Modern day Pacer

[TrainBoy98]

So if Pacers are out by 2019 (I know its not 100%), surely we need something like them, but better, as a replacement?

It would have bogies, 2/3 carriages, proper doors, DDA compliancy. (Maybe a toilet for the longer journeys it might end up on?)

How about the bus design again? Along the lines of an Enviro bus, having proper fronts/cabs (with air con for the drivers of course).

Normal bogie under the each cab, and a Jacobs bogie between the carriages (either 1 between 2 or 2 between 3) with better suspension than Pacers.

If three carriages, the middle would contain a toilet.

Good or bad idea? Surely would be cheaper (like Pacers) than new design DMUs?

 

[telstarbox]

So basically a 172?

 

[TrainBoy98]

Well hopefully cheaper. Theyre were other units being built at the same time as Pacers, so why were they built? Same scenario here.

 

[AndyLandy]

I don't think the design in the sticking point. It'll be down to emissions regs for new diesel trains and of course cost.

We'll need something to replace the Pacers, and it seems fairly evident that a modern, DDA-compliant train that shares some key characteristics with the Pacer is probably what's needed.

 

[TrainBoy98]

Ok, so a better, low emission engine too. Hopefully it would be cheaper, like the Pacers were.

 

[transmanche]

Like telstarbox says, a 172 would seem to do the trick - if we're looking for a proven standard design.

But even in Bombardier's range, there are alternatives; like the Talent DMU used in Germany. Or for something more lightweight, the Itino.

Or why not make the most of all the new OHLE being put up with an AGC-like bi-mode.

 

[samuelmorris]

It's not as if the general dislike for Pacers is because of their age. If anything before they were re-engined they were even worse than they are today. Compared to 150s I think they were pretty unpopular even when new. I hope we don't see anything like that design again - I think generally lessons have been learned about that. I'm not of the opinion that modern buses offer a ride quality good enough for them to become rail vehicles. If we want cheap, perhaps something in the style of LO 172s - basic, functional interior but higher-efficiency running gear (tbh I think the ride on these is fairly mediocre because the engine vibration at idle is horrendous - am now beginning to see why QSKs are set to idle so fast). Maybe, heaven forbid, a mainline DMU with longitudinal seating? As long as there's four axles per carriage, I think that'd be alright - would no doubt trigger some complaints, but in the sake of maximum carrying capacity, it could be welcome at reducing overcrowding. Pack them in no-gangways style and you could get what, 450 per 3-car unit? That'd surely be an improvement on what there is now.

While I think modern trains with no toilets is a bit of a farse, it depends on the route. For routes <1hr end to end it's acceptable I suppose - adding a disabled toilet takes up a big chunk of a carriage - enough to reduce carrying capacity on a 4-car quite considerably, let alone only 2 or 3.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I think the reasoning behind the OP's suggestion of using bus technology would be to save weight and construction costs- he did in fact specify bogies rather than the current pacer set up. In principle it sounds like a good idea, and use of bogies would allow for longer vehicles than the current 15m pacers.

My only concern really would be whether any current bus bodyshell would have the structural integrity required by current crashworthiness standards for rail, bearing in mind that if we didn't already have 142s, we wouldn't be able to build them now!

 

[HSTEd]

Money would be better spent training and equipping an additional overhead wiring team.
We are shortly to be buried in old regional multiple units from around London.

 

[flymo]

If anything before they were re-engined they were even worse than they are today..

If you think that is bad, what about the original Self Changing Gears (SCG) gearboxes in them before they were replaced with Voith. Crikey they were a right heap, bus technology indeed. Trundling along the Tyne valley in a 143 it was common for the front carriage to be in 2nd gear and the back one in 3rd for quite some distance. No wonder they failed left, right and centre. I'm sure the 142s were the same.

Pacers have come a long way from what they once were. You've never had it so good. !!!

If any new build of Pacer type trains come along I think the lessons learned from the early days of Pacers would have to be borne in mind. I wonder if any of the bus body manufacturers (ADL, Wrights etc) are putting any time and effort into R&D for such a project. Maybe not but it may be a gap in the market

 

[TheWalrus]

So we're looking for something between a pacer and a PPM but maybe better?

 

[sprinterguy]

I don’t see a need for a new design of “bargain basement” DMU ala the Pacers. New class 172s should be ordered for the heavily used commuter/suburban services that many Pacers are used on, where neither the current or an updated version of the Pacer is suitable, additionally displacing Sprinters (suitably refurbished) to replace the Pacers that are used on more marginal regional and rural routes.

With a continued rolling programme of electrification on commuter and suburban routes the 172s would be additionally displaced as time went by to replace the Sprinters as they become life expired.

It’s only really in the case of the Northern franchise that we need go even that far in terms of ordering new diesel units: In cases such as the Great Western electrification, if Bombardier were able to refurbish the class 165s, which are expected to be cascaded towards the West Country, to a similar spec as the London Midland 172s then I think there would be very little difference between them from a layman’s perspective. Arriva Trains Wales’ Pacer fleet is to be displaced directly by the Valley Lines electrification.

With the large quantity of rolling stock, both diesel and electric, that is likely to become available for regional and suburban use by the end of the decade, there just isn't the market there to support the research and development costs of a new suburban/rural DMU design, in my opinion. There's certainly no need to build bespoke new rolling stock only applicable to relatively lightly used regional and rural routes when refurbishing existing DMUs would be cheaper.

 

[CC 72100]

So if Pacers are out by 2019 (I know its not 100%), surely we need something like them, but better, as a replacement?

It would have bogies, 2/3 carriages, proper doors, DDA compliancy. (Maybe a toilet for the longer journeys it might end up on?)

How about the bus design again? Along the lines of an Enviro bus, having proper fronts/cabs (with air con for the drivers of course).

Normal bogie under the each cab, and a Jacobs bogie between the carriages (either 1 between 2 or 2 between 3) with better suspension than Pacers.

If three carriages, the middle would contain a toilet.

Good or bad idea? Surely would be cheaper (like Pacers) than new design DMUs?

I thought that the DMU that I used on my trip to Spain on the FEVE network (metre gauge railways) was exactly like a sort of 21st century pacer. It had actually been rebuilt from an earlier DMU, and had re-used the engine and transmission I think. Interior was light and airy, all seating in bays of 4 with 48 seats per carriage (96 per train). Loo at the back of the one carriage, with the driver's door on the right, not in the centre. Seemed to be DOO, but carried another member of staff to do tickets, as this second staff member didn't do the doors.

Not the world's best picture unfortunately, but here is said unit at Cartagena (FEVE).

 

[AndyLandy]

I don’t see a need for a new design of “bargain basement” DMU ala the Pacers. New class 172s should be ordered for the heavily used commuter/suburban services that many Pacers are used on, where neither the current or an updated version of the Pacer is suitable, additionally displacing Sprinters (suitably refurbished) to replace the Pacers that are used on more marginal regional and rural routes.

That's a reasonable approach too, although as I hinted at earlier, I expect the biggest issue with procuring any new DMUs will come down to emissions regulations. If we could just procure a bunch more Turbostars, that would be fantastic, but I don't know if we'll be able to. If a more lightweight Pacer-esque train is feasible, that might be another option.

Ideally, there'd be enough electrification in the North to cascade lots of 150s down to replace 142s, but only time will tell on that one.

 

[jopsuk]

If it met crashworthiness regulations, something that was essentially a Dcoklands Light Railway vehicle with a couple of bus engines wouldn't be that far off. Might need to be a little bit wider, but as a starting point for a design it wouldn't be terrible.

 

[pemma]

I hope we don't see anything like that design again - I think generally lessons have been learned about that.

I think the key one being that once the 142s were about 15 years old there were very few routes that they were still well suited for and they started being used increasingly on routes that are too long for Pacers.

 

[starrymarkb]

Something like a Diesel FLIRT or GTW?

 

[pemma]

(Maybe a toilet for the longer journeys it might end up on?)

Not sure what routes you'd be planning to use these new Pacers on. Not having a toilet really isn't optional on the vast majority of Northern Rail diesel routes given they aren't that frequent and relatively few stations have toilet facilities. Ordering new trains with toilets would be much cheaper than building a lot of new station toilets.

 

[Yew]

Let's buy real trains instead. If you make something cheap, it will just break quickly. Realistically pacers should have been withdrawn after 20 years. Whereas a well made MU can be good for 30-40. Maybe a DMU that can be converted to a EMU once then engines are life expired? That /could be clever

 

[tbtc]

I used to think that we'd need a hundred or so 75mph DMUs built before the end of the decade to get round DDA.

Now, with almost a thousand miles of line to be electrified by 2019, I think that there's a decent chance that CP6 will see a lot of the "gaps" electrified too (e.g. CP5 sees the MML wired as far as Sheffield which makes the shortish sections to Leeds/ Moorthorpe/ Doncaster ripe for CP6).

Even five hundred miles of targetted electrification in CP6 would free up significant numbers of 75mph DMUs, to the point where I think that (even after withdrawing all Pacers, the 121s and the 153s) we may have more DMUs than we need in 2024.

This makes me wonder now what justification there is for a new build of diesel stock for the medium term. Obviously we'll need some 75mph DMUs eventually, for routes like the HOWL/ Far North/ WHL, but that may be twenty years away before we need to worry about that.

Also, if we want a "solution" for quiet/ marginal routes then I'd find it hard to justify three million pounds for a 172.

 

[Metrailway]

If you don't want a significant increase in operational costs on routes Pacers currently operate on, then a Class 172 would not be a suitable replacement. A single Class 172 car weighs around 40 tonnes. A single Class 142 car weighs around 25 tonnes. A Class 139 weighs 12 tonnes

 

[The Ham]

Even only about 40 route miles of electrification for Basingstoke to Salisbury (about 75 route miles if you do the Salisbury 6 as well) would free up at least 9 sets (11 sets is the Salisbury 6 was done too) of 158's and 159's.

Although that would only be 10% of the 142's it would make a good start, as some of the freed sets could be 3 coach sets.

Up it to about 170 route miles by electrifying to Exeter and you would free up most of SWT's DMU's (where they have 41) to be able to go elsewhere.

Add in Salisbury to Bath (about 40 route miles) and SWT's could be a totally DMU free TOC, with the added bonus that the Cardiff-Portsmouth FGW services could also become EMU's.

That would still allow nearly 300 miles of electrification to happen elsewhere.

 

[Beveridges]

I think the 2019 Pacer replacement should be cascaded 156's / 158's. That would be a huge improvement.

Pacers are cheap & nasty and are unsuitable for anything other than the shortest distance work, so why in 2013 are they still being used on long distance services such as:

Blackpool South - Colne (1 hour 50 minutes)
Man Picc - Chester via Altrincham (1 hour 30 minutes)
Man Picc - Sheffield (1 hour 20 minutes)
Man Air - Southport (1 hour 20 minutes ?? )

These are probably the worst services in the UK you can possibly ride end-to-end.
Any more anyone wish to add ?

Even if the Pacers get scrapped from 2019, which is too far away as it is, I'd like to believe they will be removed from the long-distance routes well before then.

 

[pemma]

If you don't want a significant increase in operational costs on routes Pacers currently operate on, then a Class 172 would not be a suitable replacement. A single Class 172 car weighs around 40 tonnes. A single Class 142 car weighs around 25 tonnes. A Class 139 weighs 12 tonnes

Note that these days there are a lot of 142+142 and 142+150 diagrams. There are even 5 car Pacer diagrams on the Calder Vale line. A 3 car 172 is longer than a 4 car 142 so comparing running costs for a 2 car 172 with a 2 car 142 is not really appropriate. It is probable that if 172s were ordered that they would replace Sprinters which would be cascaded down to replace the 142s.

Also note that if Pacers were to be kept in service for much longer than an expensive refurbishment and life extension program would be required (even ignoring DDA requirements.)

 

[AndyLandy]

I used to think that we'd need a hundred or so 75mph DMUs built before the end of the decade to get round DDA.

Now, with almost a thousand miles of line to be electrified by 2019, I think that there's a decent chance that CP6 will see a lot of the "gaps" electrified too (e.g. CP5 sees the MML wired as far as Sheffield which makes the shortish sections to Leeds/ Moorthorpe/ Doncaster ripe for CP6).

Even five hundred miles of targetted electrification in CP6 would free up significant numbers of 75mph DMUs, to the point where I think that (even after withdrawing all Pacers, the 121s and the 153s) we may have more DMUs than we need in 2024.

This makes me wonder now what justification there is for a new build of diesel stock for the medium term. Obviously we'll need some 75mph DMUs eventually, for routes like the HOWL/ Far North/ WHL, but that may be twenty years away before we need to worry about that.

Also, if we want a "solution" for quiet/ marginal routes then I'd find it hard to justify three million pounds for a 172.

The question for me is how we handle the 'limbo' period that is CP6? We're required to have DDA* compliant trains by 2019, and by the end of CP6 in 2024, we should have targetted enough electrification to completely eliminate the need for vast numbers of DMUs. I wonder if there are cheap ways that could keep the Pacers going until 2024.

*I know it's not called DDA any more, but you know what I mean!

 

[pemma]

Man Picc - Chester via Altrincham (1 hour 30 minutes)

In the Manchester direction if you get a 142+150 combination there is a visibility issue at the Manchester bound platform at Mouldsworth meaning only one set can be open even though the platform is long enough to accommodate both sets. The rear set is then usually opened at Northwich meaning anyone boarding at stations before Northwich has to put up with the Pacer even though there's a 150 on the back.

 

[tbtc]

The question for me is how we handle the 'limbo' period that is CP6? We're required to have DDA* compliant trains by 2019, and by the end of CP6 in 2024, we should have targetted enough electrification to completely eliminate the need for vast numbers of DMUs. I wonder if there are cheap ways that could keep the Pacers going until 2024.

*I know it's not called DDA any more, but you know what I mean!

That's exactly it - there's a crunch period coming betwen the 31/12/2019 accesibility deadline and a time around 2024 when I think we'll have replaced the need for most of the current 75mph DMU diagrams (bar a few rural routes).

At the moment, I think we have a chance of getting rid of all 142s before the deadline (assuming we don't start lots of new DMU routes, like some of the proposals on here) so I think that it'd be worth patching up (some? all?) 143/144s to make them "compliant" to squeeze another five years out of them.

I'm sure you could come up with a way of wiring 500 miles of targetted lines that'd free up large numbers of DMUs (Warrington Central line, Bolton to Southport, Uckfield, Stockport to Doncaster etc).

 

[starrymarkb]

I think the 2019 Pacer replacement should be cascaded 156's / 158's. That would be a huge improvement.

Pacers are cheap & nasty and are unsuitable for anything other than the shortest distance work, so why in 2013 are they still being used on long distance services such as:

Blackpool South - Colne (1 hour 50 minutes)
Man Picc - Chester via Altrincham (1 hour 30 minutes)
Man Picc - Sheffield (1 hour 20 minutes)
Man Air - Southport (1 hour 20 minutes ?? )

These are probably the worst services in the UK you can possibly ride end-to-end.
Any more anyone wish to add ?

Even if the Pacers get scrapped from 2019, which is too far away as it is, I'd like to believe they will be removed from the long-distance routes well before then.

There is also Exmouth-Barnstaple (1hr 45 usually on a 143) in FGW land. But then I understand the FGW pacers are in better shape then the Northern Ones

 

[Muzer]

For DDA purposes, it doesn't matter what shape they're in.

 

[pemma]

At the moment, I think we have a chance of getting rid of all 142s before the deadline (assuming we don't start lots of new DMU routes, like some of the proposals on here) so I think that it'd be worth patching up (some? all?) 143/144s to make them "compliant" to squeeze another five years out of them.

It's not just proposals on here but Network Rail proposals as part of the Northern Hub. If you're not going to run additional diesel services than schemes like the Todmorden Curve will be pointless until 2024.

I do thing refurbished 143s and 144s could be utilised as replacement for single 153s on some routes.

I'm sure you could come up with a way of wiring 500 miles of targetted lines that'd free up large numbers of DMUs (Warrington Central line, Bolton to Southport, Uckfield, Stockport to Doncaster etc).

Remember Bolton-Southport would only allow half of Northern's Southport services to switch to EMU as the other half travel via Atherton. However, saying that a lot of the Airport-Southport services are now 4 car Pacers.

There is also Exmouth-Barnstaple (1hr 45 usually on a 143) in FGW land. But then I understand the FGW pacers are in better shape then the Northern Ones

The Northern Rail routes listed by Beveridges are all class 142 routes, many of which have the original interior and some of which have the dreaded Merseytravel interior. Some of the Yorkshire Pacer routes are class 144 routes which have an interior comparable to the ATW/FGW Pacers.