Pacer Trains: Politicians call for passenger compensation

Sleeperwaking · 21 Oct 2019

Phlip said:
“Can’t be done” according to the forum consensus then.

But Bombardier compensated GOB passengers.

I know, I know... That’s London so those people actually matter.

I'm sure it can be done, but it's by no means a simple thing to implement given the number of routes and irregular nature of Pacer deployment. My view is that it adds yet another thing on to Northern's to-do list which risks diverting resource away from the other items on that list that are critical to avoiding further delays.

RailUK Forums

rebmcr · 21 Oct 2019

Justapunter said:
Northern are stuck with them. Is it their fault their shiny new electric trains aren’t ready? That their 769s are not ready?

Yes, the way business works is that Northern assumed responsibility for this by action of selecting CAF and Porterbrook.

Supply chains work very differently to consumer protection law.

newtownmgr · 21 Oct 2019

I find it a bit ironic that politicians,regardless of party are moaning about these things still being in service, when it’s down to the policies of both parties that these things are still in service. Leasing companies & TOC’s having been saying these things are unfit for purpose for years yet have been denied funding to replace them.
A few years back a big electrification project was announced across the country & companies were again denied the opportunity to buy new diesel units due to the expected surplus in units less than 20 years old. Guess what! Electrification projects cancelled or curtailed resulting in a shortage of diesels & a surplus in electric traction.
If anybody needs to subsidise tickets it’s the Dft!!

Djgr · 21 Oct 2019

delete

ExRes · 21 Oct 2019

Just as a point of interest, "deserve a reliable, daily rail service", is it not reliable? is it not daily?

talltim · 21 Oct 2019

Karl said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-50119525

More on the BBC website.

Dan Jarvis isn't the Mayor of Sheffield

AndrewE · 21 Oct 2019

ExRes said:
Just as a point of interest, "deserve a reliable, daily rail service", is it not reliable? is it not daily?

It is certainly not reliable at the moment - cancellations everywhere and especially at weekends. Read the threads specifically about cancellations...
Maybe you can say one can rely on finding lots of cancellations

Taunton · 21 Oct 2019

yorksrob said:
Indeed. I think that problem of too many two carriage trains needs to be next on the agenda.

I actually think that comes first. An awful lot of the opprobrium against stock like Pacers is not so much their construction as them being deployed in minimalist formations with passengers standing. Quite why this should be necessary now that some new stock has entered service, at least in part, is not particularly apparent.

sd0733 · 21 Oct 2019

Phlip said:
“Can’t be done” according to the forum consensus then.

But Bombardier compensated GOB passengers.

I know, I know... That’s London so those people actually matter.

That's not entirely comparable. That led to a reduced timetable, bus replacements and capacity far short of what was expected.
Whilst Pacers arent ideal at the end of the day they are still fulfilling the timetable which the Gospel Oak line wasnt.

Kite159 · 21 Oct 2019

newtownmgr said:
I find it a bit ironic that politicians,regardless of party are moaning about these things still being in service, when it’s down to the policies of both parties that these things are still in service. Leasing companies & TOC’s having been saying these things are unfit for purpose for years yet have been denied funding to replace them.
A few years back a big electrification project was announced across the country & companies were again denied the opportunity to buy new diesel units due to the expected surplus in units less than 20 years old. Guess what! Electrification projects cancelled or curtailed resulting in a shortage of diesels & a surplus in electric traction.
If anybody needs to subsidise tickets it’s the Dft!!

At least the current Northern franchise has them being redrawn, it could have been written in the 2004 franchise to order new trains to replace the pacers, back when the Turbostar was still in production (wasn't there a proposed order of new DMUs cancelled around 2008 time as "everything will be wired up and freed up 150s will replace pacers, even though they are roughly the same age"). But Labour decided to do that franchise on a no-growth basis so nothing got done.

And the current Northern franchise has increased the number of DMUs, all those 150s from GWR (and West Midlands), the 153s from GWR, 156/158/170s from Scotland.

XC90 · 21 Oct 2019

As long as they get a train to their destination,which is what they are paying for. So no, don't reduce the fare because its pacer.

Greetlander · 21 Oct 2019

Given the majority of complaints about Northern at the moment seem to be about weekend cancellations or jam packed two car trains, I wonder how people on those impacted lines would feel if instead of a cancellation you got a pacer, or instead of a two car sprinter you got a four car pacer? Notwithstanding of course that it's well past scrapping time.

Energy · 21 Oct 2019

The Goblin was easy as only the 710s operated, with the Pacers it's a mix so it makes it hard to decide who to give compensation to and who to not.

Also the Goblin's 172s had to leave for WMT so as someone said before, they hadn't got any trains, Pacers are better than nothing.

Also rolling stock may not be assigned until a short period before the service so they may not actually know if a pacer is on the route or not meaning that people who booked tickets a few days to a week before the service have to be given money back making it more difficult, this wasn't an issue on the Goblin as you don't buy in advance instead you tap in and out before and after you get on the train, by then whether it was a 710 or not had already been decided.

AndrewE · 21 Oct 2019

Taunton said:
I actually think that comes first. An awful lot of the opprobrium against stock like Pacers is not so much their construction as them being deployed in minimalist formations with passengers standing. Quite why this should be necessary now that some new stock has entered service, at least in part, is not particularly apparent.

Yes, capacity is crucial, and they do need keeping for that on a temporary basis, but there are other aspects too.
It's not just Pacers running round as 2-cars that is causing complaints: they have a lot more capacity than a single 153, after all! Even though a 153 has a vaguely similar bus-derived body the bogied construction makes a journey in one a totally different experience, especially on jointed track. Try Lancaster to somewhere south of Skipton in a pacer!

YorkshireBear · 21 Oct 2019

When all the pacers are gone and the service is still atrocious maybe people will realise the pacers were just a vote gaining scapegoat for politicians.

Energy · 21 Oct 2019

First bit - the government:
To be fair, any DMUs Northern puts on routes get complaints unless you get a turbostar, 195, 156, 155 or 158 and the even then the last 3 will still probably get complaints as they get even older, especially Northern refurbishments seem to be a new seat cover and livery.

Part of the fault is with the DfT, the cut the massive dmu order becuase of proposed electrification which never happened and they only gave out a 9 year contract which isn't long enough for companies to see a return on investment to justify the investment Northern needs.

Second bit - really old stock:

YorkshireBear said:
When all the pacers are gone and the service is still atrocious maybe people will realise the pacers were just a vote gaining scapegoat for politicians.

Pacers are an issue, but so are the sprinters, the 150s and 153s need to be replaced and the 155s, 156s and 158s should be comming up for replacement. The youngest, the 158, will be 30 years old this time next year and the 155 and 156 have hit the 30 year mark.

Emus also need investment as the only ones which aren't getting too old are the 333s, the rest are a couple years younger than the youngest dmus apart from the 319s which I don't understand how the government didn't think they are far too old.

In concultion the pacer's aren't just northern's fault but also the government, should the government also give compensation?

Phlip · 21 Oct 2019

sd0733 said:
That's not entirely comparable. That led to a reduced timetable, bus replacements and capacity far short of what was expected.
Whilst Pacers arent ideal at the end of the day they are still fulfilling the timetable which the Gospel Oak line wasnt.

And no ones suggesting giving people a whole month’s free travel. Just cheaper fares on Pacer routes.

Energy · 21 Oct 2019

Sadly we don't get to see Govia's bid, they nearly got the franchise as they were shortlisted, London Midland had a pretty good fleet at the end of the franchise and GTR and Southeastern right now have pretty good fleets. Maybe if Govia won we wouldn't be having the pacer issue?

Phlip · 21 Oct 2019

YorkshireBear said:
When all the pacers are gone and the service is still atrocious maybe people will realise the pacers were just a vote gaining scapegoat for politicians.

No. I was on one from Doncaster to Hull on Saturday. They’re crap. They’re not an acceptable travelling environment in this day and age and they haven’t been for a good couple of decades.

I don’t expect that once they’re all gone everything will be wonderful. I know damned well that it won’t be. But just because there’s plenty more that’s wrong does not make pacers ok.

Darandio · 21 Oct 2019

Phlip said:
And no ones suggesting giving people a whole month’s free travel. Just cheaper fares on Pacer routes.

So how do we define a Pacer route?

Energy · 21 Oct 2019

Darandio said:
So how do we define a Pacer route?

Pacers have probably been on nearly every short route in their lifetime...

Darandio · 21 Oct 2019

Energy said:
Pacers have probably been on nearly every short route in their lifetime...

So the suggestion is to offer cheaper fares to everyone?

CaptainHaddock · 21 Oct 2019

Why stop at pacers? Surely Northern's refurbished 150s with their cramped 3 + 2 seating layout and constantly out-of-order toilets offer an even less comfortable journey than a 142?

Sleeperwaking · 21 Oct 2019

Energy said:
Sadly we don't get to see Govia's bid, they nearly got the franchise as they were shortlisted, London Midland had a pretty good fleet at the end of the franchise and GTR and Southeastern right now have pretty good fleets. Maybe if Govia won we wouldn't be having the pacer issue?

How? Govia would have inherited the same fleet as ARN with the same very tight timescales to complete PRM / accessibility upgrades. PRM upgrades on existing fleets are largely managed by the ROSCOs, so unlikely to be much different on that front with any other TOC. Although the CAF units' entry into service is later than planned (about 7-9 months?), that sort of delay is not atypical across other new fleet introductions. I'm not aware of a large number of DMUs lying around spare that could be brought in at short notice, and the 769 project has not been a resounding success for any TOC, not just ARN. IMO the failure to get rid of Pacers lies with the DfT and the lack of rolling stock investment during the previous franchise.

Bantamzen · 21 Oct 2019

AndrewE said:
It is certainly not reliable at the moment - cancellations everywhere and especially at weekends. Read the threads specifically about cancellations...
Maybe you can say one can rely on finding lots of cancellations

Its far worse in the North West than it is east of the Pennines, for reasons that have been discussed at length on other threads. For what its worth, generally speaking my commutes in West Yorkshire are pretty painless and delays are fairly rare.

Interestingly back in the winter of 2013/2014 (I think), the previous franchise had horrendous problems in my area and eventually they offered passengers the chance to claim a weekend pass for two as a compensation. And maybe a one-off scheme similar to this might not be the worst idea. However politicians demanding that people are compensated for every time a Pacer rocks up is rather daft. They may not be the greatest trains to roam the network, but most punters would rather have a Pacer than a cancelled train in the middle of winter.

Roast Veg · 21 Oct 2019

Perhaps we should offer PRM-absence repay post 31/12/19 in the same manner as delay repay. Claimed back to the offending body of course, which would wind up being the DfT most of the time.

Bletchleyite · 21 Oct 2019

Roast Veg said:
Perhaps we should offer PRM-absence repay post 31/12/19 in the same manner as delay repay. Claimed back to the offending body of course, which would wind up being the DfT most of the time.

That would be rather silly unless in need of use of the facilities, in which case the delay to the journey waiting for a train with those facilities would presumably invoke regular Delay Repay.

Snow1964 · 21 Oct 2019

I'm not sure why some people have so low aspirations that instead of debating the low ambiance, they are saying its better than no train because its cancelled.

Thats like saying a bad pint of beer is ok, because its better than finding pump has run out. For most people if it is shoddy, and no short term alternative is available, shouldn't be expected to pay full price for it. Thats what is being suggested here.

zn1 · 21 Oct 2019

the pacers are between 32 and 34 years old now, they were built with a design life of 40 years , at a time where there is a unit shortage for train operators whilst new squadrons are being built, fleets modified to bi-tri mode operation, getting rid of the old pacers wont make the punters any happier, Pacers were built to replace the flying meccano that had been worn out, they are perfect for short trip jobs, branch line work, punters are not expected to be on for more than 60 mins.
compensating punters for having to the "pacers" ? what planet are these politicians on ? perhaps if they were to actually examine the situation in detail they might realise how versatile these little units are for certain operators and routes

Karl · 21 Oct 2019

Further information about offers for routes Pacers use.

https://www.railadvent.co.uk/2019/10/northern-to-use-pacer-trains-into-2020.html/amp

A spokesperson said....

“As a result of further delays in the construction and delivery of our new trains from manufacturer CAF, a small number of Pacers units will need to be retained for a short period of time in 2020 to deliver the planned daily timetable with the right capacity for our customers. This situation is not unique to Northern.

“We understand that customers will be disappointed and we are finalising proposals for customer support and offers for customers on those routes on which Pacers will be used in 2020.

“Those proposals will need to be reviewed by Rail North Partnership, the Leeds-based organisation that manages the Northern and TPE franchises on behalf of Transport for the North and the Department for Transport.

“From today, Monday 21st October, we will have 29 of our 101 new trains in service for customers and a further 27 new trains are in final testing or being used for driver training.

“The introduction of new trains from July meant the first Pacer was retired in August, with the majority of Pacers still planned to be removed by the end of this year.

“We agree the North deserves the best possible rail service and are working hard to improve performance and reliability for customers.”

Pacer Trains: Politicians call for passenger compensation

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

On Moderation