Northern Pacer Withdrawals - Info?

[hwl]

I think the point is that pacer carriages never were "normal" carriages in terms of capacity. They are shorter than 15x and mk3 based carriages, and as such aren't fit for purpose for the vast majority of Northern routes. The aim should never have been to replace 2-carriage pacer capacity like for like.

While the seating capacity may be not that much larger the standing and hence total capacities are certainly larger.

 

[yorksrob]

While the seating capacity may be not that much larger the standing and hence total capacities are certainly larger.

I just have this nightmare vision of this brave new world in five years time, with us all squashed on the same number of seats.

 

[sprinterguy]

The comments about the capacity of the 195, may be put at ease .
As the chairman of Northern was being ' grilled ' by , Look North ( Leeds ), and he did state that they are able to have more than one extra coach inserted to make for a longer run .

So were class 185s and Voyagers when they were being built, but it doesn't mean that it ever happened.

But what is to stop a 'TOC' from adding coaches

Cost, ultimately. Northern is not considered a profitable franchise, and has tight financial targets to achieve during the course of the franchise, and incurring the leasing, track access and maintenance costs of vehicles additional to those specified in the franchise agreement would impact on their ability to achieve these figures.

Plus the closure of production lines following comparatively short production runs can be a stumbling block in general, although with a large order from Transport for Wales and a new factory at Newport at least the CAF Civity production line should be open to offers for some time yet.

Which leads me to wonder what ' mark ' of coach it would be under .

Multiple unit vehicles haven't commonly been given a carriage 'mark' designation, unless their design has actually been derived from a loco hauled equivalent.

I do don't understand why the Class 158/class 170 couldn't have an extra two or three coaches added

Some of the Midland Mainline 170s and some Chiltern 'Clubman' class 168s did have extra carriages added retrospectively, demonstrating the benefits of having a long running production line. Regional Railways however were run to tight budget constraints, and in fact were tightening up diagrams in the run up to privatisation circa 1993 to cut costs, so additional class 158 vehicles were never going to be an option after the class 159 production run for Network Southeast finished. Regional Railways' whole 'Sprinterisation' programme was based around reducing the number of carriages being operated.

So are they shorter than the 170, as both that and the 158 are still excellent trains with the 170 still being made into the new millennium.

Class 195 vehicles are an equivalent length to those of class 170s (The driving vehicles actually slightly longer), the concern here is that the number of seats per vehicle is comparable to that of units with shorter carriages: Unavoidable in the days of an increased requirement for disabled spaces and accessible toilets admittedly, and as noted above the three carriage units compare more favourably with existing units due to the centre car having a high seating capacity.

 

[sprinterguy]

While the seating capacity may be not that much larger the standing and hence total capacities are certainly larger.

I just have this nightmare vision of this brave new world in five years time, with us all squashed on the same number of seats.

Yes, it seems a bit laughable that 2-car class 195s will be "alright" because you can crush so many more standing passengers onto them. You can just imagine the press release now:

"Look at our shiny new trains! You still won't get a seat because they've no more carriages than the ones they've replaced, but you and your fellow passengers have so much more room to stand, shoulder to shoulder in solidarity!"

Though it does give rise to a potential new company slogan to replace "Proud to be Northern": "Northern - Standing Together"

 

[hwl]

I just have this nightmare vision of this brave new world in five years time, with us all squashed on the same number of seats.

Yes, it seems a bit laughable that 2-car class 195s will be "alright" because you can crush so many more standing passengers onto them. You can just imagine the press release now:

"Look at our shiny new trains! You still won't get a seat because they've no more carriages than the ones they've replaced, but you and your fellow passengers have so much more room to stand, shoulder to shoulder in solidarity!"

Though it does give rise to a potential new company slogan to replace "Proud to be Northern": "Northern - Standing Together"

Welcome to commuting everywhere = more standing.
Given the subsidy levels at Northern DfT will only sign off on extra stock when the demand has already been proven to an extent so always playing catch up. This current changes are all about addressing the issues from the previous no growth franchise, it is the a case of reassess when all of Northern plans have been implemented to see where the problems are.

At least the more stock (units or additional cars) will be available from CAF for a good few years and there will be some 150s/156s/158s available for quick cheap capacity additions after the next year or so which might be the simple option as small numbers.

 

[Killingworth]

Look on the bright side, maybe. By the time of the next franchise negotiations (I know, franchising may not last much longer) all the 15x units will be approaching 40 years old and must surely need to be replaced before that term ends.

By then all the new railway carriage factories recently opened will be needing orders. Without them redundancies will threaten. Two pressures on the government paymasters. Let's see how the current new and refurbished fleet makes out. What will we need? How many more electric units might we need by then? Batteries, hydrogen? Solar panels on the roof of all trains. (Too much weight for any likely benefit I'd guess.)

By the 2030s things will look very different. We might even see more electrification and HS2 approaching the north. Other scenarios are available.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, it seems a bit laughable that 2-car class 195s will be "alright" because you can crush so many more standing passengers onto them. You can just imagine the press release now:

"Look at our shiny new trains! You still won't get a seat because they've no more carriages than the ones they've replaced, but you and your fellow passengers have so much more room to stand, shoulder to shoulder in solidarity!"

Though it does give rise to a potential new company slogan to replace "Proud to be Northern": "Northern - Standing Together"

I think it's very much the diesel issue, since the Aire Valley lines are getting six carriages and the newly electrified routes in the North West have gone from 2 carriage DMU's to 4 carriage electrics.

 

[yorksrob]

Look on the bright side, maybe. By the time of the next franchise negotiations (I know, franchising may not last much longer) all the 15x units will be approaching 40 years old and must surely need to be replaced before that term ends.

By then all the new railway carriage factories recently opened will be needing orders. Without them redundancies will threaten. Two pressures on the government paymasters. Let's see how the current new and refurbished fleet makes out. What will we need? How many more electric units might we need by then? Batteries, hydrogen? Solar panels on the roof of all trains. (Too much weight for any likely benefit I'd guess.)

By the 2030s things will look very different. We might even see more electrification and HS2 approaching the north. Other scenarios are available.

Yes, I think Adonis was on theright track with the NW electrification. We just need that rolling programme.

 

[plugwash]

But a brand new '253' incorporating a further 30 years of rail development could be a very versatile, and comfortable, different matter. It could never happen?

With all the modern rules and regulations how much space would be left for passenger seating on a 1 car train?

If wikipedia's capacity figures are to be believed and we assume that the cars of a 195/0 are equivalent to the end cars of a 195/1 then we have 62 seats for an average end car and 80 seats for the a mid car. Extrapolating would suggest that a "double end car" would have only 44 seats.

 

[Killingworth]

With all the modern rules and regulations how much space would be left for passenger seating on a 1 car train?

If wikipedia's capacity figures are to be believed and we assume that the cars of a 195/0 are equivalent to the end cars of a 195/1 then we have 62 seats for an average end car and 80 seats for the a mid car. Extrapolating would suggest that a "double end car" would have only 44 seats.

This hypothetical versatile unit is suggested to reinforce a busy train, not to be used alone. As such it may only have 44 seats but can take rather more with standees. But you're probably right. Modern regulations kill the idea for a variety of reasons.

It probably wouldn't be allowed to sit around without being semi-permanently linked to another unit, thus the reserve element would be lost. The days of lines of semi-retired old coaching stock waiting to form holiday and football specials has long gone.

 

[Mathew S]

With all the modern rules and regulations how much space would be left for passenger seating on a 1 car train?

If wikipedia's capacity figures are to be believed and we assume that the cars of a 195/0 are equivalent to the end cars of a 195/1 then we have 62 seats for an average end car and 80 seats for the a mid car. Extrapolating would suggest that a "double end car" would have only 44 seats.

The end cars are not identical - one has fewer seats due to the accessible toilet and wheelchair/bike spaces which together take up the whole of the 'middle' end of that car (from the doors to the gangway).

 

[Killingworth]

Was speaking to a trainee driver today. He told me Pacers had ben withdrawn from his course - but have now been reinstated as it seems they may have to drive them quite often.

One gave up the ghost on the Hope Valley line this morning. Made it across the Pennines twice on effectively one engine, but failed to make it beyond New Mills on the second trip back, mega late and no doubt delaying other services.

 

[ainsworth74]

Whilst I agree with the general thrust regarding 195s that they should all have been three car and they should all have inter-unit gangways I can't help but feel there's an element here of people forgetting that we should, to a not inconsiderable extent, be grateful that we're even getting 91 brand new units. If we wind back time to February 2015 it required a ministerial direction from then Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin to Permanent Secretary of the DfT Philip Rutnam release the Invitation to Tender documents with a requirement to retire all Pacers by 2020 and introduce at least 120 new build vehicles.

The letters that were released make it quite clear that the DfT's preferred view was that no such requirement should feature in the ITT (I've found copies here) with some choice quotes below:

This note explains why I have reservations about the proposal to issue Invitations to Tender (ITT) for the Northern and TransPennine Express franchises containing obligations to withdraw all Pacer vehicles by 2020 and bring into operation a minimum of 120 new build vehicles.

...

There are two reasons why I am seeking a written direction in relation to this proposal. The first is that the assessment of the business case we have undertaken suggests it is poor value for money...

The analysis recognises that the Pacers will need to be replaced when they reach the end of their useful life, if the current level of service is to be maintained. The fundamental reason for the poor BCR [Benefit to Coast Ratio] is that there will be a large cost from bringing forward that replacement to 2020 ..., but relatively few benefits. ... It would be possible as an alternative to maintain the Pacers in use for longer but to modify them to bring them into compliance with disability legislation.

There are good reasons why this analysis may underestimate the true BCR. ... Withdrawal may help attract new users to rail and thus improve benefits. ... But my view supported by sensitivity analysis, is that one would need to make implausible assumptions about the size of these effects to conclude that the proposal is likely to represent value for money.

...

Finally, I should note that the extra cost of the proposal is likely to be just under £250m over the life of the franchise. Whether or not this is affordable will depend on the outcome of the next Spending Review, but I should draw attention to the pressures expected on the Department's budget.

...

So let's not lose sight of the fact that we only have Pacer replacement and brand new trains because Mr McLoughlin took the political, not financial, decision to require bidders to do just that. If it had been up to the DfT we would have had no guarantee of any of this as it would have been solely down to bidders to determine their rolling stock mix (a point which Mr Rutnam also makes to be fair). But it seems very unlikely indeed that without that requirement we'd have seen total Pacer replacement and 91 brand new units.

So yes, by all means, we can complain that the 195s should all have been three car with gangways. But let's not forget just how lucky we are to have them and their transformative impact at all...

 

[yorksrob]

Whilst I agree with the general thrust regarding 195s that they should all have been three car and they should all have inter-unit gangways I can't help but feel there's an element here of people forgetting that we should, to a not inconsiderable extent, be grateful that we're even getting 91 brand new units. If we wind back time to February 2015 it required a ministerial direction from then Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin to Permanent Secretary of the DfT Philip Rutnam release the Invitation to Tender documents with a requirement to retire all Pacers by 2020 and introduce at least 120 new build vehicles.

The letters that were released make it quite clear that the DfT's preferred view was that no such requirement should feature in the ITT (I've found copies here) with some choice quotes below:



So let's not lose sight of the fact that we only have Pacer replacement and brand new trains because Mr McLoughlin took the political, not financial, decision to require bidders to do just that. If it had been up to the DfT we would have had no guarantee of any of this as it would have been solely down to bidders to determine their rolling stock mix (a point which Mr Rutnam also makes to be fair). But it seems very unlikely indeed that without that requirement we'd have seen total Pacer replacement and 91 brand new units.

So yes, by all means, we can complain that the 195s should all have been three car with gangways. But let's not forget just how lucky we are to have them and their transformative impact at all...

A point well made.

It illustrates that Mr McLoughlin was indeed a safe pair of hands, as well as how clueless the DfT are at running a railway (in that they seem to think that rolling stock can continue for eternity, so long as it's used on a subsidised route).

 

[rich r]

So yes, by all means, we can complain that the 195s should all have been three car with gangways. But let's not forget just how lucky we are to have them and their transformative impact at all...

Sadly it's going to be a long time before some areas see a 195, if ever. I suspect many areas in the east of Northern's region not on the Connect routes will be running mainly 15x units once the Pacers have finally gone, which whilst a bit larger and slightly more comfortable (in the case of 158s), they're almost as old and a coat of paint and some new seat cushions isn't going to be that long lasting. I'd still rather have a 144 than a 153.

I wish we hadn't had 5 months of 170s on Leeds-Selby route this year before going back to 142s and 144s to be honest. If we hadn't had the 'new' 170s, we'd never had known Northern had better trains (whether there's any truth in the Harrogate MP demanding them back I don't know). I guess we can look forward to having 195s in 30 years time when they're the embarrassing old unit that has to be used somewhere.

 

[krus_aragon]

I guess we can look forward to having 195s in 30 years time when they're the embarrassing old unit that has to be used somewhere.

You might get the 175s in a similar role before that!

 

[yorksrob]

Whilst I agree with the general thrust regarding 195s that they should all have been three car and they should all have inter-unit gangways I can't help but feel there's an element here of people forgetting that we should, to a not inconsiderable extent, be grateful that we're even getting 91 brand new units. If we wind back time to February 2015 it required a ministerial direction from then Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin to Permanent Secretary of the DfT Philip Rutnam release the Invitation to Tender documents with a requirement to retire all Pacers by 2020 and introduce at least 120 new build vehicles.

The letters that were released make it quite clear that the DfT's preferred view was that no such requirement should feature in the ITT (I've found copies here) with some choice quotes below:



So let's not lose sight of the fact that we only have Pacer replacement and brand new trains because Mr McLoughlin took the political, not financial, decision to require bidders to do just that. If it had been up to the DfT we would have had no guarantee of any of this as it would have been solely down to bidders to determine their rolling stock mix (a point which Mr Rutnam also makes to be fair). But it seems very unlikely indeed that without that requirement we'd have seen total Pacer replacement and 91 brand new units.

So yes, by all means, we can complain that the 195s should all have been three car with gangways. But let's not forget just how lucky we are to have them and their transformative impact at all...

Of course, this does beg the question - if the rolling stock leasing system was working properly, shouldn't the ROSCO's have replaced the life-expired 142's off their own bat ?

 

[ainsworth74]

Of course, this does beg the question - if the rolling stock leasing system was working properly, shouldn't the ROSCO's have replaced the life-expired 142's off their own bat ?

Why would they? If people will still pay them money for a deprecated asset why would they buy a new one and endure the capital cost?

 

[yorksrob]

I wish we hadn't had 5 months of 170s on Leeds-Selby route this year before going back to 142s and 144s to be honest. If we hadn't had the 'new' 170s, we'd never had known Northern had better trains (whether there's any truth in the Harrogate MP demanding them back I don't know). I guess we can look forward to having 195s in 30 years time when they're the embarrassing old unit that has to be used somewhere.

As the band 'James' put it:

"If I hadn't known such riches, I could live with being poor. Oh sit down, oh sit down, sit down on the Merseyrail pacer seat........"

Well, almost.

 

[coppercapped]

Of course, this does beg the question - if the rolling stock leasing system was working properly, shouldn't the ROSCO's have replaced the life-expired 142's off their own bat ?

What do you mean by 'life expired'?

Are you referring to the accountancy concept of 'book life' or the engineering one of 'fatigue life'?

 

[yorksrob]

Why would they? If people will still pay them money for a deprecated asset why would they buy a new one and endure the capital cost?

Which begs the question, what are ROSCO's for, if they won't provide competition for train operators and they won't renew their assets when life-expired.

 

[yorksrob]

What do you mean by 'life expired'?

Are you referring to the accountancy concept of 'book life' or the engineering one of 'fatigue life'?

I'm talking about the 30 - 40 years it becomes uneconomical to maintain a DMU in front line service.

It shouldn't really have required the franchise to specify pacer replacements, as the 142's are reaching that stage anyway.

 

[deltic08]

Whilst I agree with the general thrust regarding 195s that they should all have been three car and they should all have inter-unit gangways I can't help but feel there's an element here of people forgetting that we should, to a not inconsiderable extent, be grateful that we're even getting 91 brand new units. If we wind back time to February 2015 it required a ministerial direction from then Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin to Permanent Secretary of the DfT Philip Rutnam release the Invitation to Tender documents with a requirement to retire all Pacers by 2020 and introduce at least 120 new build vehicles.

The letters that were released make it quite clear that the DfT's preferred view was that no such requirement should feature in the ITT (I've found copies here) with some choice quotes below:



So let's not lose sight of the fact that we only have Pacer replacement and brand new trains because Mr McLoughlin took the political, not financial, decision to require bidders to do just that. If it had been up to the DfT we would have had no guarantee of any of this as it would have been solely down to bidders to determine their rolling stock mix (a point which Mr Rutnam also makes to be fair). But it seems very unlikely indeed that without that requirement we'd have seen total Pacer replacement and 91 brand new units.

So yes, by all means, we can complain that the 195s should all have been three car with gangways. But let's not forget just how lucky we are to have them and their transformative impact at all...

What an arrogant irk this Rutnam creature is. He should be given a Pacer after withdrawal and made to commute in it for the remainder of it and his life.

 

[deltic08]

What an arrogant irk this Rutnam creature is. He should be given a Pacer after withdrawal and made to commute in it for the remainder of it and his life.

Both long I hope.

 

[superkev]

I'm not sure at what point costs of mainly body repairs make new build a better option, but the 12plus months to refub the rust bucket 155s or weld in new solebars and sometimes roofs to 150s and mk3s, makes me wonder.
Dont forget repairs will not be as rust protected as the original so won't last as long so you may need to repeat the process in another few years.
K

 

[danielnez1]

I'm not sure at what point costs of mainly body repairs make new build a better option, but the 12plus months to refub the rust bucket 155s or weld in new solebars and sometimes roofs to 150s and mk3s, makes me wonder.
Dont forget repairs will not be as rust protected as the original so won't last as long so you may need to repeat the process in another few years.
K

I guess the BCR for the 155s west tipped towards benefit (hopefully with that in mind).

To me it's rather notable that Angel has not (at least publicly) offered a PRM compliant 142; I'd guess extensive corrosion retrification work or even a rebody would have been necessary.

 

[ed1971]

I guess the BCR for the 155s west tipped towards benefit (hopefully with that in mind).

To me it's rather notable that Angel has not (at least publicly) offered a PRM compliant 142; I'd guess extensive corrosion retrification work or even a rebody would have been necessary.

In 2013, Angel decided that they were not going to upgrade the 142s to PRM requirements and withdraw them in 2019. RAIL EXPRESS magazine issue June 2013 carried an article about it.

Yes, a rebody would probably have been required or at least something like a 'National Greenway' revamp (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Lancs_Greenway). From what I have read, the Alexander bodies on 143s and 144s are in a lot better condition.

 

[jonesy3001]

So which pacers are going to go first, the 142s or 144s?

 

[HSTEd]

How many 195/196 would it take to replace the entire Northern DMU fleet?

As I've stated here before the government should select one diesel, one electric, one bi mode and one fast unit and standardise on them.
If necessary the design should be licenced and the factories should compete for them.

In the absence of a working 100mph bimode, the 195/196 (please say they will be MU compatible?!) should be ordered in very large numbers to replace the entire ex BR diesel fleet. Passenger growth and overcrowding will keep the units occupied once the bimode arrives.

 

[krus_aragon]

So which pacers are going to go first, the 142s or 144s?

The (now ancient) original plan was for the 144s to go first, as they're a smaller fleet.

However, if the rumoured short-term transfer of Pacers to TfW were to happen, they'd prefer to receive 142s, as they don't operate any 144s.