Pacer Safety

[Kingfisher200262]

Apologies (well, not really ) for raising this old chestnut again, but whilst I was searching for something else today, I came across the ORR Annual Health & Safety Report, which was apparently published in July this year and seems to have slipped by unnoticed (unless there's another thread that I've missed, in which case I apologise for duplicating. HERE it is.

At page 7, the ORR's Director of Health & Safety says: -

"We are particularly concerned about the ongoing use of Pacers beyond their
intended design life and we will be carefully scrutinising the industry’s plans
for ensuring they can continue to be used safely".

So what??... you might say.

Well, given that Thameslink cascades won't start to kick in until 2015/16 at the earliest, and given that DfT's position seems to be changing regarding another DMU order (Adonis' position was electrification WILL mean that fewer diesels will be needed and Villiers' position is that electrification MAY mean that fewer diesels will be needed), oughtn't the industry be getting on its starting blocks regarding a Pacer replacement initiative, in case something grim happens and the fleet suddenly gets grounded?

 

[anthony263]

I do admit that some new dmu's should be ordered soon. not just to replace the pacers but perhaps some of the class 150/153's the 153's could be re-formed back into class 155's

 

[Schnellzug]

Why can't they just let the operators decide what stock they want and when they want it rather than having to rely on whichever is the current holder of the post of Master of the Department of Transport (sorry, Department for Transport), or is that a ridiculous idea and we need the Politicians to dictate everything because it's paid for out of Tax Payers' Money?

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Why can't they just let the operators decide what stock they want and when they want it rather than having to rely on whichever is the current holder of the post of Master of the Department of Transport (sorry, Department for Transport), or is that a ridiculous idea and we need the Politicians to dictate everything because it's paid for out of Tax Payers' Money?

Because, if you take the present franchises that have Pacers (Northern, ATW & Greater Western), they were all negotiated on the basis of "steady state", meaning no growth with existing fleet.

It's a sad fact of life that on these routes, every additional passenger costs the tax payer a little bit more money and any new train that replaces an old one will cost the tax payer a lot more money.

Therefore, if the franchisee wants new trains, they have to go cap in hand to the "trainmaster general" (DfT) for a franchise variation. In the case of Greater Anglia, when NXEA agreed to take on the 379s, they negotiated an additional payment of £88M with DfT, and that's a London commuting franchise, which washes its face.

 

[fgwrich]

Why can't they just let the operators decide what stock they want and when they want it rather than having to rely on whichever is the current holder of the post of Master of the Department of Transport (sorry, Department for Transport), or is that a ridiculous idea and we need the Politicians to dictate everything because it's paid for out of Tax Payers' Money?

Exactly...Although Govermental orders can bring some advantages - the proposed DMU order for FGW, TPE & Northern would potentially mean a standardised fleet order, rather than operator X orders the cheapo 172, whilst operator Y orders something from China, Operator C orders something from South Korea and operator D orders something from Spain - so you end up with loads of different trains which are potentially incompatable...

Thinking about it, the way id prefer to see a pacer replacement program would be this - a mixture of electrification, new DMUs and electrification / New EMUs...

I.e. For First Great Western - Order say 3 / 4 22000 Class from Rotem, Potentially with corridor connections for their main X type services - Brighton, Portsmouth, Weymouth to Great Malvern, Cardiff & Birmingham (Ideas for newer services!)...Cascading the 158s onto some of the 150 operated services - and potentially cascading to other operators, with the 150 / 153s replacing the pacers...

Id then also extend and upgrade the Bristol area services with continuation of GWML electrification (Including an extention up to Weston) - and tag on the Valley Lines EMU order (Say 3/4 car variants of NI Railways 4000 class with corridors)

That would pretty much be my plan! a mixture of New DMUs, New EMUs And thurther electrification!

 

[anthony263]

I wouldnt mind Hitachi building a uk version of the a train emu for the cardiff valley lines with units being capable of 100mph which should make betting for paths on the mainline.

I certainly agree about FGW needing new units asap. those 11 4-carriage class 172's would have been very welcomed with the class 158's working the Cardiff - Taunton route which also has another benefit of these units being 90mph compared to just 75 mph .

Again this make it better for pathing particulary between Bristol TM & Taunton where crosscountry services departing taunton heading towards bristol at 16 minutes pas the hour are frequently held up waiting for the cardiff train to get onto the weston super mare loop

 

[strange6]

Mechanically speaking, from what I have seen, Pacers are very simple vehicles both in their construction and design; from an engineering perspective, I really can't see how they can suddenly become dangerous as the years advance, assuming they are competently maintained by competent personnel.

 

[ainsworth74]

I really can't see how they can suddenly become dangerous as the years advance

You assume that they were ever safe

I must admit out of all the rolling stock on the network, the Pacers have to be the least sturdy design around. I certainly wouldn't fancy being in one during any sort of serious collision/accident (not that I fancy being in any sort of accident really).

 

[tbtc]

I came across the ORR Annual Health & Safety Report, which was apparently published in July this year and seems to have slipped by unnoticed (unless there's another thread that I've missed

I think the closest was jcollins thread about "What would happen if Pacers had to all be withdrawn due to Carden shaft problems (http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=44555).

I'm not meaning to be critical - I genuinely don't think we've had a debate on the particular subject you've raised.

There were 500 posts, but they were mainly of the "lets bash Pacers" variety, rather than a discussion about the safety issue (lets face it, 99% of Pacer threads end up the same way).

The only two comments I have to make are:

1. Thameslink cascade may be five years away, but then I suppose that even if the Government decided they wanted 100 new DMUs build, it'd take a good few years to tender for new units/ wait for the inevitable legal challenge from Bombardier/ get the units built/ get the units tested... so maybe we have to wait the best part of five years regardless?

2. I've suggested before that one way of improving the "safety" aspect of Pacers would be to use them on branch lines (NXEA's 153 lines, LM's Bedford branch etc) where a self contained Pacer wouldn't be likely to crash into anything else (avoiding a Windsford scenario).

 

[asylumxl]

(LM's Bedford branch etc) where a self contained Pacer wouldn't be likely to crash into anything else

Ignoring the sharp curves in places that may prevent Pacers running, what's to prevent damage being done to a train passing in the other direction?

 

[142094]

They'll still be around by the turn of this decade. Nothing in this country (i.e. England) gets done quickly.

 

[tbtc]

Ignoring the sharp curves in places that may prevent Pacers running, what's to prevent damage being done to a train passing in the other direction?

You mean on the opposite line?

 

[WestCoast]

They'll still be around by the turn of this decade. Nothing in this country (i.e. England) gets done quickly.

Yeah, it's looking that way.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

....way, but then I suppose that even if the Government decided they wanted 100 new DMUs build, it'd take a good few years to tender for new units/ wait for the inevitable legal challenge from Bombardier/ get the units built/ get the units tested... so maybe we have to wait the best part of five years regardless?...

Unless Bombardier won that is, assuming they still have faith in their ability to deliver a follow-on build of 172s on time.

 

[tbtc]

Unless Bombardier won that is, assuming they still have faith in their ability to deliver a follow-on build of 172s on time.

After the delays with the initial lot of 172s I'm not sure I have that much faith in them...

 

[Kingfisher200262]

After the delays with the initial lot of 172s I'm not sure I have that much faith in them...

That's a bit defeatist! I'm astonished that there have been suggestions of a Rotem unit or a Hitachi one, but no suggestion to keep the 172 line running.

Surely, a DMU order would help Bombardier to fill the gap between their current order book and any future work they might win?

 

[ainsworth74]

After the delays with the initial lot of 172s I'm not sure I have that much faith in them...

Well that just makes you an evil tory/Siemens sympathiser and your failure to support British* companies is shocking. You should be ashamed of yourself

*Canadian

 

[tbtc]

Well that just makes you an evil tory/Siemens sympathiser and your failure to support British* companies is shocking. You should be ashamed of yourself

*Canadian

I wish there was an ability to "favourite" comments on here

 

[fgwrich]

That's a bit defeatist! I'm astonished that there have been suggestions of a Rotem unit or a Hitachi one, but no suggestion to keep the 172 line running.

Surely, a DMU order would help Bombardier to fill the gap between their current order book and any future work they might win?

To be honest, i don't - Its Bombardiers fault really, almost stuck on the Model T Ford concept - you can have any DMU design you like, as long as its a 170(Now 172)...Which of course lost them the Irish Rail Intercity DMU Contract, to Hyundi Rotem (Builders of the excellent 22000), which gave Irish Rail what they wanted...And as an excellent Intercity DMU - Id love to have a deccent fleet of them over here!

It pretty much harks back to my argument with Bombardier, of that there doing is there own Managements fault...

Well that just makes you an evil tory/Siemens sympathiser and your failure to support British** companies is shocking. You should be ashamed of yourself

*Canadian

**Headquarterd in that funny evil country called Germany!

I wish there was an ability to "favourite" comments on here

Same here

 

[BestWestern]

It's really quite amusing that the 'powers-that-be' see fit make statements suggesting they are 'concerned' about the use of a certain type of rolling stock, when they know full well how hard-up the railways are on that front and it's common knowledge that a slightly different department of the same 'powers' exercise complete control over the whole scenario!

Pacers won't be going anywhere for quite some time yet, and any mass grounding/withdrawal won't happen until their replacements have been delivered. Can you imagine the political fallout if half of the train service in South Wales/Northern England etc was just cancelled one day because all the units were pulled!?

On the technical front, they are cheap and simple and what is needed to replace them is something designed in a similar vein, albeit safer, rather than a fleet of big heavy thirsty 172s/Desiros or whatever. Needless cost won't help the case for replacing them. As some have already suggested, a sensible idea would be to pull all the 150s/153s/158s off the branchlines and send in the Pacer replacements, freeing up the Sprinters for mainline use.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

It's really quite amusing that the 'powers-that-be' see fit make statements suggesting they are 'concerned' about the use of a certain type of rolling stock, when they know full well how hard-up the railways are on that front and it's common knowledge that a slightly different department of the same 'powers' exercise complete control over the whole scenario!

Pacers won't be going anywhere for quite some time yet, and any mass grounding/withdrawal won't happen until their replacements have been delivered. Can you imagine the political fallout if half of the train service in South Wales/Northern England etc was just cancelled one day because all the units were pulled!?

On the technical front, they are cheap and simple and what is needed to replace them is something designed in a similar vein, albeit safer, rather than a fleet of big heavy thirsty 172s/Desiros or whatever. Needless cost won't help the case for replacing them. As some have already suggested, a sensible idea would be to pull all the 150s/153s/158s off the branchlines and send in the Pacer replacements, freeing up the Sprinters for mainline use.

I completely agree with your point of view. One UK TOC developed a strategy for a "low cost DMU" project to replace Pacers several years ago, but was not allowed to take it forward by the same 'powers' that you refer to.

At the time, that was probably the right decision (or at least a tolerable decision), as Pacers will have given a further ten years service, even if replacement began now, but we can't really afford to wait much longer before starting some initiative to replace Pacers, in my opinion.

 

[HST Power]

My knowledge on this subject is limited, but as has been said repeatedly, the Pacer is here to stay!

A few weeks ago, I got chatting to a Voyager driver at Newcastle Station. I questioned him on his railway career and the ins and outs of the industry, and eventually, this subject came up. He defended both Pacers (and Voyagers) saying that if there was one type of train that had to be replaced, it was actually the HST. Now as my name suggests, I am a HST loyalist, but when I got home I realized he had a very good point. Whilst Pacers struggle on some track gradients and have been banned from certain lines, the process of replacing them is going to be tricky and in the current economic climate TOC's will want to keep their stock running, rather than investing sums of money in buying new trains. There is of course the Sprinter argument (as I say, my knowledge is limited ) so I won't delve into that, but this same driver showed me the cab of his Voyager then walked me over to the cab of a HST, and I could fully understand his reasoning when he said to me that it was actually the High Speed Trains that needed the boot.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

At least three years have now elapsed with Pacer replacement in mind, in which time two different Governments have been in power, with supposedly differing views on rail travel.

The extension of the First TPE franchaise to 2014 (at the earliest) to have a concurrent franchaise timetable as that as Northern Rail, with the fact that no franchaisee will order new trains in the final three years of their existing franchaise, means an easy way has been found for putting off a decision on the matter of Pacer replacements.

Sorry to sound cynical, but can you blame me for the way that I feel, in that the situation is being managed "from above on high" :roll:

 

[tbtc]

It's really quite amusing that the 'powers-that-be' see fit make statements suggesting they are 'concerned' about the use of a certain type of rolling stock, when they know full well how hard-up the railways are on that front and it's common knowledge that a slightly different department of the same 'powers' exercise complete control over the whole scenario!

Ah, but this is the genius of privatisation!

It allows the Government to control everything in the railways (from the types of trains that can be ordered to the fares charged to the infrastructure improvements)...

...yet it allows the Government to wash their hands of any failure (and blame the complicated mix of private companies for failing to be perfect, given the resources that they have).

What politician would want to nationalise the railways (and have to acept responsibility) or privatise the railways (and have to give up all this power)?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

At least three years have now elapsed with Pacer replacement in mind, in which time two different Governments have been in power, with supposedly differing views on rail travel.

The extension of the First TPE franchaise to 2014 (at the earliest) to have a concurrent franchaise timetable as that as Northern Rail, with the fact that no franchaisee will order new trains in the final three years of their existing franchaise, means an easy way has been found for putting off a decision on the matter of Pacer replacements.

Sorry to sound cynical, but can you blame me for the way that I feel, in that the situation is being managed "from above on high" :roll:

Out of interest Paul, what do you think a realistic timescale is for introducing replacements?

Lets say the new franchise/franchises start in 2014. The winning company then go through the procurement process. The trains are then built. The trains are then tested. The trains are gradually introduced into service.

Realistically, can all of that be done within five years (for, say, 100 DMUs)? Because if Pacers have to be gone by the end of the decade then thats the "window" that we have.

Can anyone confirm how long it took between new TOCs starting franchises and them having introduced a whole new class of units? (maybe this is a separate thread, I'm just not sure whether everything can be ordered/ designed/ built/ tested/ introduced in such a timescale)

 

[swt_passenger]

I wouldnt mind Hitachi building a uk version of the a train emu for the cardiff valley lines with units being capable of 100mph which should make betting for paths on the mainline.

I certainly agree about FGW needing new units asap. those 11 4-carriage class 172's would have been very welcomed...

The ITT never got as far as the preferred bidder stage before withdrawal. The 202 vehicle order included 11 x 4 car DMUs for FGW, but they shouldn't really be described as 172s...

 

[tom1649]

Is the general consensus that Mark 1s were safer than Pacers then? Mark 1s certainly felt better built.

 

[Greenback]

Ah, but this is the genius of privatisation!

It allows the Government to control everything in the railways (from the types of trains that can be ordered to the fares charged to the infrastructure improvements)...

...yet it allows the Government to wash their hands of any failure (and blame the complicated mix of private companies for failing to be perfect, given the resources that they have).

What politician would want to nationalise the railways (and have to acept responsibility) or privatise the railways (and have to give up all this power)?

Spot on there!

Out of interest Paul, what do you think a realistic timescale is for introducing replacements?

Lets say the new franchise/franchises start in 2014. The winning company then go through the procurement process. The trains are then built. The trains are then tested. The trains are gradually introduced into service.

Realistically, can all of that be done within five years (for, say, 100 DMUs)? Because if Pacers have to be gone by the end of the decade then thats the "window" that we have.

Can anyone confirm how long it took between new TOCs starting franchises and them having introduced a whole new class of units? (maybe this is a separate thread, I'm just not sure whether everything can be ordered/ designed/ built/ tested/ introduced in such a timescale)

Does it have to be though? The report quote in the OP merely mentions the industry plans for continuing the use of Pacers beyond their design life.

That looks to me as though the onus will be put on the TOC's to amend the Pacer fleet to ensure that they remain 'safe'. Presumably this will allow them to be used until new units are delivered and tested, rather than be removed by a cut off date?

 

[gazthomas]

Then again if you can milk pacers for £'s annually why bother?

I appreciate these units have had refreshes, upgrades etc but does this justify the current leasing costs?

Should be called renting not leasing!

 

[Lampshade]

It's just money for old rope, Pacers were given to the ROSCOs with a balance sheet figure of £0, as long as Pacers are around it's just an easy profit for them.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I certainly agree about FGW needing new units asap. those 11 4-carriage class 172's would have been very welcomed with the class 158's working the Cardiff - Taunton route which also has another benefit of these units being 90mph compared to just 75 mph .

Again this make it better for pathing particulary between Bristol TM & Taunton where crosscountry services departing taunton heading towards bristol at 16 minutes pas the hour are frequently held up waiting for the cardiff train to get onto the weston super mare loop

My opinion is any new 172s or cascaded 166/165 units (all three of which are more 'outer-suburban' than 'regional express') in the Great Western 'west fleet' should be used on Cardiff-Taunton and more local services, with Cardiff - Portsmouth remaining 158 operated (with the crowded workings extended to 4-car at the earliest possible opertunity).

I'd very much like to see Pacers replaced mainly by means of electrification and new EMUs, which in most cases would cascade 150s or 17xs to replace pacers. Take the ValleyLines, a new fleet of updated, lightened, 377s would be the stock I'd suggest (keeps a UK train factory, just a shame it is owned by the Canadians). That would replace the 30 Pacers there, plus release a few 150s (8 for FGW to rid them of their last few Pacers).

That leaves Northern with about 100 Pacers I think. I'd also suggest the use of 165s (cascaded by GWML electrification) from Chiltern (who'd then get 165s from FGW) or direct from FGW around Newcastle, where they are aparently already cleared. Electrifying Gospel Oak - Barking would release some 172s, which could perhaps join those at London Midland (perhaps with their add on order too), sending their remaining Sprinters to replace Northern Pacers. London Midland's 170s could be the next target, replaced by electrifying the services from Birmingham to Hereford, Rugeley Trent Valley and Shrewsbury (Aberystwyth would get it's hourly service but the trains would terminate at Shrewsbury). I'm not sure how much wiring you could get done though, as at about 170 route miles per year I think there's only 2019 left to replace Pacers once the ValleyLines are electrified. Maybe a third electrification team (doing third rail projects) is needed, they could do Uckfield and Mashlink lines, plus maybe Wrexham Central - Bidston (which I expect would then become a Mersyrail route) and Southampton - Romesy.