrassing for the Transport Secretary to grant such an exemption, with the risk of a clash with the DPTAC. I think there will be considerable DfT pressure on Northern to get rid of all the Pacers by year end.
I think you've hit the nail on the head Greybeard. I've held a similar view for months.

The legislation appears complicated and there doesn't appear to a simple legal mechanism to grant a "derogation" through secondary legislative means or a Statutory Instrument as is commonly assumed on here.

If your physical or visual mobility is impaired or you are in a wheelchair then you would have a right to be annoyed if Pacers were still in operation in 2020. If I were the government or Northern (or any other TOC) I would just accept short-forms for a few months rather than exposing themselves to potential litigation.

I suspect the DfT will be pressurising Northern to retire all of the Pacers by the end of the year and effectively force them to bear the brunt of the short-forms. Any extension against the legislation would also potentially open up a can of worms allowing TOC & ROSCOs to abuse the spirit of the legislation and operate for far longer than should be the case.
 

Bertie the bus

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2014
Messages
2,781
If your physical or visual mobility is impaired or you are in a wheelchair then you would have a right to be annoyed if Pacers were still in operation in 2020. If I were the government or Northern (or any other TOC) I would just accept short-forms for a few months rather than exposing themselves to potential litigation.
Of course they would have a right to be annoyed but seeing as the vast majority of passengers fall into none of those categories they would have a right to be annoyed if trains were short-formed when they wouldn't have to be if Pacers were kept going for a few more months.

It's not as though disabled pasengers wouldn't suffer if trains were short-formed. What would the chances be of a wheelchair user getting on a 2 car peak service from Piccadilly or Leeds? Pretty slim I would have thought.
 

Mathew S

Established Member
Joined
7 Aug 2017
Messages
2,167
Of course they would have a right to be annoyed but seeing as the vast majority of passengers fall into none of those categories they would have a right to be annoyed if trains were short-formed when they wouldn't have to be if Pacers were kept going for a few more months.

It's not as though disabled pasengers wouldn't suffer if trains were short-formed. What would the chances be of a wheelchair user getting on a 2 car peak service from Piccadilly or Leeds? Pretty slim I would have thought.
I know what you're saying, but the thing is the Equality Act has been law since 2010. I suspect that, if a derogation to keep using Pacers were to be challenged in the courts, the response would simply be "you had ten years, what on earth have you been doing?"
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,493
I think you've hit the nail on the head Greybeard. I've held a similar view for months.

The legislation appears complicated and there doesn't appear to a simple legal mechanism to grant a "derogation" through secondary legislative means or a Statutory Instrument as is commonly assumed on here.

If your physical or visual mobility is impaired or you are in a wheelchair then you would have a right to be annoyed if Pacers were still in operation in 2020. If I were the government or Northern (or any other TOC) I would just accept short-forms for a few months rather than exposing themselves to potential litigation.

We should remember that the deadline for elimination of mark 1 units was extended by a year. I think Greater Anglia faces a much bigger problem. It will be interesting to see what happens.
 

Bertie the bus

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2014
Messages
2,781
I know what you're saying, but the thing is the Equality Act has been law since 2010. I suspect that, if a derogation to keep using Pacers were to be challenged in the courts, the response would simply be "you had ten years, what on earth have you been doing?"
But a legal challenge would achieve absolutely nothing except to give the person making the challenge their 15 minutes of fame. The 195s will be introduced when they are built, accepted and the relevant staff have been trained. No court ruling is going to change that.
 

Mathew S

Established Member
Joined
7 Aug 2017
Messages
2,167
But a legal challenge would achieve absolutely nothing except to give the person making the challenge their 15 minutes of fame. The 195s will be introduced when they are built, accepted and the relevant staff have been trained. No court ruling is going to change that.
No, of course a court ruling can't speed up the delivery of new trains. What it could achieve, though, is a ruling on the lawfulness of any derogation that's granted. It could, for example, rule that the TOC and/or the DfT have acted in contravention of the Equalities Act. That would matter very much since it would be case law requirig the railway to do more to be accessible.
All totally hypothetical, obviously, but if a significant number of Pacers, or other non-compliant trains, are still in use next year, especially if it's for more than a few weeks, I don't think it's unlikely.
 

Paul_10

Member
Joined
24 Feb 2011
Messages
735
I know what you're saying, but the thing is the Equality Act has been law since 2010. I suspect that, if a derogation to keep using Pacers were to be challenged in the courts, the response would simply be "you had ten years, what on earth have you been doing?"

Argument against that would be privatisation, why would (old) Northern pay for new trains to help replace pacers when it was a no growth franchise. Northern has also got PRM deadline to worry about also with many units still not compliant for 2020. I think this could be why we are seeing an attack on getting the 150/1 done as an non PRM 150/1 won't be able to attach to compliant units because of the lack of corridor connections.

I'm surprised there is no planned withdrawals in July though however I guess the new trains have the bedding in period first. Interesting and important few weeks coming up.
 

Greybeard33

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2012
Messages
4,229
Location
Greater Manchester
It would be a criminal offence to keep non-compliant carriages in passenger service after the 1st January 2020 deadline, in contravention of Regulation 45 of the RIR, and the directors of the TOC would be at risk of imprisonment if convicted. Enforcement is entrusted to the independent regulator, the ORR, not the DfT.

If disability groups considered that the SoS had exceeded his/her powers in granting a dispensation against the deadline, they apply for a judicial review.
 
Last edited:

thenorthern

Established Member
Joined
27 May 2013
Messages
4,102
The first of the new trains are due to be introduced today, one would hope it all goes to plan however given the introduction is already delayed and given that there are always problems with new trains when they are first introduced I would be surprised if the December deadline is met for Pacer withdrawal.

Back in 2000 I remember First North Western introducing the Class 175s which were going to replace the last of the Class 101s however problems with the introduction meant the Class 101s weren't withdrawn fully until the end of 2003.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
The first of the new trains are due to be introduced today, one would hope it all goes to plan however given the introduction is already delayed and given that there are always problems with new trains when they are first introduced I would be surprised if the December deadline is met for Pacer withdrawal.

Back in 2000 I remember First North Western introducing the Class 175s which were going to replace the last of the Class 101s however problems with the introduction meant the Class 101s weren't withdrawn fully until the end of 2003.

Well the Pacers have to go before January 2020 one way or another!
Northern will have to run RRBs if necessary
 

Cambrian359

Member
Joined
17 Jun 2018
Messages
202
Will the bus replacement services be PRM compliant ?
The fleets of coaches potentially needed are unlikely to be able to take a wheelchair and would make travel even more difficult for most with them steep steps.
So Temporary extension to non PRM complaint trains or leave the disabled and those who struggle with mobility behind on the side of the road.........
 

Mathew S

Established Member
Joined
7 Aug 2017
Messages
2,167
Will the bus replacement services be PRM compliant ?
The fleets of coaches potentially needed are unlikely to be able to take a wheelchair and would make travel even more difficult for most with them steep steps.
So Temporary extension to non PRM complaint trains or leave the disabled and those who struggle with mobility behind on the side of the road.........
Buses, as opposed to coaches, are generally accessible with low floor and wheelchair spaces. Alternatively, accessible taxis are the obvious solution. Restricting pacers to lines like Wigan - Kirkby, for example, would make it relatively easy to lay on accessible taxis on request from passengers who felt they were unable to access the train for whatever reason.
It would be a criminal offence to keep non-compliant carriages in passenger service after the 1st January 2020 deadline, in contravention of Regulation 45 of the RIR, and the directors of the TOC would be at risk of imprisonment if convicted. Enforcement is entrusted to the independent regulator, the ORR, not the DfT.

If disability groups considered that the SoS had exceeded his/her powers in granting a dispensation against the deadline, they apply for a judicial review.
If there is any kind of lengthy derrogation, I would be amazed if a judicial review doesn't happen.
 

darloscott

Member
Joined
12 Dec 2013
Messages
772
Location
Stockton
Apparently two diagrams on Blackpool South ran by 150 & 156 today instead of 142s... cascades are starting already
 

ed1971

Member
Joined
14 Jan 2009
Messages
589
Location
Wigan
On my line we are queuing up to get on them, we're packing ourselves aboard in eager throngs hoping to get to our destination by any train that appears. We'd like to see two units when we get only one.

And there are photographers and enthusiasts on the platforms trying to record or, better still, travel on one. Apparently there are some who need to bag them all from every aspect, external and internal. They have quite a following.

Using age analogy, 150s 156s and 319s etc are 'Museum Pieces' as well!
 

ed1971

Member
Joined
14 Jan 2009
Messages
589
Location
Wigan
Buses, as opposed to coaches, are generally accessible with low floor and wheelchair spaces. Alternatively, accessible taxis are the obvious solution. Restricting pacers to lines like Wigan - Kirkby, for example, would make it relatively easy to lay on accessible taxis on request from passengers who felt they were unable to access the train for whatever reason.

If there is any kind of lengthy derrogation, I would be amazed if a judicial review doesn't happen.

This is all ironic considering that around half the rail stations in Greater Manchester cannot be used by wheelchair users.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
Will the bus replacement services be PRM compliant ?
The fleets of coaches potentially needed are unlikely to be able to take a wheelchair and would make travel even more difficult for most with them steep steps.
So Temporary extension to non PRM complaint trains or leave the disabled and those who struggle with mobility behind on the side of the road.........

The point is that extensions or derogations cannot be willy nilly given out.
 

Mathew S

Established Member
Joined
7 Aug 2017
Messages
2,167
This is all ironic considering that around half the rail stations in Greater Manchester cannot be used by wheelchair users.
This isn't just about wheelchair users. Though you're right of course, that's an issue.
 

thejuggler

Member
Joined
8 Jan 2016
Messages
1,186
The 7.06 Leeds - Huddersfield via Bradford has been a Pacer since the new timetable.

This morning the Pacer wasn't in service, unfortunately neither was any replacement - cancelled again.
 

ed1971

Member
Joined
14 Jan 2009
Messages
589
Location
Wigan
This isn't just about wheelchair users. Though you're right of course, that's an issue.

I know it isn't, but I would have thought that stations should have been made wheelchair friendly before now. One of my local stations, Ince had the steps replaced a few years ago.
Considering that the platform is long, I felt that the opportunity was missed to replace the steps with a sloping walkway that would have enabled wheelchair users to use the station.
 

Mathew S

Established Member
Joined
7 Aug 2017
Messages
2,167
I know it isn't, but I would have thought that stations should have been made wheelchair friendly before now. One of my local stations, Ince had the steps replaced a few years ago.
Considering that the platform is long, I felt that the opportunity was missed to replace the steps with a sloping walkway that would have enabled wheelchair users to use the station.
It absolutely was an opportunity missed. I do think that, where stations are refurbished like that, step free access ought to be mandatory. I'm far from an advocate of the plan, but I do wonder whether bring all stations in Greater Manchester under TfGM control rather than being managed by a TOC might have seen progress made on accessibility more rapidly.
 

Foggycorner

Member
Joined
16 Nov 2016
Messages
177
Location
bolton
there are about 10 sidings at Carnforth just as you get round the corner going towards Barrow at the old F&M junction site to store all the withdrawn 142s in
 

Ken H

On Moderation
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
6,271
Location
N Yorks
Buses, as opposed to coaches, are generally accessible with low floor and wheelchair spaces. Alternatively, accessible taxis are the obvious solution. Restricting pacers to lines like Wigan - Kirkby, for example, would make it relatively easy to lay on accessible taxis on request from passengers who felt they were unable to access the train for whatever reason.

If there is any kind of lengthy derrogation, I would be amazed if a judicial review doesn't happen.
why not keep non compliant trains in service to provide a service to the vast majority of passengers and provide an accessible road vehicle for those that need it. better than running a 2 vice 4 train in the rush hour.
 

palmersears

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2011
Messages
1,482
why not keep non compliant trains in service to provide a service to the vast majority of passengers and provide an accessible road vehicle for those that need it. better than running a 2 vice 4 train in the rush hour.
Because that will be illegal as has been noted previously.

Whilst not desirable, I think if Northern are unable to get their house in order by the end of 2019 then short forming/cancellations short term are the only answer. Otherwise it'll be yet more can kicking. If 10 years notice isn't long enough then more drastic action is needed.
 

Ken H

On Moderation
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
6,271
Location
N Yorks
Because that will be illegal as has been noted previously.

Whilst not desirable, I think if Northern are unable to get their house in order by the end of 2019 then short forming/cancellations short term are the only answer. Otherwise it'll be yet more can kicking. If 10 years notice isn't long enough then more drastic action is needed.
The government can pass an act of parliament to make it legal, if they are minded to do so. They are unpopular enough already without getting the blame for short formed or cancelled trains.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
The government can pass an act of parliament to make it legal, if they are minded to do so. They are unpopular enough already without getting the blame for short formed or cancelled trains.
They can, but they won't, because it'll never get through
 

Ace Of Pacer

Member
Joined
15 Dec 2016
Messages
20
Illegal or not, this is a ludicrous situation and Ken’s suggestion is a logical resolution for the majority of people, disabled or otherwise. Damning indictment of the rail industry, and government, if short forms and mass disruption result from all this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top