ATW Pacers

[Brian Aylott]

I see that the Welsh are getting excited about the possibility of having to update their Pacers at a cost of £5.1m because the Valleys won't be electrified by 31/12/2019 when all existing stock will need to meet the new accessibilty regulations
Porterbrook have suggested to the Welsh Assembly it might even be better to delay electrification for a few years to maximise the benefit of the investment
I agree that the leasing companies will want to find work for the Pacers instead of having to scrap them and TOCs if not the passengers quite like them because they are cheap to run
But presumably costs would be reduced if it was agreed that toilets were removed rather than being replaced by the required larger 'disability' ones which would mean that less seats would be lost although it would still be a huge waste of money
Other electrification schemes in the UK should enable, with logical cascades, all the Pacers (and probably the Class 153s) to be eliminated by 31/12/2019
However, in case of electrification delays, surely the regulations should be amended so that a delay in implementation of a maximum of 1 (or maybe 2) years would be acceptable if the replacement MUs were available or ordered by 2019
Brian

 

[Rich McLean]

If there is a plan in place to replace them, I would expect them to get an exemption order to run as they are until the wires are up

 

[WelshBluebird]

I see that the Welsh are getting excited about the possibility of having to update their Pacers at a cost of £5.1m because the Valleys won't be electrified by 31/12/2019 when all existing stock will need to meet the new accessibilty regulations
Porterbrook have suggested to the Welsh Assembly it might even be better to delay electrification for a few years to maximise the benefit of the investment
I agree that the leasing companies will want to find work for the Pacers instead of having to scrap them and TOCs if not the passengers quite like them because they are cheap to run

Would it not be possible to bring electrification forward, or is that being way too simplistic?
If it can't be, then surely it would make more sense for an exemption rather than spending loads of money? I hate pacers, and in the ideal world they really do need an overhaul if they are to be kept in service. But I just don't think the amount of money it would cost is warranted.

But presumably costs would be reduced if it was agreed that toilets were removed rather than being replaced by the required larger 'disability' ones which would mean that less seats would be lost although it would still be a huge waste of money

IMO removing toilets is simply not an option on a line where the vast majority of stations also lack such facilities.

 

[anthony263]

I wonder if FGW send a number of their class 165/166's to Bristol etc if it might be possible for ATW to gte hold of some class 150's to replace the class 142's and allow the class 143/150's a temporary reprieve beyond 2020 until the overhead wires are erected on the Valley Lines network.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I dont think things have been helped by some many lines being pout forward for electrification during CP5/CP6 Network Rail I think will be hard stretched to deliver all of them especially with only 1 HOOP train.

I do hope a 2nd HOOP train is ordered and Network rail have another electrification team as part of a national electrification project beyond the current projects.

The liens to Bridgend, Ebbw Vale & Maesteg will be done before 2020 so a number of units will be freed there and replaced by dmu's.

Pity Bombardier are not offering a bi-mode train such as a cross between the class 172/377's as that would helkp things on the Cardiff Valley lines with the three carriage units operating on diesel power until thewhole network is electrified.

 

[158722]

I wonder if FGW send a number of their class 165/166's to Bristol etc if it might be possible for ATW to gte hold of some class 150's to replace the class 142's and allow the class 143/150's a temporary reprieve beyond 2020 until the overhead wires are erected on the Valley Lines network.

The analysis I did in the thread about electrification projects and DMU cascades proved that, in theory, enough 165/166s should be able to be cascaded to the west from 2016 onwards to allow FGW to withdraw their 143s, 153s and cascade sufficient 150s to ATW to allow them, in turn, to withdrawn their Pacers and 153s, by 2018/19.

My thoughts are that the leasing companies won't be bothering making Pacers and 153s DDA compliant (or even a temporary derogation) as they will be gone by 2020, but perhaps the 150s will need looked at as they will need to be around through CP6 up to 2025.

 

[D365]

All the Pacers and the 153s (and 155s?) by 2020 is rather optimistic imho, what with the potential for delays and knock-on effects in the complex and interwoven projects which all play a part in the cascade. Remaining 80s units will themselves have to be progressively pulled from service. Because at the very least, Class 142 will have to be withdrawn by 2020, as Angel Trains have said they won't be modifying them.

Would it be politically acceptable going back and delaying the hard-fought electrification? Porterbrook and the rest should easily find work for their 143/144 Pacers. But if Valley electrification was delayed, would that allow them the chance to source new rolling stock rather than go with 315s for 5-10 years... Am I right in thinking?

 

[tbtc]

Other electrification schemes in the UK should enable, with logical cascades, all the Pacers (and probably the Class 153s) to be eliminated by 31/12/2019

All the Pacers and the 153s (and 155s?) by 2020 is rather optimistic imho, what with the potential for delays and knock-on effects in the complex and interwoven projects which all play a part in the cascade. Remaining 80s units will themselves have to be progressively pulled from service. Because at the very least, Class 142 will have to be withdrawn by 2020, as Angel Trains have said they won't be modifying them

We'll still have Pacers running around in 2020 - the CP5 electrification (and other rolling stock plans, like IEP for the ECML) is more about replacing HSTs and other 125mph stock (220, 221, 222, 225s) than the humble 75mph DMU.

As I said on the "predictions" thread, I think there'll be more Pacers in regular service in 2020 than HSTs.

PS: Where was it mentioned about Valley Lines not being wired within CP5 (and spilling over into the 2020s)?

 

[D365]

As I said on the "predictions" thread, I think there'll be more Pacers in regular service in 2020 than HSTs.

I didn't know whether to believe you :P At the very least, it'll be the 142s which should be gone, unless Angel Trains go back on their statement.

PS: Where was it mentioned about Valley Lines not being wired within CP5 (and spilling over into the 2020s)?

The first I've read of it is the OP here - no citation though.

 

[tbtc]

I didn't know whether to believe you :P

Fair point

But, seriously, apart from the welcome electrification of the Valley Lines, the vast majority of the investment is going to on 100mph/ 125mph areas, not tackling the 75mph lines where Pacers/ 153s are found.

On the flipside, I think that the CP5 plans pave the way for a lot of "infill" schemes to replace 75mph DMUs (e.g. electrification of London to Sheffield means there's some "quick wins" by wiring from Sheffield to Doncaster/ Moorthorpe and the line through Barnsley to Leeds - that's maybe fifteen "local" DMUs freed up there. Similarly, other electrification around Manchester means that routes like Warrington Central have a good case)

Maybe all 142s will be gone before 2020, but we'll still have 143s and 144s IMHO

 

[D365]

Continuing from my last postings...

I wonder if FGW send a number of their class 165/166's to Bristol etc if it might be possible for ATW to get hold of some class 150s to replace the class 142s and allow the class 143/150s a temporary reprieve beyond 2020 until the overhead wires are erected on the Valley Lines network.

See the post after that of yours I quoted, by the good 158722. Although in practice, I'm not confident the cascade timescale will allow us to fully eliminate all Pacers and the 153/155 Sprinters. The compromise I can envisage being a number of the 143/144 Pacers refurbished and used up until 2030.

I don't think things have been helped by some many lines being pout forward for electrification during CP5/CP6 Network Rail I think will be hard stretched to deliver all of them especially with only 1 HOOP train.

I do hope a 2nd HOOP train is ordered and Network Rail have another electrification team as part of a national electrification project beyond the current projects.

I think the sticking point is that the supply chain, after 20-odd years in the doldrums with little work, is rather stretched in providing for the one HOOP, let alone another. Also, it might well end up the case that if we hurry through and electrify most of the country, that would be too much of a 'big bang', leaving only little jobs to do - does that make sense?


The liens to Bridgend, Ebbw Vale & Maesteg will be done before 2020 so a number of units will be freed there and replaced by dmu's.

Pity Bombardier are not offering a bi-mode train such as a cross between the class 172/377's as that would help things on the Cardiff Valley lines with the three carriage units operating on diesel power until the whole network is electrified.[/QUOTE]

Is a Turbo-Electrostar really feasible? I think a suburban EDMU has been discussed here previously.

As I said on the "predictions" thread, I think there'll be more Pacers in regular service in 2020 than HSTs.

I didn't know whether to believe you :P At the very least, it'll be the 142s which should be gone, unless Angel Trains go back on their statement.

PS: Where was it mentioned about Valley Lines not being wired within CP5 (and spilling over into the 2020s)?

The first I've read of it is the OP here - no citation though.

But, seriously, apart from the welcome electrification of the Valley Lines, the vast majority of the investment is going to on 100mph/ 125mph areas, not tackling the 75mph lines where Pacers/ 153s are found.

On the flipside, I think that the CP5 plans pave the way for a lot of "infill" schemes to replace 75mph DMUs (e.g. electrification of London to Sheffield means there's some "quick wins" by wiring from Sheffield to Doncaster/ Moorthorpe and the line through Barnsley to Leeds - that's maybe fifteen "local" DMUs freed up there. Similarly, other electrification around Manchester means that routes like Warrington Central have a good case)

Maybe all 142s will be gone before 2020, but we'll still have 143s and 144s IMHO

I agree. There's plenty we've got lined up into the next CP, but I'm always still keen to see Felixstowe to Birmingham and 379s

 

[PaulHarding150]

any one know what kind of fines ATW/their sucessor will face if they simply igniore the EU regulation/directive?

What are other countries doing? From memory, most regional trains in Italy will fail this big style.

 

[pemma]

Porterbrook's plan for the 143s and 144s* involves reducing the seating capacity to around 80 seats in 2+2 formation. Angel Trains own the 142s and they say they won't be made accessible. Maybe Porterbrook hope that one operator will agree to take on both the 143s and 144s post-2019.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

All the Pacers and the 153s (and 155s?) by 2020 is rather optimistic imho, what with the potential for delays and knock-on effects in the complex and interwoven projects which all play a part in the cascade.

While Porterbrook have unveiled options for making 143s and 144s complaint they have said that making 153s complaint would be non-economically viable, apparently this isn't just because they are single carriage units but because the body shells are sagging.

The 144s and 155s may not have a long term future in West Yorkshire. Metro sold them to Porterbrook and the only condition of the sale was they would remain operating the same routes until the end of the current Northern franchise.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What are other countries doing? From memory, most regional trains in Italy will fail this big style.

According to a Trip Advisor post

Artviva- Florence Italy
Many of us eagerly await the new trains -- 60 of them, so we have heard -- which are set to be delivered to Tuscany. Perhaps cleaner cars, with doors that open, with functional toilets, and non-spray painted windows might make people a little less willing to slap others around.

http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowTo...kes_affecting_transport-Tuscany.html#40717575

 

[starrymarkb]

It's not an EU thing, the deadline was set by the UK government. The EU/UIC have adopted our standards for new build as good practice but I don't think there is an overall EU deadline as yet.

The Swiss for example are inserting accessible low floor trailers into Regional EMUs but most of these EMUs consist of a 1980s Motor Coach and Driving Trailers sandwiching some refurbished 1960s EW1 coaches

 

[Rhydgaled]

Would it not be possible to bring electrification forward, or is that being way too simplistic?
If it can't be, then surely it would make more sense for an exemption rather than spending loads of money? I hate pacers, and in the ideal world they really do need an overhaul if they are to be kept in service. But I just don't think the amount of money it would cost is warranted.

Electrification was annouced as part of the CP5 HLOS, so I expected it to be complete by the end of 2019. However, there were many, many hundereds of miles of electrification, besides the valleys, also announced in the CP5 HLOS, and prior to that, so it is not all that supprising that some of it has slipped into CP6. They can only string up wires so fast, unless they pay more to have more teams working in parrallel.

Other electrification schemes in the UK should enable, with logical cascades, all the Pacers (and probably the Class 153s) to be eliminated by 31/12/2019

I'm not sure even getting rid of the 94 class 142 Pacers (the ones that haven't had TSI-PRM upgrades planned for them) by 2020 is achievable myself, now that the valley lines project (which would directly release 30 Pacers and at least enough 150s to replace FirstGWs remaining (8?) Pacers) has slipped to CP6.

Even the FirstGW 166/165 fleet (all of it, and some might still be required for services out of Reading that go beyond Newbury) is under 60 units. The only other scheme which looks like it might release a good number of non-Intercity DMUs is TPE, or is that a CP6 project too? Even if you did eliminate all the Pacers, I'd suggest withdrawing 150/1s next not 153s (though I would suggest converting them back into 155s).

However, in case of electrification delays, surely the regulations should be amended so that a delay in implementation of a maximum of 1 (or maybe 2) years would be acceptable if the replacement MUs were available or ordered by 2019
Brian

Yes, I think a temporary derrogation to allow non-complaint stock to be replaced by EMUs rather than DMUs would be a good idea. Would make far more sence than buying new DMUs for introduction during CP5 that may be redundant by the end of CP6 due to further electrification. Alternatively, the presence of new DMUs could lead to a delay of electrification for another 30 years.

I do hope a 2nd HOOP train is ordered and Network rail have another electrification team as part of a national electrification project beyond the current projects.

I think if 2 HOOP trains were available we wouldn't have seen the valleys electrification pushed back to CP6.

The liens to Bridgend, Ebbw Vale & Maesteg will be done before 2020 so a number of units will be freed there and replaced by dmu's.

Ebbw Vale to Maesteg would only require a mirco-fleet of 4 EMU diagrams though, plus one for the peak extra between Bridgend and Cardiff and a few more for Swanline.

Pity Bombardier are not offering a bi-mode train such as a cross between the class 172/377's as that would helkp things on the Cardiff Valley lines with the three carriage units operating on diesel power until thewhole network is electrified.

There are already rather alot of suburban-layout DMUs though. We have classes 165, 166, 170, 171, 172 and 185 at least. What would be nice is a bi-mode version of a 158, 159 or 442 or 444. A variant of the 377 with diesel engines and the doors moved to the ends perhaps. You could use that on things like Cardiff - Portsmouth, which would release 158s to get 150s off long-distance runs. The 150s could then replace Pacers.

PS: Where was it mentioned about Valley Lines not being wired within CP5 (and spilling over into the 2020s)?

I think Anthony said so a while back, but an article in the paper (the Western Mail I think, I posted a link to an online version in another topic) the other day seemed to confirm it was now a CP6 scheme.

any one know what kind of fines ATW/their sucessor will face if they simply igniore the EU regulation/directive?

What are other countries doing? From memory, most regional trains in Italy will fail this big style.

Interesting questions. Answers?

It's not an EU thing, the deadline was set by the UK government. The EU/UIC have adopted our standards for new build as good practice but I don't think there is an overall EU deadline as yet.

I thought the UK government standards as orriginally leglislated were actually more stringent than the EU TSI-PRM regs that have now superceeded the UK ones.

 

[Brian Aylott]

'only other scheme'
What about the 50 or so Scotrail DMUs that will be cascaded?
Brian

 

[YorkshireBear]

'only other scheme'
What about the 50 or so Scotrail DMUs that will be cascaded?
Brian

They will probably end up keeping them!

 

[Brian Aylott]

I know that plans change but early in 2013 the plan was that they would retain 8 DMUs for strengthening and release about 50
Obviously additional EMUs to Northern and elsewhere will enable even more Pacers and 153s to be surplus to requirements
Why would it be sensible to retain Pacers and 153s and scrap better units?
The cost of getting these passed the 1/1/2020 regs in enormous and woruld result in a lower number of seats per vehicle and still an uncomfortable ride
Brian

 

[Rhydgaled]

'only other scheme'
What about the 50 or so Scotrail DMUs that will be cascaded?
Brian

I think that may have been a memory lapse . And I didn't realise it was going to release as many as 50. I thought it'd only be 8-10 units coming south, not really enough to cater for growth let alone replacing anything.

So, somewhere between 9 and 60 DMUs from TPE, up to 57 Thames Turbos and 50 Scotrail units. Let's say 150 units. Might be possible to get rid of the 142s by 2020 after all, but you probably also need to replace half the 153s to allow them to be reformed into 155s.

Why would it be sensible to retain Pacers and 153s and scrap better units?

It wouldn't be sensible. But personally I think the 150/1s (and probably the 150/2s as well) should be scrapped before the 153s. There's no post-privatisation equivalent of 153s (or 155s or 156s), the 165s, 166s and 170s are more suitable replacments for 150s than they are for 153s/155s/156s. But Pacers first, and since there will still be 46 Pacers even after the 142s are gone I don't think there will be enough cascades to start withdrawing ANY sprinters by 2020.

 

[pemma]

So, somewhere between 9 and 60 DMUs from TPE, ...possible to get rid of the 142s by 2020 after all, but you probably also need to replace half the 153s to allow them to be reformed into 155s.

60 would be the entire current TPE fleet and there's no plans to electrify a number of places served by TPE and while people are optimistic of Hull and Windermere being electrified I think those are CP6 plans.