[BBC News] "Trains outside London are 'cast-offs' MPs say"

Status
Not open for further replies.

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,008
The population of the North is twice that of London and the economy of Yorkshire is greater than that of many countries.
How are you defining the north? The combined population of the North West, North East and Yorkshire & Humber regions is almost 15 million. Not quite double London's 8.2 million, but close.

However that's spread across an area of 38,000 sq km; almost 1/3 of England and nearly 25 times the area of London (1,572 sq km).
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
I do wish politicians would drop the 'awful Pacers' bone; it's really starting to wear very thin. I do wonder how many of these people would have the faintest idea what a Pacer looked like or have any chance whatsoever of being able to tell one from a 150 or any other 'old' train. Whilst class 142/143/144 are clearly not ideal for peak time, crush loaded mainline work, they are in fact perfectly adequate for working less busy secondary services, and of course for branchline work. In places such as the Welsh Valleys and some of the FGW west country runs (and the Severn Beach), they are probably as close to ideal as you're going to get on a heavy rail system. Their 'bus' characteristics work very much in their favour here, allowing considerably swifter station dwells than with sliding door stock. In addition, they will swallow more cycles than just about any other two car DMU by quite some margin (with a FGW 143 eight is easily achieveable, twelve is doable), and their acceleration is rapid. These things combine to make them rather close to the 'tram-train' concept that so many people appear to think is the way forward, in fact. Punctuality on the 'Beach line is not helped at all by the current use of 150s in place of 143s. Add to that the substantially lower leasing, running and maintenance costs over new stock, and any sensible person should be easily able to look past the vote-grabbing PR waffle and see that there is potential; they simply need to be properly utilised. Granted the bus seated 142s clearly need a refit, but otherwise apart from perhaps a slightly bouncy ride (and if it's really anywhere near as terrible as some claim then you need to be taking that up with Network Rail as there are plenty of places where they manage just fine), I really do struggle to see how a ride on a Pacer is any worse than a rattling, draughty 150 with nasty low-backed 2 + 3 seating.

I maintain that if somebody developed a brand new 'Pacer', with equivalent characteristics ( excepting the low crashworthiness), and called it a 'tram-train', the very same people who whine daily about the current version would think their new trains were brilliant.
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
51,711
Location
Up and down the south WCML (mostly)
I maintain that if somebody developed a brand new 'Pacer', with equivalent characteristics ( excepting the low crashworthiness), and called it a 'tram-train', the very same people who whine daily about the current version would think their new trains were brilliant.
It has occurred to me that you could create a reasonably nice Pacer replacement (for their original design use) by taking a 3-4 section version of a new generation Metrolink tram, adding a diesel engine module and beefing up the ends a bit.

The massive windows would be particularly good for scenic branch lines.

Neil
 

dgl

Established Member
Joined
5 Oct 2014
Messages
1,163
Thinking about it though, isn't the oldest fleet still in use in London (the 313's) older than anything they have up north?
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
Wasn't there a report that proved that the majority of vandalism on Thameslink trains was caused by northerners travelling from Luton and Gatwick Airports ?

;)
Given you can fly to most European and North African destinations from north of England Airports that must be the well off Northerners going to the likes of Japan, Brazil and Australia. ;)
 

Olaf

Member
Joined
29 Mar 2014
Messages
1,053
Location
UK
Perhaps the Committee and it's Chair Woman would do better to focus on failings within the NR Planning teams, rather than this constant political posturing.

The should be calling for one or more of the planners to be publicly crucified and for a clear-out of the under achievers.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
Were the Pacers running from 1825-1855, something that George Stephenson had been told were not good enough either for the Stockton and Darlington Railway or indeed, to participate in the Rainhill Trials....:D
They had a Pacer type solution but even in the 1800s thought they could come up with something better. :)
 

PHILIPE

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Nov 2011
Messages
11,471
Location
Caerphilly
I do wish politicians would drop the 'awful Pacers' bone; it's really starting to wear very thin. I do wonder how many of these people would have the faintest idea what a Pacer looked like or have any chance whatsoever of being able to tell one from a 150 or any other 'old' train. Whilst class 142/143/144 are clearly not ideal for peak time, crush loaded mainline work, they are in fact perfectly adequate for working less busy secondary services, and of course for branchline work. In places such as the Welsh Valleys and some of the FGW west country runs (and the Severn Beach), they are probably as close to ideal as you're going to get on a heavy rail system. Their 'bus' characteristics work very much in their favour here, allowing considerably swifter station dwells than with sliding door stock. In addition, they will swallow more cycles than just about any other two car DMU by quite some margin (with a FGW 143 eight is easily achieveable, twelve is doable), and their acceleration is rapid. These things combine to make them rather close to the 'tram-train' concept that so many people appear to think is the way forward, in fact. Punctuality on the 'Beach line is not helped at all by the current use of 150s in place of 143s. Add to that the substantially lower leasing, running and maintenance costs over new stock, and any sensible person should be easily able to look past the vote-grabbing PR waffle and see that there is potential; they simply need to be properly utilised. Granted the bus seated 142s clearly need a refit, but otherwise apart from perhaps a slightly bouncy ride (and if it's really anywhere near as terrible as some claim then you need to be taking that up with Network Rail as there are plenty of places where they manage just fine), I really do struggle to see how a ride on a Pacer is any worse than a rattling, draughty 150 with nasty low-backed 2 + 3 seating.

I maintain that if somebody developed a brand new 'Pacer', with equivalent characteristics ( excepting the low crashworthiness), and called it a 'tram-train', the very same people who whine daily about the current version would think their new trains were brilliant.
The 143s were taken from the Severn Beach line in December 2011 and are now allocated to Exeter and confined to working on the Devon Metro (Exmouth/Barnstaple/Paignton). It was decided to concentrate them in the one area. Similar conditions with frequent stops are to found here also.
 

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
I do wish politicians would drop the 'awful Pacers' bone; it's really starting to wear very thin. I do wonder how many of these people would have the faintest idea what a Pacer looked like or have any chance whatsoever of being able to tell one from a 150 or any other 'old' train. Whilst class 142/143/144 are clearly not ideal for peak time, crush loaded mainline work, they are in fact perfectly adequate for working less busy secondary services, and of course for branchline work. In places such as the Welsh Valleys and some of the FGW west country runs (and the Severn Beach), they are probably as close to ideal as you're going to get on a heavy rail system. Their 'bus' characteristics work very much in their favour here, allowing considerably swifter station dwells than with sliding door stock. In addition, they will swallow more cycles than just about any other two car DMU by quite some margin (with a FGW 143 eight is easily achieveable, twelve is doable), and their acceleration is rapid.
An issue with Pacers is there's too many of them for suitable routes.

My local line of Manchester-Chester via Altrincham fits the description of a less busy secondary route (Manchester-Chester via Warrington is busier on average), has a lot of stations so ideally needs short dwell times and serving some rural settlements ideally needs space for more than 2 bikes.

In practice there are too many passengers for 2 car services and as Northern have been unable to increase capacity on services they've instead increased dwell times. The 142s aren't good for dwell times due to having 3 sets of doors instead of 4 and their acceleration is affected when they carry more passengers than they were designed to do so and they also perform more badly in leaf fall season. The poor location of the internal door buttons doesn't help dwell times either.

The conductor might allow 3 or 4 bikes on the 142 if the train isn't too busy but with 142s being smaller than 150s it actually means there's more chance of an extra bike being conveyed if a 150 is operating the service.

I've never been on a 143 but I've noticed the 144s do seem to better at accelerating and provide a slightly better ride quality than the 142s and I think the 143s are more similar to 144s than 142s.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
When comparing trains north vs. south, we see "age" factors coming up regularly. Like "...313s.....30 years old...." etc.

What is conveniently overlooked in such comparisons is the degree to which these things were fit for purpose when new, never mind their fitness for purpose 30 years later. Adding this factor in, how does a 313 compare with the much loved "pacer" fleet? Had the 313s (for example) been fabricated from a poor quality bus body on a 4-wheel wagon chassis, perhaps such comparisons would be more valid.
There's another point to remember when considering if a train is fit for purpose. With EMT and ATW's 158s when they've decided how to refurbish them they've given consideration of what routes they are currently used on and what type of loadings the trains get. On the other hand Northern have taken on a number of cascaded trains and kept the same interior they had for a different type of service in a different part of the country.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
10,521
Location
Macclesfield
At the risk of being banned from this site, you really are a silly arse.

The population of the North is twice that of London and the economy of Yorkshire is greater than that of many countries.
No, I have a sense of perspective.

It is transparently clear that you have a personal agenda regarding public transport services between Leeds, Harrogate and Ripon, and an obvious bias towards your "local line". Like many commuters, whose plights are rarely as dire as they make out when considered on a wider scale.

As has been pointed out, the population of "the North" is distributed across a far, far wider area than that of London, and does not witness anywhere near as centralised, or dense, travel patterns.

We just want the same spend per head of population as in the southeast but are a long, long way behind.
I quite agree with this. It would be good to see parity in public transport spending between provincial areas (I am not just referring to "the North" - the South West seems to be marginalised to an even greater extent in terms of public transport development) and London.
Pacers on the Cumbrian Coast line is unacceptable for a journey of that length with much jointed track. It is false economy as passengers are deterred especially those on a scenic trip.
As I have mentioned recently (was it this thread or another one?), I'm not sure who in their right mind would use the Cumbrian Coast from end to end as a mode of transport: You yourself admit that you wish to do so as a a recreational activity - Ferrying rail enthusiasts around by obscure routes does not, I am sure, make up more than a tiny minority of a TOCs business.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
26,379
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
I maintain that if somebody developed a brand new 'Pacer', with equivalent characteristics ( excepting the low crashworthiness), and called it a 'tram-train', the very same people who whine daily about the current version would think their new trains were brilliant.
I feel this may be an opportune time to roll out one of my many reminiscences and when, on the first day that "Newton Heath's Finest" were introduced upon the Oldham loop line as a replacement for the previously used DMU, there were "public relations types" asking the passengers what the passengers thought of "these new trains".

A female personage, a retired headmistress who was known to strike fear into teaching staff and pupils alike, then in her mid-70's but having all her marbles well and truly at home, on being asked the question pointed to the 3-wide bus seat that she was sat upon and made the comment...."Young man, I travel upon this railway line to travel on what resembles a train. Had I wished to travel by bus, then I would have done so".
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
15,935
Location
Yorkshire, Yorkshire, Yorkshire
On "subsidy" threads, it's always pointed out that it's unfair that the franchise boundaries put all the "local" services together - and it's an artificial collection of routes that doesn't reflect all of northern England...

...yet on the "north/south" threads the same people are perfectly happy to give the impression that the "no new trains" applies to all of northern England (ignoring the 175s, 180s, 185s, 220s, 221s, 350s, 390s and a token amount of 222s that we see).

Apart from Rotherham (one 185 stops there a day IIRC) and Barnsley (used to have Midland Mainline 170s a couple of times a day but obviously no longer), I can't think of any major place in northern England that does't see post-privatisation stock stopping there.

Yes, there's not been any new trains on the most "local" services since the 333s were introduced, but what about the old Wessex franchise? Or the old Valley Lines franchise? Except that they were rolled into bigger regional franchises, so the 1980s DMUs don't stick out as much. If TPE and Northern were merged would people shut up about the "no new trains since..." argument?

There will be an item on Pacers on Look North Yorkshire at 1825-1855. Unfortunately I'll be out by then.
I saw the one at 22:30 yesterday, where they claimed at the start of the article that Pacers were "the oldest trains still running in Yorkshire" - given that HSTs were from the decade before Pacers, I gave up there!

The population of the North is twice that of London and the economy of Yorkshire is greater than that of many countries
So?

Surely passenger figures are much more important?

For mass transportation to work well you need population density, and London's population is denser than anywhere in Europe (insert punchline here, I know, I know...)

We just want the same spend per head of population as in the southeast but are a long, long way behind
"We"? Congratulations on being elected spokesperson for The North!

Do "we" also want the same subsidy per passenger mile as Big Bad London too?

About once a month, a new thread is posted about how the poor north suffers at the behest of London extravagance
Yup - here we go again! :roll:

Each time pseudo-facts and half-truths are trotted out about how the north gets 'London cast-offs' whilst London gets brand new trains
Yeah, it's infuriating - doesn't matter how many times the 313s and the Isle of Wight gets mentioned - people are convinced that "the North" is full of London cast offs - despite the fact that very few trains today have been cascaded like this (compare to BR who did this kind of thing more - e.g. the mid-life Deltics cascaded on to what we now call Transpennine, same with Peaks displaced from the MML)... facts don't matter to those with their agendas!

These irrational postings on these threads are indicative of the massive chip that many seem to have on their shoulders. Ironically, most of the invective seems to be coming from west of the Pennines where there is an electrification programme in full swing, - those further east seem to be more rational about the matter
I could argue that Sheffield gets a rough deal (doesn't look like we'll see any electrification before 2020, even then it won't link our city to anywhere else in Yorkshire, the TramTrain to Rotherham has seemingly had more delays than the Edinburgh Tram/ Todmorden Chord/ Thameslink2000 put together!), but I can see the bigger picture - I'm not just selfishly banging on about how underachieving my local line is.

The north west has had a great deal (Lancashire Triangle, Manchester Hub, CP5 electrification) yet most of the moaning comes from that side of the Pennines - strange, considering the slim pickings in places like Teesside.

I'm not sure who in their right mind would use the Cumbrian Coast from end to end as a mode of transport: You yourself admit that you wish to do so as a a recreational activity - Ferrying rail enthusiasts around by obscure routes does not, I am sure, make up more than a tiny minority of a TOCs business.
Yeah, the "Preston to Carlisle is unacceptable on a Pacer" argument is one of the weakest I've seen on this Forum - amazed that people can argue it with a straight face!
 

Iskra

Established Member
Joined
11 Jun 2014
Messages
3,048
Location
Chapeltown, Sheffield
On "subsidy" threads, it's always pointed out that it's unfair that the franchise boundaries put all the "local" services together - and it's an artificial collection of routes that doesn't reflect all of northern England...

...yet on the "north/south" threads the same people are perfectly happy to give the impression that the "no new trains" applies to all of northern England (ignoring the 175s, 180s, 185s, 220s, 221s, 350s, 390s and a token amount of 222s that we see).

Apart from Rotherham (one 185 stops there a day IIRC) and Barnsley (used to have Midland Mainline 170s a couple of times a day but obviously no longer), I can't think of any major place in northern England that does't see post-privatisation stock stopping there.

Yes, there's not been any new trains on the most "local" services since the 333s were introduced, but what about the old Wessex franchise? Or the old Valley Lines franchise? Except that they were rolled into bigger regional franchises, so the 1980s DMUs don't stick out as much. If TPE and Northern were merged would people shut up about the "no new trains since..." argument?



I saw the one at 22:30 yesterday, where they claimed at the start of the article that Pacers were "the oldest trains still running in Yorkshire" - given that HSTs were from the decade before Pacers, I gave up there!



So?

Surely passenger figures are much more important?

For mass transportation to work well you need population density, and London's population is denser than anywhere in Europe (insert punchline here, I know, I know...)



"We"? Congratulations on being elected spokesperson for The North!

Do "we" also want the same subsidy per passenger mile as Big Bad London too?



Yup - here we go again! :roll:



Yeah, it's infuriating - doesn't matter how many times the 313s and the Isle of Wight gets mentioned - people are convinced that "the North" is full of London cast offs - despite the fact that very few trains today have been cascaded like this (compare to BR who did this kind of thing more - e.g. the mid-life Deltics cascaded on to what we now call Transpennine, same with Peaks displaced from the MML)... facts don't matter to those with their agendas!



I could argue that Sheffield gets a rough deal (doesn't look like we'll see any electrification before 2020, even then it won't link our city to anywhere else in Yorkshire, the TramTrain to Rotherham has seemingly had more delays than the Edinburgh Tram/ Todmorden Chord/ Thameslink2000 put together!), but I can see the bigger picture - I'm not just selfishly banging on about how underachieving my local line is.

The north west has had a great deal (Lancashire Triangle, Manchester Hub, CP5 electrification) yet most of the moaning comes from that side of the Pennines - strange, considering the slim pickings in places like Teesside.



Yeah, the "Preston to Carlisle is unacceptable on a Pacer" argument is one of the weakest I've seen on this Forum - amazed that people can argue it with a straight face!
I understand the sentiment, but Carlisle-Barrow/Whitehaven is a bloody long way on a 153, nevermind a 142.
 

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,497
Location
Ripon
How are you defining the north? The combined population of the North West, North East and Yorkshire & Humber regions is almost 15 million. Not quite double London's 8.2 million, but close.

However that's spread across an area of 38,000 sq km; almost 1/3 of England and nearly 25 times the area of London (1,572 sq km).
Let us say the population in the M62 corridor is 13 million then. An official figure and not an estimate. Since when did London reach 8 million? I thought it had only reached 7 million. It can't continue at that rate surely.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I do wish politicians would drop the 'awful Pacers' bone; it's really starting to wear very thin. I do wonder how many of these people would have the faintest idea what a Pacer looked like or have any chance whatsoever of being able to tell one from a 150 or any other 'old' train. Whilst class 142/143/144 are clearly not ideal for peak time, crush loaded mainline work, they are in fact perfectly adequate for working less busy secondary services, and of course for branchline work. In places such as the Welsh Valleys and some of the FGW west country runs (and the Severn Beach), they are probably as close to ideal as you're going to get on a heavy rail system. Their 'bus' characteristics work very much in their favour here, allowing considerably swifter station dwells than with sliding door stock. In addition, they will swallow more cycles than just about any other two car DMU by quite some margin (with a FGW 143 eight is easily achieveable, twelve is doable), and their acceleration is rapid. These things combine to make them rather close to the 'tram-train' concept that so many people appear to think is the way forward, in fact. Punctuality on the 'Beach line is not helped at all by the current use of 150s in place of 143s. Add to that the substantially lower leasing, running and maintenance costs over new stock, and any sensible person should be easily able to look past the vote-grabbing PR waffle and see that there is potential; they simply need to be properly utilised. Granted the bus seated 142s clearly need a refit, but otherwise apart from perhaps a slightly bouncy ride (and if it's really anywhere near as terrible as some claim then you need to be taking that up with Network Rail as there are plenty of places where they manage just fine), I really do struggle to see how a ride on a Pacer is any worse than a rattling, draughty 150 with nasty low-backed 2 + 3 seating.

I maintain that if somebody developed a brand new 'Pacer', with equivalent characteristics ( excepting the low crashworthiness), and called it a 'tram-train', the very same people who whine daily about the current version would think their new trains were brilliant.
Why should the Provinces get cheap and nasty all the time. No we do not want any kind of modern Pacer, D78 or tram trains thank you very much. That introduces all sorts of problems with platform heights at stations and speed limitations to 50mph max on lines capable of much more.

If we have to put up with southeast cast-offs then we want more electrification instead with "proper trains.
 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,008
How are you defining the north? The combined population of the North West, North East and Yorkshire & Humber regions is almost 15 million. Not quite double London's 8.2 million, but close.

However that's spread across an area of 38,000 sq km; almost 1/3 of England and nearly 25 times the area of London (1,572 sq km).
Let us say the population in the M62 corridor is 13 million then. An official figure and not an estimate.
How is the M62 corridor defined? And that population figure seems surprisingly high considering there aren't even 15 million people in the three 'northern' regions?

Since when did London reach 8 million? I thought it had only reached 7 million. It can't continue at that rate surely.
The population of London was 8.2 million in the 2011 census. In mid-2013 the ONS estimated that the population had grown to 8.4 million; they also estimate it will reach 9.4 million by 2022.
 

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,497
Location
Ripon
I feel this may be an opportune time to roll out one of my many reminiscences and when, on the first day that "Newton Heath's Finest" were introduced upon the Oldham loop line as a replacement for the previously used DMU, there were "public relations types" asking the passengers what the passengers thought of "these new trains".

A female personage, a retired headmistress who was known to strike fear into teaching staff and pupils alike, then in her mid-70's but having all her marbles well and truly at home, on being asked the question pointed to the 3-wide bus seat that she was sat upon and made the comment...."Young man, I travel upon this railway line to travel on what resembles a train. Had I wished to travel by bus, then I would have done so".
I was a fairly regular commuter on the Harrogate-Leeds run when the 141s were introduced. There was a group of regulars on the same two out and back trains each day on nodding terms with each other. I know there was a judge, three or four barristers, a couple of chartered accountants and other businessmen of similar ilk and income by the morning newspapers they read. Some used First Class on the heritage units whilst others made do with Second Class. It wasn't many weeks of 141 operation before this group of 20-30 familiar faces disappeared. I stuck it a little longer and then reverted to a more comfortable car commute having used train for almost ten years. The Pacer concept was not everybody's cup of Tetley's.

These commuters were probably lost to rail forever because I have not seen them again when I went back to rail with the introduction of 15XX units.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
So?

Surely passenger figures are much more important?

For mass transportation to work well you need population density, and London's population is denser than anywhere in Europe (insert punchline here, I know, I know...)!
Your replies are becoming so long and samey that I don't read them now but this caught my eye scrolling down the page.

Population density in the Northern cities per area is just as dense as London. Cities such as Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford, Leeds, Wakefield, York and Hull. What you fail to appreciate is that because these cities and large towns such as Wigan, Rochdale, Huddersfield, Halifax and Harrogate in this corridor are not much more than 30 minutes apart commuting and traffic flow in the peaks can be two-way unlike the southeast where it is to London in the morning and outward in the evening peaks.

Not only is there a shortage of stock in the peaks, but some flows in the off peak can exceed the capacity of a diagrammed train.

Only 10 years ago, a two coach DMU twice an hour was sufficient off peak on the Leeds-Harrogate-York Loop. 2+1 or 2+2 is required for nearly every diagram now and quickly mopped up the extra units cascaded from Brum in late 2011.

Problem is growth continues and is forecast to grow by 5% per annum in the Leeds City Region in CP5 when there is no additional stock to accommodate 50% growth during CP5 and CP6.

Government and DfT have discovered the answer. Price passengers off the trains by higher than inflation fare increases and make it so uncomfortable to travel due to overcrowding that they don't travel or find an alternative mode that is easier to do up here than in captive London.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
"We"? Congratulations on being elected spokesperson for The North!
I don't live up here all on my own. I do speak to my fellow man an am/was a member of Yorkshire organisations concerned with improving the lot of the Yorkshireman.

I know there are contributors on this site who think as I do so it is perfectly correct to use a collective"we".
 

transmanche

Established Member
Joined
27 Feb 2011
Messages
6,008
Population density in the Northern cities per area is just as dense as London. Cities such as Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford, Leeds, Wakefield, York and Hull.
You're way off. By local authority area, 19 of the top 20 LA's by population density are in London - the 20th is Portsmouth.

These range from Islington (1st with 13,886 per sq km) to Barking & Dagenham (19th with 5,179 per sq km). The population density for the whole of Greater London is 5,354 per sq km.

None of the northern cities come close:
  • Liverpool (4,164 per sq km) - 34th
  • Manchester (4,349 per sq km) - 28th
  • Bradford (1,428 per sq km) - 113th
  • Leeds (1,361 per sq km) - 119th
  • Wakefield (964 per sq km) - 142nd
  • York (727 per sq km) - 158th
  • Hull (3,584 per sq km) - 46th
 

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,497
Location
Ripon
Yeah, the "Preston to Carlisle is unacceptable on a Pacer" argument is one of the weakest I've seen on this Forum - amazed that people can argue it with a straight face!
It is a very valid point if you live on that line. Although born and bred in the West Country, I lived with my grandparents in Workington for a while in the 1950s. Steam loco-hauled coaches were very comfortable if a bit slow and the introduction of Derby lightweight DMUs in 1955 was an improvement.

in 1960 it was still possible to catch a through train from Workington to London via Barrow and via Penrith and through trains to Manchester and Birmingham all loco hauled. The overnight train to Euston conveyed sleeping cars from Barrow and was the first official electrically-hauled train into the newly opened Euston shortly before the train was withdrawn north of Barrow.

Consider the service now. How attractive is it? Not very with Pacers back on the route. Even the very comfortable Barrow-Manchester loco hauled service has succumbed without a suitable replacement (don't tell me a 185 is as comfortable as a Mark2 because it isn't).

With the closure of the steelworks and rail mill at Workington and Marchon at Whitehaven, only passenger traffic can keep the line viable so many passengers must be attracted to the line by improving the stock and travel experience by introducing a few limited stop "express" services possibly loco hauled from Carlisle to Manchester, Liverpool or even across the Pennines to Leeds, York, Hull or Sheffield.

Would you use a service from Sheffield to London if it was a Pacer taking three hours? I doubt it so why should say a passenger from Ravensglass to Carlisle or Preston have to suffer a two hour journey in one on mainly jointed and curved track?

Pacers should be restricted to journeys of no longer than an hour and that includes Middlesbrough/Newcastle to Carlisle.
 
Last edited:

Abpj17

Member
Joined
5 Jul 2014
Messages
995
Population density for London misses the point though.

The residential population of the City of London is around 7,000 squeezed into a relatively generous area of just under 3 sq km. A massive working population of 330,000 flows in during the day into that same area. I believe a population density of 100,000 per sq km probably wins...(although the docklands with its high towers probably competes). [Hence the oddities of business being able to vote in elections in the city]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom is one of the better sources for comparing like for like


Rank Built-up area[4] Population
(2011 Census)

Area (km²) Density (People/km²)
1 Greater London Built-up area 9,787,426 1,737.9 5,630
2 Greater Manchester Built-up area 2,553,379 630.3 4,051
3 West Midlands Built-up area 2,440,986 598.9 4,076
5 Glasgow 1,209,143 368.5 3,390
6 Liverpool Built-up area 864,122 199.6 4,329
7 South Hampshire Built-up area 855,569 192.0 4,455
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
11,055
With the closure of the steelworks and rail mill at Workington and Marchon at Whitehaven, only passenger traffic can keep the line viable so many passengers must be attracted to the line by improving the stock and travel experience by introducing a few limited stop "express" services possibly loco hauled from Carlisle to Manchester, Liverpool or even across the Pennines to Leeds, York, Hull or Sheffield.

Would you use a service from Sheffield to London if it was a Pacer taking three hours? I doubt it so why should say a passenger from Ravensglass to Carlisle or Preston have to suffer a two hour journey in one on mainly jointed and curved track?

Pacers should be restricted to journeys of no longer than an hour and that includes Middlesbrough/Newcastle to Carlisle.
Unfortunately the future of the railway has been shown time and again to be with clockface timetables - people don't like having just a handful of trains on a route every day. They want reliable, predictable services - preferably at turn up and go frequencies.

Loco hauled services do not tend to fit well with such a railway as the trains end up far shorter than a loco hauled formation would be practical for. (Can you imagine having a loco and two coaches on a sevice today? Only in America is that considered sane).
And sure we could restrict Pacers to hour or less journeys - but it would be diagramming nightmare. And what would we do when we did not have enough non-Pacer units left to operate the services of over an hour?
How would you like trains to be broken into 55 minute long segments to get around it.

If you are lucky the best you can hope for is that eventually electrification comes and you can have a 3-car Electrostar or similar unit.
But asking for loco hauled trains back is an exercise in futility.
 
Last edited:

BestWestern

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2011
Messages
6,736
Why should the Provinces get cheap and nasty all the time. No we do not want any kind of modern Pacer, D78 or tram trains thank you very much. That introduces all sorts of problems with platform heights at stations and speed limitations to 50mph max on lines capable of much more.

If we have to put up with southeast cast-offs then we want more electrification instead with "proper trains.
You miss the point, completely. My observation was simply that Pacers have a role they can fulfill quite adequately, when they are appropriately deployed. I didn't mention any provinces, I simply pointed out that there is no desperate need to scrap them all immediately, and that the current hysteria is nothing more then contrived politicial point scoring nonsense.

Again (*sigh*), there is plenty of 'old' rolling stock servicing that gleaming little corner of the country where station platforms are lined with fresh roses and the tickets are printed on gold leaf (that's why there's no money left for 'the north' you see...) - 455s, 456s, 442s, Networkers, Turbos, HSTs, Sprinters, 321s, 319s, 313s (they don't even have toilets so we save them for impoverished people visiting from 'the North' who we assume just p*ss on the floor anyway), and of course before those shiny new fleets of 375/377/444/450 arrived pretty much the whole long distance show out of Waterloo and Vic was run with ancient Slammers. For a real treat how about Portsmouth or Brighton to Bristol or beyond on a suburban lowbacked 3+2 seated 150/1? Yes, the powers that be actually allow that to happen, rather often; amazing!

There is nothing wrong with the fleet of rolling stock serving the vast majority of the country. By and large, it does the job and gets people where they need to be. Overcrowding happens everywhere, and no more so than in the southeast, where it is a daily reality for hundreds of thousands of commuters, many of whom will undertake their journeys on rolling stock which is not brand new, spotless inside and adorned in a gleaming coat of paint on the outside. Now, what was it that politican chap said, "we're all in this together..."
 
Last edited:

aformeruser

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
30,637
Population density for London misses the point though.

The residential population of the City of London is around 7,000 squeezed into a relatively generous area of just under 3 sq km. A massive working population of 330,000 flows in during the day into that same area. I believe a population density of 100,000 per sq km probably wins...(although the docklands with its high towers probably competes). [Hence the oddities of business being able to vote in elections in the city]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_urban_areas_in_the_United_Kingdom is one of the better sources for comparing like for like
Not when the assertion is:
In which case the population density of London is highly relevant.
Comparing council/metropolitan boundaries is meaningless. City of Manchester includes the Airport but doesn't include places much closer to the city centre such as Stretford and Salford Quays. While Greater Manchester includes places such as Wigan which practically are as close to Liverpool as Manchester but doesn't include places like Wilmslow which is only a short commute to/from Manchester.

If you want the Manchester commute to work area then you need to include places as far out as North Wales, Liverpool, Preston, Leeds, Sheffield and Stoke. That's something people often overlook when claiming the London commute to work area includes East Anglia.
 

Abpj17

Member
Joined
5 Jul 2014
Messages
995
People do commute to London from East Anglia, Northern France and Scotland :)

There was a sensible map kicking around that measured commuters by % rather than crazy low numbers. So if more than 75% commute to [insert metropolitation area]
 

Robbies

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2009
Messages
1,997
Location
Berkshire
You miss the point, completely. My observation was simply that Pacers have a role they can fulfill quite adequately, when they are appropriately deployed. I didn't mention any provinces, I simply pointed out that there is no desperate need to scrap them all immediately, and that the current hysteria is nothing more then contrived politicial point scoring nonsense.

Again (*sigh*), there is plenty of 'old' rolling stock servicing that gleaming little corner of the country where station platforms are lined with fresh roses and the tickets are printed on gold leaf (that's why there's no money left for 'the north' you see...) - 455s, 456s, 442s, Networkers, Turbos, HSTs, Sprinters, 321s, 319s, 313s (they don't even have toilets so we save them for impoverished people visiting from 'the North' who we assume just p*ss on the floor anyway), and of course before those shiny new fleets of 375/377/444/450 arrived pretty much the whole long distance show out of Waterloo and Vic was run with ancient Slammers. For a real treat how about Portsmouth or Brighton to Bristol or beyond on a suburban lowbacked 3+2 seated 150/1? Yes, the powers that be actually allow that to happen, rather often; amazing!

There is nothing wrong with the fleet of rolling stock serving the vast majority of the country. By and large, it does the job and gets people where they need to be. Overcrowding happens everywhere, and no more so than in the southeast, where it is a daily reality for hundreds of thousands of commuters, many of whom will undertake their journeys on rolling stock which is not brand new, spotless inside and adorned in a gleaming coat of paint on the outside. Now, what was it that politican chap said, "we're all in this together..."
There are times that those of us in the South do feel the pain as the Class 455 with no toilets are from time to time placed on routes where the trains journey is greater than an hour in length and this is quite often on the Reading - Waterloo route at weekends and especially at times when events like Royal Ascot are on where people have probably been drinking alcohol than they would do normally.

Yes, the Reading - Waterloo route is normally server by class 458's which have toilets and will hopefully be regularly served soon by class 450's which also has toilets, with the 458's going off to be rebuilt/refurbished but putting class 455 units on the route is not the answer.

Neither I believe is putting class 456 trains on the Ascot to Guildford route an answer to the problem, when most of the stations on the route do not have toilets.
 

Minstral25

Established Member
Joined
10 Sep 2009
Messages
1,205
There are two problems with the report.

Firstly it talks of London but it really means the South East. London's population is a mere 7/8m, but I like many many others commute from the Home Counties and adjoining Counties, so a realistic number of population to compare against is 19.9m (London plus South East counties, plus Essex, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire).

Most of Southern/SWT/SE Trains customers live outside London. I would assume it is similar for FGW/Chiltern/LM/Thameslink/GA etc

The Second key point is that this report is extremely biased. The committee is made up of 9 Northern ((i.e. Outside of London commuter zone) including the Chairman) MP's, 1 South West (where investment is pitiful even compared to the North) and 1 from London. It is fairly obvious that a committee of this kind of composition is not going to say that London has a fair share of investment.

A last point is that HS2 is a "Northern" project. By that I mean it is not needed or necessary for London and the South-East. Yet I suspect their figures put it partly or fully as a London project because that is where it starts. Hence that investment is going to be about the regions and is rather large investment in them which dwarfs much of the money spent recently in London.
 

anti-pacer

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2013
Messages
2,312
Location
Narnia
You miss the point, completely. My observation was simply that Pacers have a role they can fulfill quite adequately, when they are appropriately deployed. I didn't mention any provinces, I simply pointed out that there is no desperate need to scrap them all immediately, and that the current hysteria is nothing more then contrived politicial point scoring nonsense.

Again (*sigh*), there is plenty of 'old' rolling stock servicing that gleaming little corner of the country where station platforms are lined with fresh roses and the tickets are printed on gold leaf (that's why there's no money left for 'the north' you see...) - 455s, 456s, 442s, Networkers, Turbos, HSTs, Sprinters, 321s, 319s, 313s (they don't even have toilets so we save them for impoverished people visiting from 'the North' who we assume just p*ss on the floor anyway), and of course before those shiny new fleets of 375/377/444/450 arrived pretty much the whole long distance show out of Waterloo and Vic was run with ancient Slammers. For a real treat how about Portsmouth or Brighton to Bristol or beyond on a suburban lowbacked 3+2 seated 150/1? Yes, the powers that be actually allow that to happen, rather often; amazing!

There is nothing wrong with the fleet of rolling stock serving the vast majority of the country. By and large, it does the job and gets people where they need to be. Overcrowding happens everywhere, and no more so than in the southeast, where it is a daily reality for hundreds of thousands of commuters, many of whom will undertake their journeys on rolling stock which is not brand new, spotless inside and adorned in a gleaming coat of paint on the outside. Now, what was it that politican chap said, "we're all in this together..."
It's quite clear that you are a Pacer fan, so how about we send you ours, and we'll have the 16x's you are set to inherit.

Also, your comments about Northerners being unable to use a toilet correctly is not only insulting, but also infactual.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top