Northern Pacer Withdrawals - Info?

[Chester1]

Also, I'm not convinced the DfT will grant derogations for Pacers etc as it will give the TOCs and leasing companies an opportunity to kick the issue into the long grass.

That and the fact that there will soon be more suitable and less politically toxic diesel stock available.

Can anyone who posts that pacers will stay actually explain why that will happen in the event of insufficient 195s being ready? I don't believe mean that you feel that will be the case but actually why the alternatives will not happen instead. The first thing Grayling or a future Transport Secretary is going to ask if presented with a franchise variation and pacer derogation request is "what are the alternatives"?

 

[Killingworth]

The Hope Valley line was graced with a stopping service today for the first time in many months. Welcome back.

The 9.14 from Sheffield was rammed full, largely due to the preceeding TPE service being cancelled due to a points failure east of Scunthorpe.

The 10.14 must have left Sheffield heavily laden. At Dore it looked as though all would have difficulty getting aboard. The guard achieved it, but the crush was so great a young man with 2 year old opted to leave the train for fear of being suffocated or crushed.

These had been Pacers. The 12.14 departure 150 was also well loaded with a few standing.

Hopefully all these grown up trains we're being promised will soon replace Pacers so there's more space to breathe. But politically the Pacers have to go. More pictures like these are available from stations across the north to add pressure. But we must have more capacity to meet current demand, let alone increases of 10-50% possible on many lines in the next 10 years.

 

[Cardiff123]

There are identical pictures available on stations on the Valley lines worked by Pacers in south Wales.

Between 4:30 - 6:30pm, if a 2 car Pacer departs from Cardiff Central, by the time it reaches Cathays (just 2 stops from Cardiff Central) no one is getting on.

 

[Chris217]

And there's your problem staring you all in the face.
A 2 car train on very busy services!
The TOC knows how busy these services get but offer no extra provision.
The fact that it was a pacer rather than a 150 is one for the anti-pacer brigade to moan about.
If it were a pair of Pacers,then that may have told a different story.
Overcrowding is nothing to do with it
being a Pacer. It could be a 2 car 150 and
still be overcrowded.
Blame the operators not the trains.
I cannot believe for one minute that 195s
when introduced,will eleviate current overcrowding especially peak times out of
Manchester Piccadilly

 

[Mathew S]

I cannot believe for one minute that 195s
when introduced,will eleviate current overcrowding

With the greatest of respect, what you 'believe' is immaterial. It is the facts that are important.
195s have a greater capacity than the units they are replacing. The units that will cascade to replace the 142s (150s, 156s, etc) have far greater capacity than the 142s. Any other two car train in the Northern fleet has more capacity than a two car pacer.

 

[Chris217]

Just watched that BBC news clip.
They claim it will be illegal to use Pacers from 1st Jan 2020.
If there is still a major stock shortage by this date,would it be acceptable to scrap working trains because the Government demands it?
Cascades and new type introductions could be delayed as already seen.
The Government decides whether it's legal or not,which is in another form,an interference.
Illegal is illegal regardless of date.
It's just stupid new rules that these people make regardless of them even using the trains in question.
Operators are then required to replace existing stock,to comply with new rules.
Let politicians dictate to our running of the railways and see the mess it causes.
Ok,some operators need new trains but to blame one type is pathetic as the railways suffered many years of under investment .
Who knows in 35 year time someone else will be moaning about the 195s,but it won't be me as I'll be long gone lol.

 

[Chris217]

If new trains bring greater demand,
then the new trains won't be long enough lol.
Reminiscing the days of Cross Country with the lovely 47s on load 7 mk2s.
Compared to the 4 or 5 car Voyagers that were their replacements was a step backwards!
And like the new trains they were at the time,came with many teething problems.
Current 195 fleets still not entered service with their teething problems on going.
Expect Pacers to be retired later rather than sooner.

 

[PHILIPE]

And there's your problem staring you all in the face.
A 2 car train on very busy services!
The TOC knows how busy these services get but offer no extra provision.
The fact that it was a pacer rather than a 150 is one for the anti-pacer brigade to moan about.
If it were a pair of Pacers,then that may have told a different story.
Overcrowding is nothing to do with it
being a Pacer. It could be a 2 car 150 and
still be overcrowded.
Blame the operators not the trains.
I cannot believe for one minute that 195s
when introduced,will eleviate current overcrowding especially peak times out of
Manchester Piccadilly

The trains that the operators have to use are determined by the DFT so TOC not to blame. The last ATW franchise was let on a no growth basis and TFW have had to inherit the situation.

 

[Chester1]

With the greatest of respect, what you 'believe' is immaterial. It is the facts that are important.
195s have a greater capacity than the units they are replacing. The units that will cascade to replace the 142s (150s, 156s, etc) have far greater capacity than the 142s. Any other two car train in the Northern fleet has more capacity than a two car pacer.

Spot on. I see no one has replied to my post asking people to explain why pacers will receive derogations if the 195s are not in service in time rather than the alternatives. As it stands, training has been agreed with the unions and the first two or three units should be in service for the May timetable change.

If new trains bring greater demand,
then the new trains won't be long enough lol.
Reminiscing the days of Cross Country with the lovely 47s on load 7 mk2s.
Compared to the 4 or 5 car Voyagers that were their replacements was a step backwards!
And like the new trains they were at the time,came with many teething problems.
Current 195 fleets still not entered service with their teething problems on going.
Expect Pacers to be retired later rather than sooner.

Why an earth would the secretary of state allow it rather than telling Northern to obtain basically any other diesel stock available and granting derogations to anything thats not a pacer?

Showing photos of crowded pacers and saying the 195s are not going to be ready is not evidence. No sane politician is going to grant a derogation for pacers.

Why grant derogations to pacers rather than:

a) derogations for units not done on time and 153s

b) derogations for 319s and 323s to prioritise introducing 195s over 323s

c) 185s - even if most spare go to Ireland there is a few weeks leeway. Before IR wanted them people still insisted pacers would never leave by 2020 despite the 22 units TPE sending off lease being equivalent to about half the 195s due to be in service by 2020. If the IR tender falls through then problem solved.

d) 67s (18 unused) + Mark IVs from LNER

e) derogations for mini HSTs - a solution seemingly proposed on this forum for anything apart from Northern services

 

[Killingworth]

Pictures of overloaded Pacers prove why it is practically as well as politically impossible to keep the old workhorses going any longer, derogation or not. They are an anachronism that needs preserving, on heritage railways, not on busy commuter and leisure routes.

 

[CM]

The trains that the operators have to use are determined by the DFT so TOC not to blame. The last ATW franchise was let on a no growth basis and TFW have had to inherit the situation.

Then perhaps it's time the DfT allowed operators to make decisions on what trains to use and what trains to lease. I thought the railways were privatised, or is that only when it suits the DfT....

 

[Chris125]

Then perhaps it's time the DfT allowed operators to make decisions on what trains to use and what trains to lease. I thought the railways were privatised, or is that only when it suits the DfT....

Operators wont invest in something whose costs can't be recouped in the remainder of the franchise so the DfT must play a role, especially when taxpayers money is involved - it's not a black and white issue, and people will just as much blame the DfT for inaction (707s to go off-lease, potentially allowing 185s to leave for Ireland) as interference.

 

[sprinterguy]

Why does the fall back *have* to be retaining pacers?! This is what I don't understand about the regular comments on this forum that pacers won't go. There replacements are electrification, cascaded units and 769s, not 195s which are for Northern Connect services. 153s are closer to compliance than pacers and could be granted derogations for use attached to compliant units. Mark IIIs are an option for longer services, again they are less toxic politically. Mark IVs are already compliant and TfW will be using them with 67s (there are plenty of them free). 185s are another option. Basically any diesel powered units are more suited to the services that 195s will run than pacers.

The 195s might not directly replace Pacers (Though note that most of the 'Northern Connect' routes are existing services, some of which presently do see diagrammed Pacers) but they are very much required in order to allow the Pacers to be withdrawn. Northern have received all 49 of the cascaded units they were planned to and, while some haven't entered service or are undergoing PRM-TSI mods, a good proportion are in service and haven't made a dent in Pacer numbers. Likewise the recent conservative introduction of electric trains to the Bolton route.

The 153s likely will be reprieved in a pinch but 19 carriages is a drop in the ocean when you consider that Northern operate just over a hundred Pacers.

Pacer replacement was supposed to commence the best part of 6 months ago, with the last unit to be withdrawn barely 6 weeks before the PRM-TSI deadline according to the proposed schedule, and with no date for the introduction to service for the 195s it's hardly surprising that some of us are sceptical that they will all be withdrawn before the end of this year.

 

[Chester1]

The 195s might not directly replace Pacers (Though note that most of the 'Northern Connect' routes are existing services, some of which presently do see diagrammed Pacers) but they are very much required in order to allow the Pacers to be withdrawn. Northern have received all 49 of the cascaded units they were planned to and, while some haven't entered service or are undergoing PRM-TSI mods, a good proportion are in service and haven't made a dent in Pacer numbers. Likewise the recent conservative introduction of electric trains to the Bolton route.

The 153s likely will be reprieved in a pinch but 19 carriages is a drop in the ocean when you consider that Northern operate just over a hundred Pacers.

Pacer replacement was supposed to commence the best part of 6 months ago, with the last unit to be withdrawn barely 6 weeks before the PRM-TSI deadline according to the proposed schedule, and with no date for the introduction to service for the 195s it's hardly surprising that some of us are sceptical that they will all be withdrawn before the end of this year.

While a good proportion of cascaded units have entered service plenty of units are away for upgrade, so when you add the new services the net result is no reduction in short forming. That should not be the case in January 2020. If PRM mods still need to be done then a 1 year derogation could be granted so that only 3-4 units units are away at once. A 153 has about 2/3s of the seats of a pacer so if the 10 going off lease from other ToCs this year are leased by Northern then 18 units tagged to sprinters will make a significant difference in January. As you said yourself EMU introduction is conservative, what are we talking about? I don't know tbh. Electrification should free up 20 DMUs by May.

You have stated reasons why there is a good chance of a shortage of DMUs in January but not why its going to be of the scale that cannot be plugged by alternatives e.g. 185s and Mark IVs or why the Secretary of State would allow the cheapest option and personally approve it through varying the franchise agreement and granting pacer derogations.

If the 8x769s enter service by the end of the year but not a single 195, then the shortfall would be about 40 units not the 100 or so Pacers. In reality some will enter service. Its a shortfall than can be plugged by alternatives other than pacers.

Edit: there are now 3 x 319s opperating through Bolton which frees up 6 DMUs on paper. Another 14 will be freed up once the extension lead is finished and / or May timetable change. Some Pacers can go in May, especially if the first 195s and 769s are in service. No doubt members of this site will be demanding they stay because their peak time train to work is overcrowded...

 

[Bertie the bus]

d) 67s (18 unused) + Mark IVs from LNER

e) derogations for mini HSTs - a solution seemingly proposed on this forum for anything apart from Northern services

Yes, I can just see 67s + Mk IVs working Preston - Ormskirk services and mini HSTs working Scunthorpe - Doncaster. Those options are far more likely than Pacers staggering on for a few more months.

 

[js1000]

That and the fact that there will soon be more suitable and less politically toxic diesel stock available.

Can anyone who posts that pacers will stay actually explain why that will happen in the event of insufficient 195s being ready? I don't believe mean that you feel that will be the case but actually why the alternatives will not happen instead. The first thing Grayling or a future Transport Secretary is going to ask if presented with a franchise variation and pacer derogation request is "what are the alternatives"?

Just watched that BBC news clip.
They claim it will be illegal to use Pacers from 1st Jan 2020.
If there is still a major stock shortage by this date,would it be acceptable to scrap working trains because the Government demands it?
Cascades and new type introductions could be delayed as already seen.
The Government decides whether it's legal or not,which is in another form,an interference.
Illegal is illegal regardless of date.
It's just stupid new rules that these people make regardless of them even using the trains in question.
Operators are then required to replace existing stock,to comply with new rules.
Let politicians dictate to our running of the railways and see the mess it causes.
Ok,some operators need new trains but to blame one type is pathetic as the railways suffered many years of under investment .
Who knows in 35 year time someone else will be moaning about the 195s,but it won't be me as I'll be long gone lol.

Then perhaps it's time the DfT allowed operators to make decisions on what trains to use and what trains to lease. I thought the railways were privatised, or is that only when it suits the DfT....

I have very little sympathy for TOCs and ROSCOs in regards to PRM modifications. They've had nearly 10 years to prepare for this under the Railway Regulations 2011.

I wouldn't even argue that derogations for non-compliant PRM stock are "politically toxic". The problem as I see it is if the DfT did grant derogations on something that was announced nearly 10 years ago then what's not to say the TOCs and ROSCOs will try to drag another 1, 2, 3+ years out of non-compliant PRM rolling stock?

The DfT or government are not 'interfering' with the private sector. All they are doing is ensuring those with reduced mobility enjoy a level of accessibility that (unfortunately) most abled people take for granted.

Derogations will open a Pandora's Box. If it means short-forming in early 2020 for PRM trains then so be it. It's now or never.

 

[Chester1]

Yes, I can just see 67s + Mk IVs working Preston - Ormskirk services and mini HSTs working Scunthorpe - Doncaster. Those options are far more likely than Pacers staggering on for a few more months.

Wow, I had no idea 195s will be running Preston-Ormskirk and Scunthorpe-Doncaster!!!!! Mark IVs or 185s would be fine running Northern Connect services for 6-12 months. If ~40 X 195s are not in service then Northern will be short of units to run Northern Connect services. It will have nearly all the slower units by May, just that many will away for PRM mods.

 

[Bertie the bus]

Mark IVs or 185s would be fine running Northern Connect services for 6-12 months. If ~40 X 195s are not in service then Northern will be short of units to run Northern Connect services.

Even for this forum your ideas are hilarious fantasy. Mini HSTs and 67s with Mk IVs. Absolute nonsense. Maintenance, crew training (when Northern will also be training crew on 195s and 331s), cost, maintaining timetables, replacing non-compliant stock with stock which is erm, non-compliant to name just a few things are reasons your dreams will remain just that.

 

[Chester1]

Even for this forum your ideas are hilarious fantasy. Mini HSTs and 67s with Mk IVs. Absolute nonsense. Maintenance, crew training (when Northern will also be training crew on 195s and 331s), cost, maintaining timetables, replacing non-compliant stock with stock which is erm, non-compliant to name just a few things are reasons your dreams will remain just that.

Mark IVs were quoted by @driver_m who I think is a Northern driver. We are talking about a ToC that ran Mark IIs on the Cumbrian coast. Keeping 8 x 153s and obtaining 10 that will be off lease soon, sure thats a fantasy because hardly anyone signs 153s.... I added mini HST as a windup because they are proposed for basically anything on this site. Derogations for 319s and 323s to prioritise introducing 195s over 331s, nah, they will just grant derogations to pacers instead!

Northern are today only 8 units (the 769s) short of their 2020 total for secondhand / converted units. If thats not enough once they are PRM modded and a full electric timetable is introduced then tough, thats all they are getting until 2022. Whether this is right or wrong is irrelevant, Northerns rolling stock plan has always been based on peak time overcrowding while scrapping pacers. Lets face it people are going to moan either way and scrapping pacers is cheaper than running them.

Northern need approximately 40 x 195s to run their December 2019 Connect services. If they don't have enough they will not introduce the genuinely new services, borrow 185s and scrap together maybe 10 off lease units that vaugely meet the requirements for Northern Connect services. Keeping pacers won't figure in the plan.

 

[anamyd]

I think he's a Virgin Trains driver because on one post he referred to Pendolinos and Super Voyagers as "our"

 

[Chester1]

I think he's a Virgin Trains driver because on one post he referred to Pendolinos and Super Voyagers as "our"

Ok. Fair enough.

What about my point that Northern have already received all their second hand stock? Fleet utilisation is low because so many units are away for PRM-TSI mods and the electric timetable for Bolton cannot be implemented. This doesn't change the fact that the only units that Northern will receive for local services between now and 2022 are the 8 x 769s.

The question should be which Northern Connect services will run in December and what will they be run by, not how long past 2019 will pacers run in the North. 40(ish) in service between now and December is probably too many, so the genuinely new services will not start then. Lets say half (20) are ready. Add 2 x 185s for Cumbria-Manchester, derogations for 8 x 153s to shuffle around sprinters to free up 4 x 158s. Thats the whole problem fudged for 6 months, by which point more 195s will be in service. However fancyful people think it is, id still bet on them speaking to Roscos, DRS etc and attempting to get a handful of loco hauled sets for services that don't have compliant units yet anyway. It worked for Cumbrian Coast services and far more (and better) carriages will be available.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I added mini HST as a windup because they are proposed for basically anything on this site.

I think you mean the saviour of everything, the 442

 

[R G NOW.]

I always thought the mini HST with only 4 coaches were being adapted for the line between Bristol and Plymouth.

 

[Killingworth]

I always thought the mini HST with only 4 coaches were being adapted for the line between Bristol and Plymouth.

For those wanting to preserve HSTs how about a few 4/5 coach units running the EMT Liverpool-Norwich and release 158s for elsewhere, trickling down to removal of Pacers? Wabtec will be running short of refurbishment work in 2020 and that might help to keep them going. Wouldn't work, before anyone wants to take this seriously. Too many short platforms for a loco hauled train.

 

[Mathew S]

For those wanting to preserve HSTs how about a few 4/5 coach units running the EMT Liverpool-Norwich and release 158s for elsewhere, trickling down to removal of Pacers? Wabtec will be running short of refurbishment work in 2020 and that might help to keep them going. Wouldn't work, before anyone wants to take this seriously. Too many short platforms for a loco hauled train.

Also because the 158s already cause delays through Manchester because of their long dwell times. HST slam door trains will make that service worse, not better. I don't disagree that more suitable stock is needed on that route, or that cascading 158s elsewhere would be useful, but HSTs are not the answer. 185s from TPE, however... that would be a different matter.

 

[Killingworth]

Also because the 158s already cause delays through Manchester because of their long dwell times. HST slam door trains will make that service worse, not better. I don't disagree that more suitable stock is needed on that route, or that cascading 158s elsewhere would be useful, but HSTs are not the answer. 185s from TPE, however... that would be a different matter.

And quite likely, but 2 x 185 essential. My previous post wasn't a serious suggestion.

 

[driver_m]

I think he's a Virgin Trains driver because on one post he referred to Pendolinos and Super Voyagers as "our"

Yep, I am a VT driver! I only mentioned the mk4s and 67s, more in line with the issues TfW may have trying to sort themselves out for being compliant. They already do loco n stock, just seems the most obvious TOC to need them in an emergency and integrate them for a short term job . Northern will probably just about scrape it, maybe have a few issues for a short while, but given the year that's just gone on there, I would have thought they'll be happier to have a few cancellations as opposed to keeping 142s on.

 

[PomWombat]

What about my point that Northern have already received all their second hand stock?

Is that right? I guess Northern have had the franchise a good while now...

In which case, Northern have to lose about 3.3km of carriages in the pacer stock, but gain 6.9km in CAF stock (3.5km DMU, 3.4km EMU) and 700m in the 769s. That's a hefty increase in capacity, even if it is the same number of units.

Perhaps they only need to run half the 195/331 stock to reach the same service level as at present.

It'll be interesting to see if there is extra growth to come from the 323 vs 319 debate going on in other threads.

However fancyful people think it is, id still bet on them speaking to Roscos, DRS etc and attempting to get a handful of loco hauled sets for services that don't have compliant units yet anyway. It worked for Cumbrian Coast services and far more (and better) carriages will be available.

I'll bet it'll more likely be led by what drivers and guards are already trained to run. Grayling might get to ask the questions "What alternatives have you considered?" but he'll respond best to answers that start with "And this option is the cheapest..."

IMHO the pacer's job was never to deal with capacity. It was to keep rural lines open until paying customers came back enough to the railway. Now that's happened, it is time to say thank you for a job well done, and offer retirement. With perhaps one or two more casual jobs lined up on the side.

But woe betide any politician that tries to take capacity away...

 

[Mathew S]

And quite likely, but 2 x 185 essential. My previous post wasn't a serious suggestion.

I know
And yess, agreed.

 

[Aivilo]

What about my point that Northern have already received all their second hand stock?

Have they? no room for additional stock due to 323s not being taken