Northern Pacer Withdrawals - Info?

[Ken H]

There are disabled and disabled! The great majority of disabled people will get minimal benefit from new stock, especially when almost every Northern service is so full at peak times that even the most able have difficulty getting aboard. Getting to the toilet? Forget it, wherever it may be.

Far more important to most users I see, mostly not even registered as disabled, is the wide and/or high gap between platform and carriage door at almost all stations. As you get older you probably notice it more. Every carriage door should have an automatically extending step down to each platform at which it will call. That'll keep the body shops busy for a few years and add lots more expense to the bottom line.

If it's all about mobility I note that my station car park has almost 130 space and 7 for blue badge users who may have one or more of very many conditions. Rarely more than 2 are used when over 100 can't even get in the car park. The disabled have given their thumbs down to rail. It's the gaps and over crowding that deters many disabled travellers, not Pacers per se.

It's a sad state we're in when journalism isn't about balanced facts but ratings. No wonder it can sometimes be called fake news. Maybe not totally fake, but very much manipulated and causing us to concentrate too much attention to peripheral issues.

Disabled people of any type want to be able to get easily to, onto, around and out again from each and every train they want to catch. That means more seats = more coaches. It also means coach, platform, access and car park alterations. Pacers are a total red herring in the greater needs of most disabled people, but to comply to the letter of the legislation means many semi-disabled people may end up suffering. It also costs a lot of money..

Metrolink, when it was built, went for a no gap solution (between train and platform). They extended the platform out a little, and they fixed the track distance from the platform with a bit of sleeper, one end butted against the platform wall, the other end attached to the track with a normal base plate and Pandrol clips, stopping the track getting closer to the platform. maybe an idea that could be developed elsewhere??

Its not just disabled - its also people with prams/pushchairs...

 

[Mathew S]

Arriva for example have had the franchise only 4 years, they ordered new from the start and aside from technical issues, its hard to see what else they could have done sooner save stare into a crystal ball when putting together their bid. The real problem here is the franchising system, where companies are expected to comply with legislation that doesn't kick in until way after their franchise ends.

The problem as always lies with the government, and as always the public and the media seem to be completely blind to it.

Hence I said 'nearly five years in January', but never mind. The flaw in the let's blame the government argument is that, as a customer, my contract is with Arriva, not the DfT. So, if I have to sue to enforce my rights under the Equality Act, or any other act for that matter, it ain't the DfT that's going to court. I agree the short-term nature of franchising is partly to blame, but it takes two to do the franchise tango, and Arriva are at least as to blame as the DfT for this fiasco.

It's a sad state we're in when journalism isn't about balanced facts but ratings. No wonder it can sometimes be called fake news. Maybe not totally fake, but very much manipulated and causing us to concentrate too much attention to peripheral issues.

Good journalism (which I agree is rarer than it should be) doesn't sacrifice objectivity for ratings. You choose what stories to cover based, in part, on what you think your audience are going to want to read; but once you've decided what you're doing, you do it as fairly and impartially as you possibly can. Unless, of course, you are a print, rather than broadcast, journalist, where you're not obliged to be impartial in the first place.

Metrolink, when it was built, went for a no gap solution (between train and platform). They extended the platform out a little, and they fixed the track distance from the platform with a bit of sleeper, one end butted against the platform wall, the other end attached to the track with a normal base plate and Pandrol clips, stopping the track getting closer to the platform. maybe an idea that could be developed elsewhere??

Its not just disabled - its also people with prams/pushchairs...

Only works on Metrolink because all the trams are the same size. Can't happen on the national rail network because of the sheer variety of trains.

 

[Ken H]

...
Only works on Metrolink because all the trams are the same size. Can't happen on the national rail network because of the sheer variety of trains.

Arent group standards wonderful....

 

[hooverboy]

Metrolink, when it was built, went for a no gap solution (between train and platform). They extended the platform out a little, and they fixed the track distance from the platform with a bit of sleeper, one end butted against the platform wall, the other end attached to the track with a normal base plate and Pandrol clips, stopping the track getting closer to the platform. maybe an idea that could be developed elsewhere??

Its not just disabled - its also people with prams/pushchairs...

it's a good idea in principle to have all of that stuff aligned(germany did mostly as a post-war rebuild), but where are network rail going to find the funds for levelling every platform on the network, straightening/de canting curves, all rolling stock to have extendable step retrofitted etc etc to make everything fit.

it will cost in the tens of billions,and take years to do.
germany got away with it because they were pretty much blown to bits in ww2, so could start with a blank canvas.
Are you suggesting that we follow the same route?

certainly for new build rail this should be an industry standard,but for antiquated victorian branch lines and stations, it is not really a viable solution.

maybe someone can develop hover-chairs .that way a few centimetres difference between carriage and platform does not need complete continuity due to lack of wheels!

I guess you'd need 2 or 3 sorts,depending on the type of disability.
for paraplegics you could have the mobility scooter style with a 3-d joystick handlebar for controlling steering,speed and altitude

for the more serious type ie quatriplegics/cerebral palsy etc, then advances in AI and so on could probably get a thought/sight contoller helmet to operate it.
not beyond the bounds of possibility at all, fighter pilots do have the "if looks could kill" helmets that lock a target on sight.

 

[Ken H]

it's a good idea in principle to have all of that stuff aligned(germany did mostly as a post-war rebuild), but where are network rail going to find the funds for levelling every platform on the network, straightening/de canting curves, all rolling stock to have extendable step retrofitted etc etc to make everything fit.

it will cost in the tens of billions,and take years to do.
germany got away with it because they were pretty much blown to bits in ww2, so could start with a blank canvas.
Are you suggesting that we follow the same route?

certainly for new build rail this should be an industry standard,but for antiquated victorian branch lines and stations, it is not really a viable solution.

maybe someone can develop hover-chairs.that way a few centimetres difference between carriage and platform does not need complete continuity due to lack of wheels!

well start now by making it law that all new trains have the same height above the rail and are the same width. As the older trains are withdrawn, then you can start on reducing gaps where you can

 

[hooverboy]

well start now by making it law that all new trains have the same height above the rail and are the same width. As the older trains are withdrawn, then you can start on reducing gaps where you can

it's not just the trains, it's the interface with the platforms that is a problem.

 

[hooverboy]

it's not just the trains, it's the interface with the platforms that is a problem.

reducing train gaps on it's own is not really a sufficient remedy.There is also height and curvature differences to consider

 

[Chester1]

Nearly at 1000 posts! I suspect at least one member is deliberately posting to reach 1000!

195s have entered service and first pacers should be going next month. That is more interesting for me than what may or may not happen at the end of the year.

 

[Bantamzen]

Hence I said 'nearly five years in January', but never mind. The flaw in the let's blame the government argument is that, as a customer, my contract is with Arriva, not the DfT. So, if I have to sue to enforce my rights under the Equality Act, or any other act for that matter, it ain't the DfT that's going to court. I agree the short-term nature of franchising is partly to blame, but it takes two to do the franchise tango, and Arriva are at least as to blame as the DfT for this fiasco.

No, your contract with the TOC is for them to meet the terms and conditions set by the DfT for the franchise given. If the DfT set unrealistic targets, such as in the case of this franchise moving from a zero growth one, where there was zero incentive to invest in legislation that was applicable at least 4 years after the end of it, to expecting 100% compliance and stock renewal in less than four years, then the problem lies fairly and squarely with the franchiser. Arriva did all they could, they ordered new stock as soon as they were able which was after the franchise started in April 2016. Yes there have been rollout issues, but any good franchiser would mitigate for that. The problem here is that the legislation was instigated by a long defunct government which knew almost certainly it would not need to enforce it. By now this should be screamingly obvious.

Good journalism (which I agree is rarer than it should be) doesn't sacrifice objectivity for ratings. You choose what stories to cover based, in part, on what you think your audience are going to want to read; but once you've decided what you're doing, you do it as fairly and impartially as you possibly can. Unless, of course, you are a print, rather than broadcast, journalist, where you're not obliged to be impartial in the first place.

It all sounds wonderfully idealistic, but doesn't resemble most media regardless of platform these days. You even said it yourself further up the thread, journalists try to sell stories for the revenue they bring. Objectivity doesn't often come into it, even with the BBC. Trying watching BBC Breakfast when the Beeb has a new show or drama about to air. No, I'm afraid the days of journalistic impartiality are all but dead. To even gather a glimmer of truth one has to reference a multitude of sources from different leanings to be able to make an objective opinion on what is really going on.

 

[ed1971]

How about the government forces Northern to give passengers a full refund if their train is formed of a pacer? Passengers already get compensation if their train is more than 15 minutes late, surely it's formed of a clapped-out, wheezing, unreliable, dirty 142 unit they have been just as much inconvenienced, if not more?

Clapped out means something like the Class 104s were in their final years, rattling windows, snatchy gearchanges and diesel fumes entering the interiors. Who said anything about 142s being unreliable? Due to the modifications they have had over the years, they are now very reliable and don't have all the electronic/computer gizmo to go wrong that more modern trains have. In fact, a driver recently wrote on one of the threads on here that he has never failed a 142 in service.

 

[ed1971]

There are far more disabled people in the country than there are commuters on Pacers, and the latter group will be shrinking all the time now. The vast majority of people don't commute by train, and the vast majority of those who do, do so on trains in compliance with the law.

Extending the use of non compliant trains doesn't just affect those disabled people trying to use the lines such trains run on, or even just the disabled. It sets a precedent - businesses are free to ignore equalities legislation if it harms their profits. People will be inconvenienced by a shortage of trains yes, but the rail industry has had two decades to prepare for this - instead everyone has twiddled their thumbs hoping the disabled would just disappear and banking the cash that should have been spent making the stock fit for purpose. The TOCs and ROSCOs have brought us to this point, they shouldn't be rewarded for it - if Pacers do remain in service into 2020 I like the idea above that travel on them should be free, at Arriva's expense of course.

What is the point of having trains disabled compliant if wheelchair users can't even get on half the stations in Greater Manchester anyway? Surely this should have been dealt with first?

 

[Mathew S]

No, your contract with the TOC is for them to meet the terms and conditions set by the DfT for the franchise given.

No, it's not. And this is really very important indeed when it comes to accessibility. My, or any, passengers contract with a TOC is for the delivery of a service which is 1) as described, safe, and delivered with reasonable care and skill; 2) in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down in the NRCoT; and 3) compliant with any relevant law.
In the case of Pacers, or other non-compliant trains, from January the 1st, the TOC would be in breach of the third of those points, in the absence of any derogation.

If there were a derogation, then I could have no contractual complaint because, by definition, the non-compliant train would be legal; the secretary of state having utilised his delegated powers to disapply the relevant provisions of the Equality Act. However, in that instance, I would be within my rights to pursue a judicial review of the secretary of state's decision. For the record, it is that series of events which I think will happen.

It all sounds wonderfully idealistic, but doesn't resemble most media regardless of platform these days. You even said it yourself further up the thread, journalists try to sell stories for the revenue they bring. Objectivity doesn't often come into it, even with the BBC. Trying watching BBC Breakfast when the Beeb has a new show or drama about to air. No, I'm afraid the days of journalistic impartiality are all but dead. To even gather a glimmer of truth one has to reference a multitude of sources from different leanings to be able to make an objective opinion on what is really going on.

This has gone off topic far enough, so I'll leave it with two final points:

• Objectivity isn't the same as not having an opinion. And good journalism means you will hear things you don't agree with, even things you might think are deeply offensive. Objectivity is about reflecting all sides of the argument (where there is more than one side, because sometimes there isn't).
  
• Choosing a story because you know it will generate traffic doesn't obviate the need to cover said story with due impartiality.

Anywau, enough's enough. I suggest we leave this line of discussion here. More than happy to continue it at a meal or a meet sometime, but this isn't the place.

 

[thejuggler]

The 7.06 Leeds - Huddersfield via Bradford has been a Pacer since the new timetable.

This morning the Pacer wasn't in service, unfortunately neither was any replacement - cancelled again.

And looking at Leeds departures the Pacer has been removed again this morning. Cancelled!

 

[Bantamzen]

No, it's not. And this is really very important indeed when it comes to accessibility. My, or any, passengers contract with a TOC is for the delivery of a service which is 1) as described, safe, and delivered with reasonable care and skill; 2) in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down in the NRCoT; and 3) compliant with any relevant law.
In the case of Pacers, or other non-compliant trains, from January the 1st, the TOC would be in breach of the third of those points, in the absence of any derogation.

If there were a derogation, then I could have no contractual complaint because, by definition, the non-compliant train would be legal; the secretary of state having utilised his delegated powers to disapply the relevant provisions of the Equality Act. However, in that instance, I would be within my rights to pursue a judicial review of the secretary of state's decision. For the record, it is that series of events which I think will happen.

The franchise agreement, the National Rail Conditions of Travel, the disability legislation et al are all set by the franchiser, i.e. the government. They set the playing field, the rules & play the music. The franchise system as it stands is, as I'm sure you will agree, is broken & is the heart of the problems. We have TOCs being offered no more than short to medium terms, whilst being expected to comply with regulations that may only come into force long after their franchise may be over (as in the case of the Serco Abellio). So TOCs can only really plan to the terms and timescales of their franchises, which in the case of Arriva meant they could only order units once they had taken over the franchise, which is exactly what they did. And this is true of all TOCs. Meanwhile, the ROSCOs are being asked to find the finance to procure & lease units that have a lifespan several times that of the average franchise, whilst operating in a state of uncertainty as to whether future government policy will leave them with fleets of vehicles they can no longer lease. And all these problems originate from the DfT, whose gross mismanagement & almost preputial state of denial are reasons we are facing yet another rolling stock crisis.

I have said before on this subject that I have every sympathy for those with difficulties with travelling on our network, and I have also said that I fully expect there to be legal action when the Pacers make appearances in 2020. But to be blunt again, no judge in this country is going to be able to press a magic button and make the compliant Pacer replacements suddenly appear on demand. And so if / when it happens, TOCs will pull services, short form others and disabled & non-disabled people alike will be standing around on platforms wondering when the hell they are going to get moving.

The beginning of next year is not the time to start looking for those to blame, real, practical solutions are going to be needed. And those are not going to be found in the High Courts, but in the halls of Whitehall & Westminster, as well as planning offices of TOCs the length & breath of the country. Only when the dust settles, and all the required compliant stock is in place should the action groups & media look for their pound of flesh. So its either allow Pacers to (hopefully) supplement compliant units unit all the new builds & refurbishments are in traffic, or you & your fellow journalists are going to find plenty of work on the platforms of stations in the North, Wales, South West etc etc.

Anywau, enough's enough. I suggest we leave this line of discussion here. More than happy to continue it at a meal or a meet sometime, but this isn't the place.

Agreed.

 

[yorksrob]

No, it's not. And this is really very important indeed when it comes to accessibility. My, or any, passengers contract with a TOC is for the delivery of a service which is 1) as described, safe, and delivered with reasonable care and skill; 2) in accordance with the terms and conditions laid down in the NRCoT; and 3) compliant with any relevant law.
In the case of Pacers, or other non-compliant trains, from January the 1st, the TOC would be in breach of the third of those points, in the absence of any derogation.

If there were a derogation, then I could have no contractual complaint because, by definition, the non-compliant train would be legal; the secretary of state having utilised his delegated powers to disapply the relevant provisions of the Equality Act. However, in that instance, I would be within my rights to pursue a judicial review of the secretary of state's decision. For the record, it is that series of events which I think will happen.

This has gone off topic far enough, so I'll leave it with two final points:

• Objectivity isn't the same as not having an opinion. And good journalism means you will hear things you don't agree with, even things you might think are deeply offensive. Objectivity is about reflecting all sides of the argument (where there is more than one side, because sometimes there isn't).
  
• Choosing a story because you know it will generate traffic doesn't obviate the need to cover said story with due impartiality.

Anywau, enough's enough. I suggest we leave this line of discussion here. More than happy to continue it at a meal or a meet sometime, but this isn't the place.

I can just imagine the human story.

Person A requires use of a wheelchair and turns up to find that he can't join the accessible train that he always used to because it is full and standing. Person A goes to the press because he can't exercise his right to travel.

The press go to the TOC who say "we used to run longer trains because we were allowed to lengthen them with non-compliant stock, but since lobby group X took the Government to court, we're no longer able to do this".

This potential situation could lead to some reputational embarassment for lobby group X, therefore it would seem sensible for all such groups to work towards a compromise whereby all trains include some accessible accommodation, but not necessarily the whole train.

 

[Killingworth]

I'm not a lawyer, and some of the nuances of the English railway language escape me. However, two words are used when describing the operation of non-compliant stock. Derogation and dispensation.

I may not have grasped this fully, but my understanding is that East Midlands will have dispensation (not derogation) to continue using most of their non compliant HSTs until new stock can replace them. This from a high level within EMT.

Derogation would mean long term operation whilst not fully compliant and no prospect of certain items being made compliant. Dispensation means operation until a fixed event, usually replacement by new.

So what happens to all those old coaches on charter trains? No, don't answer that, we'll open another can of worms.

I'd expect a limited number of Pacers to be retained into 2020 as a reserve. There'll be plenty of work for the last few in service as enthusiasts dash round trying to catch them all. Only last night I walked past a chap with long lens hoping to bag a missing unit for his collection. Bad luck, the Hope Valley line only had 150s running yesterday. Things are getting better here!

 

[rich r]

I noticed some changes this morning in the Leeds area. The 144s and 142s running the Selby-Leeds route for the last 6 weeks or so have been replaced by 158s and at least one 170. I didn't see any 14x units on my commute in until we got to Leeds station, so I assume they're not doing the Leeds-York route either this morning.

Whether this is a permanent change possibly as a result of the 195's coming into service on the other side of the hill, or just due to the random selection of units I don't know of course. But it's hopeful!

 

[supervc-10]

Only works on Metrolink because all the trams are the same size. Can't happen on the national rail network because of the sheer variety of trains.

Which is why @Killingworth was suggesting an extending step, like the FLIRTs for GA will have. We already have clever selective door opening systems, which I'm sure could be adapted to include the positioning/angle of a step to cope with slight variations in platform height or to only deploy the step at certain locations.

People on here (can't remember who) have suggested making every new train design more like the FLIRTs with level boarding.

I'm not disabled, but having taken the Metrolink with luggage it's a breeze. Often, making things easier for disabled people make it easier for everyone (see PIS systems, or disabled bathrooms with space for baby changing). I've taken plenty of trains with luggage and it's been frustrating getting large suitcases on and off. I'm a 28 year old 6'2 rugby player, not the sort of person who struggles physically!

Personally I think it would be foolish to not keep some Pacers on with the caveat that they're only allowed to operate coupled to compliant stock.

 

[Mathew S]

Which is why @Killingworth was suggesting an extending step, like the FLIRTs for GA will have. We already have clever selective door opening systems, which I'm sure could be adapted to include the positioning/angle of a step to cope with slight variations in platform height or to only deploy the step at certain locations.

People on here (can't remember who) have suggested making every new train design more like the FLIRTs with level boarding.

If they can be made to work reliably, for a reasonable cost, and there's a clear understanding of what happens when they fail (e.g. can unit run, if so what's the alternative for wheelchairs etc.), then great idea.

I'm not disabled, but having taken the Metrolink with luggage it's a breeze. Often, making things easier for disabled people make it easier for everyone (see PIS systems, or disabled bathrooms with space for baby changing). I've taken plenty of trains with luggage and it's been frustrating getting large suitcases on and off. I'm a 28 year old 6'2 rugby player, not the sort of person who struggles physically!

Agree completely.

Personally I think it would be foolish to not keep some Pacers on with the caveat that they're only allowed to operate coupled to compliant stock.

Problem is you'd end up effectively restricting yourself to using pacers only on busy routes (ie. where double units usually operate) and using better units on quieter routes. That would be a solution certainly, I'm not sure it's the best one.

If, as others have said, the plan is for Northern to bring in the 195s and 331s at a rate of 9 per month, we can expect there to be 63 in service by January 1st. That would be 38 short of the final total of 101. Would a pragmatic solution not be 1 in / 1 out with the new units and the pacers, with pacers restricted to isolated services (Ormskirk, Kirkby, Whitby, etc.) where alternative transport can be laid on on request?

 

[supervc-10]

If they can be made to work reliably, for a reasonable cost, and there's a clear understanding of what happens when they fail (e.g. can unit run, if so what's the alternative for wheelchairs etc.), then great idea.

One option is to just use the ramps that are used for other stock to bridge the gap if necessary.

Problem is you'd end up effectively restricting yourself to using pacers only on busy routes (ie. where double units usually operate) and using better units on quieter routes. That would be a solution certainly, I'm not sure it's the best one.

If, as others have said, the plan is for Northern to bring in the 195s and 331s at a rate of 9 per month, we can expect there to be 63 in service by January 1st. That would be 38 short of the final total of 101. Would a pragmatic solution not be 1 in / 1 out with the new units and the pacers, with pacers restricted to isolated services (Ormskirk, Kirkby, Whitby, etc.) where alternative transport can be laid on on request?

I think that using Pacers as extra lengthening on busy routes (EG a 156+142 combo) for a few months is probably the easiest and cheapest option. I would be very surprised if we didn't see some Pacers scraped before December, but keeping some on to minimise overcrowding before the whole CAF fleet are delivered would be pragmatic.

 

[yorksrob]

If they can be made to work reliably, for a reasonable cost, and there's a clear understanding of what happens when they fail (e.g. can unit run, if so what's the alternative for wheelchairs etc.), then great idea.

Agree completely.

Problem is you'd end up effectively restricting yourself to using pacers only on busy routes (ie. where double units usually operate) and using better units on quieter routes. That would be a solution certainly, I'm not sure it's the best one.

If, as others have said, the plan is for Northern to bring in the 195s and 331s at a rate of 9 per month, we can expect there to be 63 in service by January 1st. That would be 38 short of the final total of 101. Would a pragmatic solution not be 1 in / 1 out with the new units and the pacers, with pacers restricted to isolated services (Ormskirk, Kirkby, Whitby, etc.) where alternative transport can be laid on on request?

Surely enabling all people to catch the train, rather than forcing people on to alternative transport is closer to the spirit of the law ?

Most Northern passengers are relieved to see a strengthened train, so the using them on longer trains on busy routes would be preferable.

 

[deltic08]

If, as others have said, the plan is for Northern to bring in the 195s and 331s at a rate of 9 per month, we can expect there to be 63 in service by January 1st. That would be 38 short of the final total of 101. Would a pragmatic solution not be 1 in / 1 out with the new units and the pacers, with pacers restricted to isolated services (Ormskirk, Kirkby, Whitby, etc.) where alternative transport can be laid on on request?

Surely 1 in, 2 or 3 out if numbers of seats are totalled up on a 195? Therefore you are not 38 short.

 

[Mathew S]

Surely 1 in, 2 or 3 out if numbers of seats are totalled up on a 195? Therefore you are not 38 short.

It's still 38 new trains short of 101, however many pacers you scrap for each one. Looking purely at seated capacity, though:

The seating capacity of a 2-car 195 is 124. Seating capacity of a 142 is either 114, 106, or 121; so broadly one to one. 3-car 195s are 204 seats, as are 3-car 331s, so you could argue that's 2 Pacers. And 4-car 331s are 284 seats, so 2-and-a-bit Pacers.
So, yes, I guess you could do 2 Pacers out for each new unit that comes in. If you do that, though, then you should be able to remove 126 Pacers by the end of the year. Given that Northern have fewer than that (102 altogether?), even when the ~20 153s are included, enough units should, on this basis, be in service by Jan 1st to scrap every one of them.

Of course, 2-for-1 based on capacity doesn't account for routes currently operated by a single Pacer, where you still need 1-for-1 replacement anyway.

 

[yorksrob]

Just looking at seating capacity isn't relevant in this context as you can't cut a carriage in two and use it on different services.

 

[Killingworth]

Oh for a single walk through carriage that could be added to any fixed 2, 3, 4 or 5 car unit to add capacity more easily without going from 2 to 4, or 3 to 6.

Brilliant idea eh? The Class 253 versatile ambidextrous carriage. Goes anywhere, connects with anything, emergency solution to short forms and cancelled trains. Needs relatively little space to keep in reserve at critical places ready for quick deployment.

Shame nobody thought of such a thing years ago.

 

[deltic08]

It's still 38 new trains short of 101, however many pacers you scrap for each one. Looking purely at seated capacity, though:

The seating capacity of a 2-car 195 is 124. Seating capacity of a 142 is either 114, 106, or 121; so broadly one to one. 3-car 195s are 204 seats, as are 3-car 331s, so you could argue that's 2 Pacers. And 4-car 331s are 284 seats, so 2-and-a-bit Pacers.
So, yes, I guess you could do 2 Pacers out for each new unit that comes in. If you do that, though, then you should be able to remove 126 Pacers by the end of the year. Given that Northern have fewer than that (102 altogether?), even when the ~20 153s are included, enough units should, on this basis, be in service by Jan 1st to scrap every one of them.

Of course, 2-for-1 based on capacity doesn't account for routes currently operated by a single Pacer, where you still need 1-for-1 replacement anyway.

There aren't many routes where a 331 will replace a Pacer.
With all the cascaded in units, are Northern still short of Pacer replacements?

 

[supervc-10]

Oh for a single walk through carriage that could be added to any fixed 2, 3, 4 or 5 car unit to add capacity more easily without going from 2 to 4, or 3 to 6.

Brilliant idea eh? The Class 253 versatile ambidextrous carriage. Goes anywhere, connects with anything, emergency solution to short forms and cancelled trains. Needs relatively little space to keep in reserve at critical places ready for quick deployment.

Shame nobody thought of such a thing years ago.

Shame the 153s are pretty rubbish

 

[yorksrob]

It's still 38 new trains short of 101, however many pacers you scrap for each one. Looking purely at seated capacity, though:

The seating capacity of a 2-car 195 is 124. Seating capacity of a 142 is either 114, 106, or 121; so broadly one to one. 3-car 195s are 204 seats, as are 3-car 331s, so you could argue that's 2 Pacers. And 4-car 331s are 284 seats, so 2-and-a-bit Pacers.
So, yes, I guess you could do 2 Pacers out for each new unit that comes in. If you do that, though, then you should be able to remove 126 Pacers by the end of the year. Given that Northern have fewer than that (102 altogether?), even when the ~20 153s are included, enough units should, on this basis, be in service by Jan 1st to scrap every one of them.

Of course, 2-for-1 based on capacity doesn't account for routes currently operated by a single Pacer, where you still need 1-for-1 replacement anyway.

It's dissappointing that the capacity of a 195 is so close to a pacer. I was expecting an uplift closer to sprinter capacity !

Passengers on busy pacer routes will be dissappointed if they end up with the same capacity, albeit in a new format.

Will the Hope Valley stopper, which regularly has full and standing 142's and 150's end up with a full and standig 195?

 

[yorksrob]

Shame the 153s are pretty rubbish

They do the job.

 

[Killingworth]

It's dissappointing that the capacity of a 195 is so close to a pacer. I was expecting an uplift closer to sprinter capacity !

Passengers on busy pacer routes will be dissappointed if they end up with the same capacity, albeit in a new format.

Will the Hope Valley stopper, which regularly has full and standing 142's and 150's end up with a full and standing 195?

It's all going to be OK. With all these new trains and lengthened platforms at Grindleford, Hathersage and Hope we'll get doubled up units on the Hope Valley - although 3 car Platform 2c at Sheffield may become the new reason for not doing it!