samuelmorris
Established Member
The gangways argument is moot though unless enough were ordered for the 2-cars to double up regularly. As far as I can tell, that isn't the case.
Well indeed, if they were planning to double them up, then they should either have purchased gangway versions or purchased half as many 4 car versions.The gangways argument is moot though unless enough were ordered for the 2-cars to double up regularly. As far as I can tell, that isn't the case.
Nothing to do with logic, all about keeping costs down.The 195s are primarily a capitulation to the perpetual demands for them to withdraw Pacers.How about ordering enough intermediate cars to bring the 2-cars up to 4-car?
Although back to reality.... logic is not something commonly seen at Northern or the DfT!
The Pacers are knackered. Even if they had been looked after they are well past their use by date. They would have been withdrawn irrespective of demands or disability legislation. Politicians just used the demands to show how they are listening to the North and investing in it.Nothing to do with logic, all about keeping costs down.The 195s are primarily a capitulation to the perpetual demands for them to withdraw Pacers.
So are 150s, but there's no sign of them going anywhere yet. If there was no legislation necessitating their removal, the Pacers would be sticking around.The Pacers are knackered. Even if they had been looked after they are well past their use by date. They would have been withdrawn irrespective of demands or disability legislation. Politicians just used the demands to show how they are listening to the North and investing in it.
They would have been withdrawn irrespective of demands or disability legislation.
If we wind back time to February 2015 it required a ministerial direction from then Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin to Permanent Secretary of the DfT Philip Rutnam release the Invitation to Tender documents with a requirement to retire all Pacers by 2020 and introduce at least 120 new build vehicles.
The letters that were released make it quite clear that the DfT's preferred view was that no such requirement should feature in the ITT (I've found copies here) with some choice quotes below:
Philip Rutnam said:This note explains why I have reservations about the proposal to issue Invitations to Tender (ITT) for the Northern and TransPennine Express franchises containing obligations to withdraw all Pacer vehicles by 2020 and bring into operation a minimum of 120 new build vehicles.
...
There are two reasons why I am seeking a written direction in relation to this proposal. The first is that the assessment of the business case we have undertaken suggests it is poor value for money...
The analysis recognises that the Pacers will need to be replaced when they reach the end of their useful life, if the current level of service is to be maintained. The fundamental reason for the poor BCR [Benefit to Coast Ratio] is that there will be a large cost from bringing forward that replacement to 2020 ..., but relatively few benefits. ... It would be possible as an alternative to maintain the Pacers in use for longer but to modify them to bring them into compliance with disability legislation.
There are good reasons why this analysis may underestimate the true BCR. ... Withdrawal may help attract new users to rail and thus improve benefits. ... But my view supported by sensitivity analysis, is that one would need to make implausible assumptions about the size of these effects to conclude that the proposal is likely to represent value for money.
...
Finally, I should note that the extra cost of the proposal is likely to be just under £250m over the life of the franchise. Whether or not this is affordable will depend on the outcome of the next Spending Review, but I should draw attention to the pressures expected on the Department's budget.
...
So let's not lose sight of the fact that we only have Pacer replacement and brand new trains because Mr McLoughlin took the political, not financial, decision to require bidders to do just that. If it had been up to the DfT we would have had no guarantee of any of this as it would have been solely down to bidders to determine their rolling stock mix (a point which Mr Rutnam also makes to be fair). But it seems very unlikely indeed that without that requirement we'd have seen total Pacer replacement and 91 brand new units.
No, they wouldn't be sticking around. The ORR said years ago they wouldn't approve any life extension work on them. They would have been withdrawn.So are 150s, but there's no sign of them going anywhere yet. If there was no legislation necessitating their removal, the Pacers would be sticking around.
No life extension work doesn't necessarily indicate withdrawal, however. It's only the disability regs which have provided justification for their replacement. If it weren't for those regulations I genuinely believe they'd still be around, at least for a few more years.No, they wouldn't be sticking around. The ORR said years ago they wouldn't approve any life extension work on them. They would have been withdrawn.
IIRC There was a solution proposed to prevent the telescoping seen in the Winsford collision. Rather like the cup and cone solutions for the Mk I southern stock.
I believe there was some argument against doing the work to pacers due to their short life anticipation (in 1999)
Was this work ever done? Or was it watered down?
The Pacers are knackered. Even if they had been looked after they are well past their use by date. They would have been withdrawn irrespective of demands or disability legislation. Politicians just used the demands to show how they are listening to the North and investing in it.
One positive on a lack of gangways is you can fit a nice large destination screen instead which could be useful to tourists and passengers alike.
On crowded stations, platform displays aren't always visible. If you're rushing to get a train and can catch a glimpse of the front display as the train pulls in, they're useful for that. Also useful on those odd occasions you're hoping to make a connection and the service you're swapping to draws alongside.With pretty much every station now having platform PIS, do people actually look at those much these days? In any case, one on the side of each vehicle (which they also have) is probably more use. I think they were typically just on the ends in the days of manual roller blinds because it was easy for the staff to adjust them there.
Unfortunately I've found the train-front displays often don't show the correct destination anyway so it's safer to rely on the platform displays.On crowded stations, platform displays aren't always visible. If you're rushing to get a train and can catch a glimpse of the front display as the train pulls in, they're useful for that. Also useful on those odd occasions you're hoping to make a connection and the service you're swapping to draws alongside.
And also the class 150/1s (which aren't due to be withdrawn yet). I think that contributed to Northern's decision to do without them on the 195s.Another think to note in comparison to the 2 car Class 195/0 units and the Class 142 Pacers is that some people feel the lack of gangways on the Class 142 unit make it difficult for train staff when these units run as a 4 car train as 2 x 2 units is that the very same problem will occur when running a train comprised of 2 x Class 195/0 2 car units.
2-cars wouldn't have been too bad if they had been ordered with gangways.
But as it is they are indeed near useless.
No, they wouldn't be sticking around. The ORR said years ago they wouldn't approve any life extension work on them. They would have been withdrawn.
Really?
2 car 142 (121 seats)
2 car 195 (123 seats)
I always suspected they're would be little difference in capacity.
Another think to note in comparison to the 2 car Class 195/0 units and the Class 142 Pacers is that some people feel the lack of gangways on the Class 142 unit make it difficult for train staff when these units run as a 4 car train as 2 x 2 units is that the very same problem will occur when running a train comprised of 2 x Class 195/0 2 car units.
Really?
2 car 142 (121 seats)
2 car 195 (123 seats)
Gangway or NO ganway they still offer only 2 seats more!
I always suspected they're would be little difference in capacity.
Well, I would suggest simply ordering more 195s, and no more electrics, until there are more than enough units to replace the pacers.According to this article the possibility of additional stock is being explored. I wonder exactly how far that will go. I would like to see plans underway by the end of the franchise that not only deal with the capacity shortfall and replace the pacers, but cater for withdrawal of the 150s as well.
Really?
2 car 142 (121 seats)
2 car 195 (123 seats)
Gangway or NO ganway they still offer only 2 seats more!
I always suspected they're would be little difference in capacity.
Please explain! I don't understand why the ORR would have been involved in what seems to me to be a commercial decision made by the train's owner.No, they wouldn't be sticking around. The ORR said years ago they wouldn't approve any life extension work on them. They would have been withdrawn.
The ORR would have had to authorise the modified (life extended) units as safe for use in passenger service - they act as the national safety authority for Britain's railways.Please explain! I don't understand why the ORR would have been involved in what seems to me to be a commercial decision made by the train's owner.
Driver gets a much better cab environment on a non gangway unit, but I suppose that isn’t really a consideration for many on here. Given some of the awful sprinter cabs that northern staff put up with, you wouldn’t begrudge it then, ..... would you??
You notice the sheer gulf in what northern have brought in compared to what they have, as soon as you see a class 150 approaching the platform and feel your whole body sink with dismay. Swelteringly hot with every window open, much louder, much more jolting and swaying and no tables at all. These new sets are simply what rail passengers, who pay the amount they do, should expect from every service