Modern day Pacer

[The Ham]

If you electrify the right bits first, the pacers could be replaced before the end of 2024, meaning you may only need to have an exectption for some of the pacers for 6-18 months.

 

[edwin_m]

Could also look at the Stadler GTW. This is available in a variety of dimensions and with a diesel or electric central "power pack" between the two passenger sections, so there is the possiblity of ordering DMUs and rebuilding them as EMUs later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadler_GTW

 

[starrymarkb]

I'm not sure if the GTW is still in production? It seems to have been Merged with the FLIRT (which now has a Diesel powerpack option for Bi-Mode operation). Of Course Stadler will still build one as they specialise in Custom trains

 

[brianthegiant]

The problem with Pacers isn't just the bad ride quality, poor accessibility, unreliability & general poor appearance that makes you feel like you're in a developing country. The problem is that the whole concept is out of date. That out of date concept is building rolling stock as cheap as humanly possible, with full lifecycle costs not emphasised enough.

Posters on this thread mention numerous modifications being made to address shortcomings. Modifying existing systems is always considerably more expensive than getting them right before manufacture.

Much has changed since Pacers were conceived, routes are busier, delays are heavily penalised. Furthermore trains are ever more complex and designing from scratch comes with massive risk of unforseen design risk.

When pacers get replaced it will likely be a variant of a train already in service in other markets.

 

[Manchester77]

Ok so people go on about how the pacers are in such a bad condition. The comments are usually aimed at northerns 142s - tak a look at the state of northern rails stock thread. The 142s are in a better condition than northerns 150s I'd much rather sit on a well padded 142bus seat than an 150 where the seats have almost no padding and haven't had any real change since BR introduced them.

Other operators pacers are quite decent, all have been refurbished ATW 142s are simular to their 150s haveing a clean and functional interior, FGWs may operate routes more akin to 150 workings but I wouldn't say they have a bad interior.

Also the expression that he trains have developing country interior, such a pathetic over exaggeration.

 

[rebmcr]

Could also look at the Stadler GTW. This is available in a variety of dimensions and with a diesel or electric central "power pack" between the two passenger sections, so there is the possiblity of ordering DMUs and rebuilding them as EMUs later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadler_GTW

Nobody is going to pay for a high floor design conversion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd much rather sit on a well padded 142bus seat than an 150 where the seats have almost no padding and haven't had any real change since BR introduced them.

Given the choice, I'd sit on a vestibule floor atop bogies, rather than anywhere in a Pacer (OK except the cab).

 

[edwin_m]

Nobody is going to pay for a high floor design conversion.

Statement of fact or just an opinion?

You may be right, but the end parts containing the passengers are relatively low-tech with all the equipment in the central module, so a high floor version might not be quite as difficult as it first appears. It might even be possible to have a 914mm floor for level boarding to a standard British platform. Lower sector gauge could be a problem for the power module though.

 

[starrymarkb]

Given Stadler will happily build affordable units to any Gauge (800mm to Russian) and any Voltage (including 3 phase), with or without rack in batches as low as one unit*, I think an order for say 50 high floor GTWs would not be a problem!

*The unique MIB railcar in Switzerland is a good example of their flexibility and it can't have been too expensive as everything else the railway has bought has been Second Hand (in some cases dating back to 1940 or earlier)

 

[Bevan Price]

The problem with Pacers isn't just the bad ride quality, poor accessibility, unreliability & general poor appearance that makes you feel like you're in a developing country. The problem is that the whole concept is out of date. That out of date concept is building rolling stock as cheap as humanly possible, with full lifecycle costs not emphasised enough.

.

But do DfT and Treasury understand that concept ? I suspect their preferred option could well be another "cheap & nasty" design, to operate thos Pacer duties that cannot be covered by cascaded 150s & 153s.

 

[samuelmorris]

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

IMO we really need to start doing something about track that can't handle vehicles of 'typical modern vehicle' weight. Rather than bend the rolling stock to fit the infrastructure, it should really be the other way round.

 

[transmanche]

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.

I'm not an engineer; but wouldn't it make a difference that the weight of a single Class 142 car is only spread over 2 axles, whereas the weight of a single Class 172 car is spread over 4 axles. So the axle load of the Class 172 would be lower than that of the Class 142.

Surely that makes the 172 a better choice than a Pacer if you're considering track maintenance costs?

Sits back to await the inevitable corrections following my total misunderstanding of the science!

 

[talltim]

I'm not sure it's track weight limits that's the issue, more the cost of running a heavier vehicle, fuel and access charges

 

[Metrailway]

I'm not an engineer; but wouldn't it make a difference that the weight of a single Class 142 car is only spread over 2 axles, whereas the weight of a single Class 172 car is spread over 4 axles. So the axle load of the Class 172 would be lower than that of the Class 142.

Surely that makes the 172 a better choice than a Pacer if you're considering track maintenance costs?

Sits back to await the inevitable corrections following my total misunderstanding of the science!

I don't have figures for the 172 but Pacers are charged less by NR for track usage when compared to the other Turbostars. Presumably because Pacers cause less track wear. I would not be able to explain why as I am also not an engineer. Figures from: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...harges/b - track usage price list for cp4.pdf

Pacers:

142: 3.95ppvm
143: 3.93ppvm
144: 3.93ppvm

Turbostars:

168: 6.65ppvm
170: 7.29ppvm
171: 6.74ppvm

In addition to this, as Pacers are significantly lighter, they should require less fuel. They also have lower rated engines. However, diesel engines have become more fuel efficient in recent years, so this may not be the case.

 

[edwin_m]

Thanks Met - I was considering digging out those figures but decided it was far too late at night! There are some more recent ones somewhere, probably on the impenetrable ORR website.

Interesting that the 150 on the linked list is 4.99p per vehicle mile so the difference can't be down to maximum speed. Also interesting that the 168, 170 and 171 have different figures despite being 99% identical!

In theory the access charge takes account of the wear and tear caused by each unit, which will allow for things like how track friendly the bogies are. The same weight on fewer axles will indeed cause less wear and tear but as pointed out the Pacers are lighter so this may cancel out to a large extent. In fact it may be that this effect is only significant at the sort of axle loads seen on locos and freight trains, as without checking all the figures it would seem that the access charge for these units is roughly proportional to their weight.

 

[transmanche]

Interesting that the 150 on the linked list is 4.99p per vehicle mile so the difference can't be down to maximum speed. Also interesting that the 168, 170 and 171 have different figures despite being 99% identical!

In theory the access charge takes account of the wear and tear caused by each unit, which will allow for things like how track friendly the bogies are. The same weight on fewer axles will indeed cause less wear and tear but as pointed out the Pacers are lighter so this may cancel out to a large extent.

Thanks for the comments so far (and to Metrailway for digging out the charges).

I'll throw this into the mix, from Rail magazine in January 2008:

Each [Class 172] vehicle is around three tonnes lighter than a normal Class 170 because they are fitted with B5000 bogies - as used under Class 220 Voyagers - rather than the Turbostar P3-23 and T3-23 power and trailer bogies. The result is that a three-car Class 172 will weigh 122.7 tonnes rather than a Class 170 133t. Bombardier also hopes that using B5000 bogies will result in lower track access charges for the train.

If that's true, then I guess the track access charges for a 172 may be a bit less than for a 170 - but still more than for a Pacer.

The articie also quotes the head of Bombardier UK as saying "The new [Class 172] Turbostar trains would also be an ideal replacement for the ageing Pacer trains in the UK and I will be discussing this possibility with train operators of the Pacers in the near future." But then he would say that, wouldn't he!

 

[andyb2706]

I think they have already decided on the replacement for the pacers in the North West.......it's the Class 319 hand me down Thameslink trains followed by the inevitable casscade of slightly better units and the possible withdrawal of some pacers...oh joy! second hand stock again.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Could also look at the Stadler GTW. This is available in a variety of dimensions and with a diesel or electric central "power pack" between the two passenger sections, so there is the possibility of ordering DMUs and rebuilding them as EMUs later.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadler_GTW

I have refrained from entering this thread so far, as my views on the Class 142 units have been stated many times over the last two years on the numerous "variations on a theme" Pacer threads.

This is the year 2013. The reasons appertaining to the original raison d'etre for Pacer introduction no longer apply with the growth in rail travel and whilst the London areas have seen a great percentage increase in passenger numbers on a year-by-year basis, the areas that are normally covered by Class 142 units (Manchester Airport to Southport being an example already mentioned in a posting on this thread) are not the "branch lines under of danger of being closed", as seems to be the usual explanation given by certain forum members in the past for the decision to employ such low-quality rail transportation units.

Let us all remember that the North of England in 2013 is just as much deserving of modern rail transportation units as any other area.

 

[pemma]

I think they have already decided on the replacement for the pacers in the North West.......it's the Class 319 hand me down Thameslink trains followed by the inevitable casscade of slightly better units and the possible withdrawal of some pacers...oh joy! second hand stock again.

Really?

The last government proposed 200+ extra DMU carriages for extra capacity needed for Northern, TPE and FGW (in addition to the cascaded 150s as a result of the 172 order) to meet passenger demand by the end of 2012. They then dropped the idea in favour of electrification and cascaded EMUs from Thameslink.

There are 356 class 319 carriages which seems quite a bit more than the 200 diesel carriages proposed. However, there are some important considerations to remember:
1. The 200+ DMU carriages were to meet extra demand by the end of 2012. Passenger demand has continued to grow since then.
2. Since the proposed 200+ DMU order extra services have been proposed e.g. Burnley-Manchester services and extending some Calder Vale services to Manchester Airport and the infrastructure work to allow the extra services has been given the go ahead.
3. The 319s are currently less flexible so a 4 car EMU could finish up running a service that was expected to be a 2 car DMU in the off-peak periods.
4. The proposed 200+ DMU carriages were set to get carriages of around 23.5m in length so a class 319 carriage will provide less capacity, even though DfT usually ignore carriage lengths in their press releases about cascades and new orders.
5. Even if you count the 150 extra carriages as Pacer replacement vehicles that's no-where near enough to replace the Northern Pacers, never mind all Pacers.

 

[starrymarkb]

Stadler's stuff is far ahead of a pacer. I'd say a FLIRT derivative would be more likely for the UK.

I'd also like to see something like the Talent 2 in the UK, those are very nice units in my limited experience
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think they have already decided on the replacement for the pacers in the North West.......it's the Class 319 hand me down Thameslink trains followed by the inevitable casscade of slightly better units and the possible withdrawal of some pacers...oh joy! second hand stock again.

Um, I'd look at what's happened in the past. Line is wired, to keep costs down second hand stock is used. Couple of years later New Build EMUs are ordered (For Example Class 323 in Manchester or 333 & 321/9 in Yorkshire)

 

[pemma]

I don't have figures for the 172 but Pacers are charged less by NR for track usage when compared to the other Turbostars. Presumably because Pacers cause less track wear. I would not be able to explain why as I am also not an engineer. Figures from: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse...harges/b - track usage price list for cp4.pdf

Pacers:

142: 3.95ppvm
143: 3.93ppvm
144: 3.93ppvm

Turbostars:

168: 6.65ppvm
170: 7.29ppvm
171: 6.74ppvm

You're missing a key point. A 75mph Turbostar would have lower track access charges than a 100mph, just like a 90mph class 158 has higher track access charges than a 75mph class 156.

If Northern wanted a formation from their Heaton depot that gives 300 seats they'd have 2 options:
1. A 6 car 142 costing 23.7p per mile.
2. A 4 car 156 costing 21.68p per mile.

The latter would also allow a single guard to walk from one end of the train to the other, which the former certainly wouldn't.

I'd be surprised if a 75mph 3 car 172 (which would give similar capacity to 2 x 142s) didn't have lower track access costs than the figures you've given for other Turbostars.

The Pacers may be light and appear to have cheap track access charges but the track access charges are actually high considering their weight and carriage length. They do put wear on the track and you can easily hear them doing that on sharp bends.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Um, I'd look at what's happened in the past. Line is wired, to keep costs down second hand stock is used. Couple of years later New Build EMUs are ordered (For Example Class 323 in Manchester or 333 & 321/9 in Yorkshire)

What lines were wired in the Manchester area that got new trains soon after? Apart from two very short sections of track: Hazel Grove-Stockport and the Airport spur off the Styal line when it opened EMUs had been operating in the area for a while. While those two short extensions were around the same time as the Sale line was converted to Metrolink so the cascaded stock didn't need to come from another part of the country.

 

[AndyLandy]

Um, I'd look at what's happened in the past. Line is wired, to keep costs down second hand stock is used. Couple of years later New Build EMUs are ordered (For Example Class 323 in Manchester or 333 & 321/9 in Yorkshire)

That's exactly what I expect to happen. We buy new EMUs for the South, resulting in a unified fleet of Electrostars for Southern and SouthEastern. The random hodge-podge of existing units is cascaded to the North to immediately take advantage of new wires going up. Then, when a new Northern franchise is awarded, with lots of recently electrified route miles, it's under the proviso that the train fleet is replaced with new units.

 

[starrymarkb]

What lines were wired in the Manchester area that got new trains soon after? Apart from two very short sections of track: Hazel Grove-Stockport and the Airport spur off the Styal line when it opened EMUs had been operating in the area for a while. While those two short extensions were around the same time as the Sale line was converted to Metrolink so the cascaded stock didn't need to come from another part of the country.

Sorry I think I've muddled the Glossop 506->304?->323 with what happened in Yorkshire

 

[A0wen]

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

Except Pacers are high density units designed to allow quick boarding / unloading whereas the 156s / 158s are longer distance units - so not really a suitable replacement.

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 ?? )

Except the Pacers are doing rather well at 25 years old - in fact bearing up rather better than many of the 1st gen DMU designs which were withdrawn at the same age.

Also, just because a journey has a long journey time, it doesn't mean it is a 'long distance' journey - in all of the above, the journey is no more than 50 miles. You have 'inner suburban' stock working in the London area doing exactly the same kind of distances (e.g. Cl 313s to Letchworth).

Cl 156 and 158s are routinely doing journeys which are 2 or 3 times that length.

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

And how many people, on a daily basis, are doing those journeys 'end to end' on a Pacer. I suspect the number runs into a couple of hundred at best.

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.

See above - I don't think the examples you've given are 'long distance' routes. 156s and 158s are currently operating 'long distance' routes.

 

[transmanche]

Except Pacers are high density units designed to allow quick boarding / unloading whereas the 156s / 158s are longer distance units - so not really a suitable replacement.

Although Pacers are too often found doing work that really belongs to a 156 or 158 - such as Newcastle-Carlisle (1h25-1h30)

Also, just because a journey has a long journey time, it doesn't mean it is a 'long distance' journey - in all of the above, the journey is no more than 50 miles. You have 'inner suburban' stock working in the London area doing exactly the same kind of distances (e.g. Cl 313s to Letchworth).

True. But in the Letchworth example, those making end-to-end journeys are more likely to use the fast services to Kings Cross (operated by 317/321/365 units). On journeys such as Newcastle-Carlisle there is no express alternative.

 

[pemma]

True. But in the Letchworth example, those making end-to-end journeys are more likely to use the fast services to Kings Cross (operated by 317/321/365 units). On journeys such as Newcastle-Carlisle there is no express alternative.

Even on some routes where there is a faster alternative, the faster alternative may not make a good connection with an onward service to somewhere else or the faster service may not be that frequent, meaning catching the slower service may be sensible.

For instance, if you were doing Chester-Bolton on a Sunday in the Bolton direction the typical journey time via Altrincham is 1 hr 50, while via Warrington is typically 1 hr 56 despite via Altrincham being a longer route.

Even if Pacers were restricted to services of under 1 hour that doesn't mean someone making a journey with 3 legs doesn't have to spend 2.5 hours on Pacers in total.

 

[A0wen]

Although Pacers are too often found doing work that really belongs to a 156 or 158 - such as Newcastle-Carlisle (1h25-1h30)

You can find an exception to suit any rule if you look long and hard enough.

There are 313s doing 'Coastway' services between Brighton and Portsmouth in the south - similar time and distance. Arguably that should be a better standard of unit as well.

The simple fact is sometimes there are compromises. As I understand it, I thought the Tyne Valley line was split with a mix of 156s and Pacers?

True. But in the Letchworth example, those making end-to-end journeys are more likely to use the fast services to Kings Cross (operated by 317/321/365 units). On journeys such as Newcastle-Carlisle there is no express alternative.

Something to do with "demand" no doubt but just to introduce some facts:

Letchworth (popn 33000) station had a usage in 2011 of c 1.4m passengers - let's take a "finger in the air" guess that 2/3rds were towards London.

Hexham (the largest place between Newcastle and Carlisle) has a passenger usage of 0.3m

Carlisle station has a usage of 1.7m

Newcastle, admittedly, has a usage of 8m, but the usage towards Hexham and Carlisle is going to be a fraction of that, on the basis of the usage of the other stations.

 

[tbtc]

3. The 319s are currently less flexible so a 4 car EMU could finish up running a service that was expected to be a 2 car DMU in the off-peak periods

This is true.

But it does spoil your "a three coach 172 would be better than two 142s coupled together" argument (since the 172 is obviously less flexible).

That's exactly what I expect to happen. We buy new EMUs for the South, resulting in a unified fleet of Electrostars for Southern and SouthEastern. The random hodge-podge of existing units is cascaded to the North to immediately take advantage of new wires going up. Then, when a new Northern franchise is awarded, with lots of recently electrified route miles, it's under the proviso that the train fleet is replaced with new units.

Precisely.

Look at the North Berwick branch - the 304s it got when electrified twenty years ago were no better than the 101s (etc) that used to trundle along it - but by using "life expired" stock from Greater London, British Rail were able to justify the costs of electrification. It was later upgraded to 322s and again to 380s (as revenues/ passenger numbers increase).

Same goes with the Airedale/ Wharfdale example commonly quoted. Lets get hundreds of 377-derived EMU coaches built for the old Southern Region and encourage a cascade of other stock elsewhere - with the plan that after a few years we can build brand new EMUs (like the 380s at North Berwick and the 333s at Ilkley).

Although Pacers are too often found doing work that really belongs to a 156 or 158 - such as Newcastle-Carlisle (1h25-1h30)

True. But in the Letchworth example, those making end-to-end journeys are more likely to use the fast services to Kings Cross (operated by 317/321/365 units). On journeys such as Newcastle-Carlisle there is no express alternative.

There is an express alternative on most "long distance" Pacer lines though. I think I saw a thread suggesting that Pacers were in the minority west of Hexham - could be wrong though.

if you were doing Chester-Bolton on a Sunday in the Bolton direction

Is this a journey that a lot of people do each week though?

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 ?

The Sheffield - Manchester service departs from Sheffield a couple of minutes after the TPE "fast" service leaves Sheffield and arrives in Manchester a couple of minutes before the following "fast" service (EMT) arrives. For that reason, very few do the journey end to end on a Pacer - it's more about journeys like Hope to Sheffield or from New Mills to Manchester.

And how many people really travel all the way from Colne to Blackpool South?
By the same token, most London Underground stock is terrible (if we fill a thread assuming that a large number of people travel all the way from Cockfosters to Heathrow or from Ealing to Upminster on toiletless trains with longitudal seating 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

Most electrification schemes see some kind of timetable recast (i.e. running all of the Southport services via Bolton).

If you wired up the Atherton route too then you could save over twenty Pacers (based on seven off peak diagrams on the Southport service and seven off peak diagrams on the remaining Wigan Wallgate services, plus some doubled up diagrams and a 10%-15% spare resource for maintenance etc).

Add in the Warrington Central line (six off peak diagrams) and you could be talking thirty units freed up. Quite a significant chunk of the 142s.

There are other routes where you could free up a decent number of 75mph DMUs for shortish bits of electrification (Sheffield to Moorthorpe/ Doncaster, Guide Bridge to Marple etc) - this is where I'd expect CP6 to focus (once the "big stuff" like the GWML are out of the way).

That's why I'm confident that we can be rid of them before the end of CP6 (which means I find it hard to justify any big newbuild of replacement DMUs in the next few years).

 

[edwin_m]

Does the Class 172 comply with the latest round of Euro-regulations on engine emissions? If not then I don't think they can sell it after the end of this year.

 

[pemma]

This is true.

But it does spoil your "a three coach 172 would be better than two 142s coupled together" argument (since the 172 is obviously less flexible).

3 car 172s are still more flexible though as they have SDO.

New units (whether they be DMU or EMU) can also be ordered with lengths to suit predicted demand.

What I was getting at though is the 319s alone can't add the extra capacity needed and replace the Pacers. The proposed new DMU order would have directly/indirectly strengthened the busiest DMU services across the Northern network. On the other hand the EMU cascade will see certain services on newly electrified lines getting extra capacity whether they need it or not, meaning 200 extra EMU carriages will probably not mean as many overcrowded services get strengthened as with 200 extra DMU carriages.

If we start talking about an order of 60 x 4 car EMUs for TPE on top of the 319s then maybe we're getting somewhere with regards to replacing Pacers.

Is this a journey that a lot of people do each week though?

I'm not sure specifically about Chester and Bolton on a Sunday. However:
* There seem a lot of Cheshire students who are 'away' during the week and travel 'home' at the weekend. Both Bolton and Chester have universities even though they aren't as big as ones in other towns.
* When the first off-peak Mon-Sat train from the Mid-Cheshire line continued to Blackpool there were a lot of people who stayed on it beyond Manchester especially in the Summer.

Most electrification schemes see some kind of timetable recast (i.e. running all of the Southport services via Bolton).

Not sure that will work. Places like Atherton will need to keep a direct rail link to Manchester but I'm sure if you're proposing a half-hourly Manchester-Bolton-Southport service and a Manchester-Atherton-Wigan service then TfGM will be happy with your proposal.

 

[HSTEd]

I am not convinced there is any market for new DMUs in the long term.
The routes where electrification "would never be viable" are so small in number that it is likely to be more beneficial to simply electrify them anyway to avoid maintaining all the infrastructure for diesel units.

For example, the Far North Line/Kyle of Lochalsh line is so lightly used that it could easily be single end fed from Inverness, and would probably require almost no gauging work thanks to an almost complete lack of over-bridges along their lengths.