Worst Decision by a TOC?

[yorksrob]

Personally, I think the decision not to refurbish all pacers with the same 2+2 seating as the 143's and 144's about ten years ago was a mistake.

 

[jopsuk]

I would say running a class 170 under the wires between London Liverpool Street to Lowestoft including Peterborough was a terrible decision.

Obv the Lowestoft and Peterborough services were separate, but the point stands, and is joined by Hull using 170s on the ECML (though their early success did lead them to be able to get the 222s) and Midland Mainline using 170s as "intercity" units as well on the MML (thankfully replaced by more suitable 222s)

 

[sprinterguy]

Personally, I think the decision not to refurbish all pacers with the same 2+2 seating as the 143's and 144's about ten years ago was a mistake.

Maybe not as long ago as ten years, but it certainly should have been written into the terms of the Northern franchise for such a refurbishment to be carried out at the very beginning of the franchise. For the first time in their operational lives, all the 142s in the Northern area have become united under a single operator (The different sub-fleets were distinctly separate under Regional Railways), and yet the opportunity was not taken, when the units were still likely to have a minimum of ten years of life ahead of them, to refurbish them all in one standard style. All the 142s and 143s would have had just one style of interior, regardless of operator or region (The 144s have got Richmond seating, rather than the Chapman seating fitted to ATWs' Pacers).

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed. It would have improved things in the North West in particular as they seem to be stuck with a larger proportion of unrefurbed (and Mersey's) - certainly than Yorkshire (although I'm not sure what you usually get in the North East).

 

[Lampshade]

Indeed. It would have improved things in the North West in particular as they seem to be stuck with a larger proportion of unrefurbed (and Mersey's) - certainly than Yorkshire (although I'm not sure what you usually get in the North East).

Heaton based 142s have the Northern Spirit refurb interior (green 2+2 seats, very comfy)

 

[yorksrob]

Heaton based 142s have the Northern Spirit refurb interior (green 2+2 seats, very comfy)

Oh yes, we have a few of those. I find the seats comfortable enough. but I'm not too keen on the layout. (I prefer the seating bays in the centre of the carriage as well as the disabled seats facing inwards).

 

[RyanB]

A Voyager lengthening option is something which could have been taken up but hasn't been.

If DfT had thought logically in 2004 when the TPE franchise was let they should have ordered around 55 new 7 car 222s for XC and cascaded all of the 220s and around 20 of the 221s to TPE.

DfT think logically? My good man, pigs shall fly the day that ever happens.

But 7 car Meridians for XC and Voyagers/SuperVoyagers for TPE's runs from Scotland to Manchester instead of the completely impractical 185s.

 

[387star]

I remember reading in Rail back in 2005 or 6 that Northern Rail were planning to stand down the majority of their pacers because of the cascaded class 158s and indeed several were stored (not sure why they were the ATN examples!)

 

[northwichcat]

I remember reading in Rail back in 2005 or 6 that Northern Rail were planning to stand down the majority of their pacers because of the cascaded class 158s and indeed several were stored (not sure why they were the ATN examples!)

They weren't the ATN examples. They put 12 x 142s in to storage at Blackpool which were all FNW examples and these all spent a period at FGW before returning to service with Northern.

Northern had at the time and now have over 100 Pacers so any talk of circa 30 Sprinters replacing the majority of Pacers was a load of rubbish.

 

[jon91]

Crosscountry going with 220's instead of 67's and new coaches?

I don't even think that was an option for Crosscountry since 67s were acquired primarily for the Royal Mail contract.

 

[TEW]

Loco+coaches were originally planned instead of 220s I believe, but the SRA decided more Voyagers would be a better idea.

 

[Zoe]

Loco+coaches were originally planned instead of 220s I believe, but the SRA decided more Voyagers would be a better idea.

The SRA didn't exist back then and OPRAF didn't tend to go around dictating stock orders like the SRA and DfT have done.

 

[87015]

Loco+coaches were originally planned instead of 220s I believe, but the SRA decided more Voyagers would be a better idea.

Some nice re-writing of history there....! SRA didn't get involved with XC until Operation Pumpkin had collapsed and Virgin went to them cap-in-hand.

 

[SprinterMan]

They weren't the ATN examples. They put 12 x 142s in to storage at Blackpool which were all FNW examples and these all spent a period at FGW before returning to service with Northern.

Northern had at the time and now have over 100 Pacers so any talk of circa 30 Sprinters replacing the majority of Pacers was a load of rubbish.

The 142s were stored because of the closure of the Oldham loop, were they not?

Adam

 

[WatcherZero]

Government wanted them stored as they wanted to bank the saving in (subsidised) leasing costs. GMPTE paid out of their own pockets for 4 out of the 5 to be used for strengthening, after a few months of bad publicity the Government coughed up the dough to allow all 5 to be interally cascaded at Northern.

 

[northwichcat]

The 142s were stored because of the closure of the Oldham loop, were they not?

Yes but those units aren't part of the 12 x 142s I referred to.

Government wanted them stored as they wanted to bank the saving in (subsidised) leasing costs. GMPTE paid out of their own pockets for 4 out of the 5 to be used for strengthening, after a few months of bad publicity the Government coughed up the dough to allow all 5 to be interally cascaded at Northern.

One had apparently been secured for the Tyne and Wear area but they had to wait for the LM cascades to get that extra unit after the overcrowding problems on the Calder Vale services as a result of the closure of the Oldham Loop came to light.

 

[SprinterMan]

Yes but those units aren't part of the 12 x 142s I referred to.

Oh right, sorry.
There have been quite a few instances of 142s being stored then put back into use, I didn't realise how many.

Adam

 

[northwichcat]

Oh right, sorry.
There have been quite a few instances of 142s being stored then put back into use, I didn't realise how many.

Adam

Only really 2 cases of them being stored even though the number of 142s Northern have in use has changed multiple times.

12 were put in to storage at Blackpool sidings in early 2007 as a result of extra 158s arriving in Yorkshire and the Yorkshire 156s replacing some of the 142s on the west side.

In July 2007 4 of those 142s came out of storage on a temporary basis to strengthen Chester-Altrincham-Manchester services while the Altrincham Metrolink line was closed for track replacement work.

Later in the year all 12 stored 142s went to FGW. 5 of them returned in time for the December 08 timetable change, along with the 180s. Part of the reason for the extra units were for the additional service between Manchester and Preston that was required due to the mess made by removing the Virgin Voyager services between Manchester and Scotland.

The remaining 7 that went to FGW went back to Northern towards the end of last year.

The other 5 x 142s were withdrawn when the Oldham Loop closure. There was always an intention to do this and that's why 5 of the 142s didn't get bike/luggage racks and replacement floor covering under the FNW refresh. However, obviously the Oldham Loop conversion was put back numerous times and it even delayed the Northern franchise start date. Watcher Zero has already explained how these came back in to service.

 

[WillPS]

So the intention was for the Oldham Loop closure to begin Pacer withdrawal then? Didn't realise 5 units didn't receive a full refresh under FNW.

 

[HSTEd]

Not running with the "Networker Classic" concept.

Did we ever find out why that was not taken forward?

And would those trains have retained standard SR MU jumper equipment or acquired something compatible with Networkers?

 

[northwichcat]

So the intention was for the Oldham Loop closure to begin Pacer withdrawal then?

Don't know if that was the intention or if the intention was simply to withdraw 10 carriages and the 142s being the worse trains became those 10 carriages.

Didn't realise 5 units didn't receive a full refresh under FNW.

It's easy to miss with the fully refreshed ones only having a bike/luggage rack at one end (so you'd normally assume it's at the other end if you don't see it and don't require it) and the partly refreshed ones getting replacement seat covers and repainted. The give away though is the brown colour flooring.

 

[yorksrob]

Not running with the "Networker Classic" concept.

Did we ever find out why that was not taken forward?

And would those trains have retained standard SR MU jumper equipment or acquired something compatible with Networkers?

On the plus side, we did get to keep proper trains for a further ten years.

That said, from a "normal's" point of view, it might have been a more cost-effective way of renewing the fleet.

 

[SprinterMan]

Only really 2 cases of them being stored even though the number of 142s Northern have in use has changed multiple times.

12 were put in to storage at Blackpool sidings in early 2007 as a result of extra 158s arriving in Yorkshire and the Yorkshire 156s replacing some of the 142s on the west side.

In July 2007 4 of those 142s came out of storage on a temporary basis to strengthen Chester-Altrincham-Manchester services while the Altrincham Metrolink line was closed for track replacement work.

Later in the year all 12 stored 142s went to FGW. 5 of them returned in time for the December 08 timetable change, along with the 180s. Part of the reason for the extra units were for the additional service between Manchester and Preston that was required due to the mess made by removing the Virgin Voyager services between Manchester and Scotland.

The remaining 7 that went to FGW went back to Northern towards the end of last year.

The other 5 x 142s were withdrawn when the Oldham Loop closure. There was always an intention to do this and that's why 5 of the 142s didn't get bike/luggage racks and replacement floor covering under the FNW refresh. However, obviously the Oldham Loop conversion was put back numerous times and it even delayed the Northern franchise start date. Watcher Zero has already explained how these came back in to service.

Wow thanks, you certainly know your stuff

Not running with the "Networker Classic" concept.

Did we ever find out why that was not taken forward?

And would those trains have retained standard SR MU jumper equipment or acquired something compatible with Networkers?

I'm in 2 minds about this one. It would have saved alot of money, and we wouldn't have had the problem where the 375s/377s broke all the sub-stations along the lines by drawing too much power, and we would have had newer trains alot quicker. But on the other hand, how safe is a Mark 1 chassis with a new different body bolted on to it, would it do what that pacer did at winsford in a crash?

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7021/6606603127_bdd2009794_z.jpg

Adam

 

[WillPS]

I don't think it's the Mk1 bodyshell rather than chassis that fell short in terms of safety.

I agree the Classic concept was a guddon.

 

[ert47]

I'm in 2 minds about this one. It would have saved alot of money, and we wouldn't have had the problem where the 375s/377s broke all the sub-stations along the lines by drawing too much power, and we would have had newer trains alot quicker. But on the other hand, how safe is a Mark 1 chassis with a new different body bolted on to it, would it do what that pacer did at winsford in a crash?

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7021/6606603127_bdd2009794_z.jpg

Adam

Do you know the reason why Networkers arent allowed on the Southern Network?

Is it because of Gauge reasons or something similar to what problems the Electrostars had?

 

[fgwrich]

Do you know the reason why Networkers arent allowed on the Southern Network?

Is it because of Gauge reasons or something similar to what problems the Electrostars had?

Not sure what you mean by that - though speaking of the Networkers, Network South East did consider Networkers over on the South Western side, even going to the extent of running a test with one from i think Basingstoke, to Waterloo sometime back in the 90s.

Also - speaking of the Networker Classic...That is also something else now confined to the history books, as Bombardier has now sold it for scrap.

 

[LE Greys]

Not sure what you mean by that - though speaking of the Networkers, Network South East did consider Networkers over on the South Western side, even going to the extent of running a test with one from i think Basingstoke, to Waterloo sometime back in the 90s.

Also - speaking of the Networker Classic...That is also something else now confined to the history books, as Bombardier has now sold it for scrap.

I think they simply wanted to get as many miles out of the 455s as they possibly could. They were only 10-15 years old at the time, so possibly expected to do another 30 years. By that time, Networkers would be old hat and something new would be along to replace them. Besides, they already had plans for the 341s for Crossrail, 371s for Thameslink 2000 (presumably including Great Northern), 381s to replace CIGs, VEPs and everything operating out of Fenchurch Street (the units that eventually emerged as 357s, 375s and 377s) and 471s to replace CEPs. The one that astonishes me is the 342, which was supposed to operate on the CTRL alongside Eurostars! Imagine coming in from Paris, and being held up by a little Networker beetling along, carrying commuters from Margate. hock:

Still, yet another promising late BR project overtaken by privatisation. If it had got going, I can imagine the regional versions following, perhaps a diesel Class 171 "Turbostar". Would the rolling stock of a current BR be all that different from what we now have?

 

[Schnellzug]

The one that astonishes me is the 342, which was supposed to operate on the CTRL alongside Eurostars! Imagine coming in from Paris, and being held up by a little Networker beetling along, carrying commuters from Margate. hock:

Like a Javelin, then. I suppose it would have been designed for more than 75 mph ...

 

[Batman]

In 2010 when London Midland reduced the 0704 from Rugeley Trent Valley to Birmingham New Street from 3 to 2 coaches.

 

[LE Greys]

I'll just add one. Taking 5-WESes off Waterloo-Weymouth, thus replacing a genuine inter-city unit with glorified suburban stock that is far less comfortable. Thanks a lot!