Great Western Coffee Shop

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/health_safety_report_2011.pdf

There were a number of notable incidents with rolling stock, the causes of which are as yet inconclusive;... cardan shaft failures on class 142 ^Pacers^. More rolling stock is being used beyond its intended design life and we have devoted an increasing amount of time monitoring the safety performance and maintenance of older rolling stock to verify that procedures are in place to ensure ongoing safe operation. We are particularly concerned about the ongoing use of Pacers beyond their intended design life and we will be scrutinising the industry^s plans for ensuring they can continue to be used safely

I do agree that the industry and the governemnt need to announce something to do with replacing the pacers.

FGW should be ok as they could use the displaced class 165/166's from the thames valley as well as the class 150's although they would need replacing eventually.

ATW should be ok if the valley lines are wired and the wires do eventually get to Swansea.

Now for Northern, i know that there is that chineese firm CSRE who do have some train deisgns are very low prices  and who plan on opening a uk factory if they get orders.

 I noticed hitachi have been advertising some new EMU in the lastest issues of the various railway magazines so maybe perhaps a dmu version could be built.

Other than that maybe order a few class 172's from Bombardier

the class 142 is actually slightly newer than the class 150

The 150 was built to a higher budget with a longer life expectancy though.  Making some of the 150s DDA complaint may prove economically viable allowing them to remain in service post-2019, while it's been decided that making 142s DDA complaint is not economically viable as the cost of doing it would pay for 40-50% of a new train.

As mentioned in the OP the cause of multiple carden shaft failures on Pacers (a serious problem) has yet to be established.  Yet no serious problems have occurred with 150s.

it was my understanding that sprinters also suffer from the same engine drop problem as the pacers (but less frequently) .... as for bringing them upto scratch .... how long does a journey have to be before toilets are needed (i know that this is only one thing that needs altering).... but for example manchester-marple probably doesnt need toilets so they would just rip them out?

I believe trains need toilets if the service they work on is more than 1 hour or something although that is till not very popular with passengers ie southern class 313's

The Pacer has numerous DDA infringements.  The biggest one is not the toilets but the double step and because of the double step it requires a specially extended ramp with the extended ramp being unsuitable for stations which have narrow platforms such as Guide Bridge and Salford Crescent.  Those two being key because so many Pacer services call at them.

Just to give you some sort of idea to how much work would be need to be done to most of the Northern 142s:
* Double step removed.
* Destination blinds replaced by larger LED displays.
* Reliable on board audio and visual announcements of stations.
* All original bus seating replaced because it is too low down.
* Doors replaced by doors which can withstand a wheelchair crashing in to them without damaging them.
* New DDA complaint door controls.
* New DDA toilet at front or back of train.

Frequency and facility at stations are important too.  Marple was mentioned.  Now some of the Marple services continue to Sheffield that call at some small villages in the Hope Valley where the frequency is one train every 2 hours off-peak, which also provide starting/ending points for scenic walks.  Now if one of those trains was cancelled and the next one turned up without a toilet imagine how you'd feel as a passenger having no toilet available to you for the two hours+ you were waiting and then up to a further hour while travelling.

Merseyrail don't have toilets but the major stations they call at all have toilets and the frequency is at least every 15 minutes, except for a couple of stations where the frequency is every 30 minutes.

The toilet on train option is much cheaper than making sure every station with at least 250,000 journeys per annum has a toilet or quadrupling the frequency of service, which are really the alternatives.

That all presupposes that UK train operators will have to comply with DDA legislation. Less stringent laws are making there way through the European Parliament at the moment and legislation harmonisation may well see laws that are practical for the newer entrant EU countries to comply with being used in the UK.

Aren't platforms much lower anyway in the rest of Europe, so steps are the norm? I don't know how they'd make French trains wheelchair accessible.

another thing which hasn't been brought up on here.... steam railways

There is no time or distance rule published regarding toilet provision. 

This was researched to death when the RMT got the media involved prior to the introduction of SN's 313 services; and no doubt the mythical '1 hour' limit will be mentioned again when they start running Brighton to Southampton Central in December...

Paul

In the US I think FRA rules stipulate no more than 45 miles on trains with no toilets. At least one transit agency therefore artificially designates a station at the centre of their network at a point at which through trains arbitrarily 'terminate' then 're-originate' so that all journeys are technically less than the required distance and they don't have to provide loos.

I'm also not sure how wheelchair access is provided in Europe at low platform stations - plenty of them around here but the trains aren't equipped with any kind of lift. In some cases a very short high section of platform (wide enough for a wheelchair to board at a single door, requiring fairly accurate stopping from the driver) is provided, otherwise the advice is to use another station.

Pacers are used on public transport whereas steam railways are a tourist attraction, which makes a big difference.

When questioned on it Philip Hammond said public transport will be largely DDA complaint by 2019 but operators will be allowed to have minor infringements if they have vehicles due for replacement in the first couple of years after DDA kicks in.

While he didn't define what major and minor infringements are, I can't see wheelchairs not being able to board at the largest station in the city of Salford being other than a major infringement, while I imagine something like destination displays half a point size too small would be a minor infringement.

Yes the only requirement for them to provide toilets is if it's in the franchise agreement or if the operator chooses to include it in their passengers charter. 

personally, I'd rather see all existing trains exempt from the regulations on the baisis that they are only going to be around for a few decades at most.  the money on disability compliance would be better spent at stations where assess is not something that will automatically "sort itself out" by the gradual renewals process and where serious upgrades are needed.

Considering the DDA compliance date was announced in the mid-1990s, no train such be running around in 2020 not having a refurbishment since then. It was at that time expected that 142s would be replaced no later than 2014.  The North West 150s got a partial DDA compliant refurb around 1998 but since then Northern Rail have mixed them in with 10x150s that have never had a full refurb.

...but I'd rather have the compliance date pushed back a decade and the money spent on station accessibilty instead.  Just seems wrong to spend money on something that will be scrapped before too long.

Which 'something' are you referring to?  The 150s?  Pacers should be scrapped before DDA kicks in anyway but relaxing DDA may tempt DfT to keep them in service even longer.

LED Destination displays and PIS can easily be fitted to 150s and then removed and kept for other units when the 150s are scrapped.

Porterbrook have mentioned a full 156 refurb including DDA compliance will keep 156s in service for 10 years after the refurb.

The government have already had enough protests at their government without reversing requirements of the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act which John Major's government brought in and outraging disability groups.  Doing so could be the final nail in the coffin for the Coalition government.

The cynic in me reckons that major and minor problems will be defined according to political and operational expediency. So I strongly suspect that in the absence of any imminent replacement, the 'largest station in Salford'/Pacer combination not being wheelchair accessible will be filed in the 'minor' category.


Let's not get overexcited with political hyperbole. People seem to have remarkably short memories about the protests the last government faced. This one of very far from done and the suggestion that the issue of Pacer replacement is going to bring it down looks a little silly.

Just so that up-to date info has been posted... this, as of last year falls under the equality act


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents

...and the Equality Act 2010 largely replaces the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

The specific part of the new act covering access to public transport can be found here:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/12

Chapter 3 of Part 12 covers the specifics for rail vehicles.

Note that these regulations are 'prospective'. European Union legislation harmonisation may see significant changes to the act.

I expect the majority of ATW's 30 150s are run in the ValleyLines and I think I read somewhere that all FGW Pacers except 8 143s will soon be off to Northern. Therefore, if the ValleyLines are electrified ATW should be able to spare 8 150s to replace FGW's 8 143s. Therefore ValleyLines electrification takes care of at least 38 of the 141 Pacers in one fell swoop. That leaves around 103 Pacers with Northern.

I feel the first step to make inroads into that lot should be to deploy 165s on routes around Newcastle since they are already cleared there according to the clearance map I found. Does anyone know just how many Pacers would be released if 165s took over the following routes (assuming any Sprinters released cover other Pacer routes in the area):

• Newcastle - Morpeth/Chathill (I'd suggest they take this opertunity to extend all Morpeth services alternatly to Chathill and stations on the route the local rail-users group want to re-open, the Ashington, Blyth and Tyne line I think they call it)
• Newcastle - Middlesbrough/Saltburn
• Darlington - Middlesbrough/Saltburn

The Bishop Auckland branch and the Carlisle - Newcastle line are not cleared for 165s according to the map and would be run using 156s, as would the Whitby branch on which clearance information was not available on the map. A totally wild guess is that would free up 10 Pacers, but I'm probablly miles off with that.

After that, it gets tricker to remove the remaining 93-ish Pacers. Gospel Oak to Barking line with 8 172s releases 0.73 rather new DMUs per mile, so electrifing that would be a good move but we're still left with 85 Pacers.

How about a new build of dmu's to replace the pacer's. You could always order from CSRE who could be cheaper than buying more class 172's from Bombardier who i suspect want to close derby anyway.

Remember part of the BBC is moving to Salford Quays including BBC Breakfast.  BBC Breakfast has people with disabilities on as guests at least once every couple of months. Salford Quays can be accessed either by an accessible tram from Manchester Piccadilly station or an accessible low floor bus from Salford Crescent station.  Disabled people can use the 150s, 156s, 180s and 185s that call at Salford Crescent station without any problems but if a 142 turns up they can't use it.  Imagine how it would look on BBC Breakfast if they said "This morning Paraolympic gold medallist, x, is due to be joining us but x is going to be a bit late as they didn't realise there are a lot of non wheelchair accessible trains being used in the area."

However, given the current state and reliability of 142s there is no way these should be in service after 2019 but saying that we had 101s in operation in the North West years after they should have been withdrawn.  Maybe the 143s and 144s could be given an exemption on condition that they are attached to a 153 when in service.


A lot of the protests the last Conservative government faced were in the 1980s.  A lot of people who are now voting age don't remember these and have no idea what 'Poll Tax' was.

Although voting turnout was up at the last election a lot of Labour supporters either stayed at home or voted for an independent or smaller party, hence the election of the first Green MP.  A lot of Conservative supporters thought Poll Tax was a good idea anyway as it meant they paid less tax while others paid more.

or a fleet of 3 car demus .... if they can turn voyagers into hybrids then they can do it with other units

That is the most incredibly sensible idea ... so of course it won't happen  ::)

With rail traffic growing as it is, services which are currently single-153 can switch to (new) 2 car units of the non-14x variety, and services which are currently 2 cars but need to expand can switch to 3 car units of class 296 (153 + 143).   That's an alternative to scrapping all the 14x units, providing extra capacity as new come in (rather than just replacing) yet having wheelchair access on every train. Neat.

Clearly something is going wrong up North then, FGW haven't had any significant issues with reliability/quality of stock once they did some remedial work on the quite frankly awful state that they arrived in. Maybe Northern should actually bother spending some money on a half decent refurb!

The carden shaft incidents have certainly all involved Northern Rail units.  However, what's the reliability like of the 142s in the FGW area?  In the Northern area it's much poorer than that of the 150s.

The 142s that didn't go to FGW that retain the original bus seating have had a deep clean, new seat covers and interior repaint. 

There are also three types of 142 interior at Northern:
1. Original bus seat interior - the most common type.
2. One where the bus seats have been replaced by a 1990s style of bus seats and had an internal dot matrix display added showing the destination of the train.  These were used in the Merseyside PTE area initially but can now appear anywhere.  This interior is the worse type unless you've a petit person.
3. One with high back 2+2 seating - the least common type.  These are the ones most commonly used in the Tyne & Wear and Yorkshire areas.  Merseyside and Greater Manchester PTEs didn't want trains with 3+2 seating refurbished with 2+2 seating.

doesn't really help mechanically   ;D

That well worn phrase, 'Polishing a t**d' comes to mind.  ;)

but you can roll it in glitter......

I thought of that maybe another new version of the turbostar, using the electrostar bodywork with the same undercarriage etc as the class 220/221/222 DEMU's.

Great idea in theory but would any train manufacturer actually build such a train? it would be good in the long term, when more lines are wired

The only difference already between Electrostar and Turbostars is the overall length.  The recent delivery of 172s with gangway ends simply completes the whole set, compare 172/2 and 172/3 with a 377, and compare a 170/171 with a 357.

Likewise, the bogie used on a 172 is a variant of that used on a 220, the B5000.

So what you are suggesting has really already happened - except there is no Turbostar variant with diesel electric transmission, if that is what you mean by the 'same undercarriage'.  Doesn't seem too difficult to do in principle - shouldn't need anything like the space used on a Voyager for 100 mph performance without tilting bodywork.

Paul

or paint a gold star on it as North Western Trains did.

My limited experience of Northern was of trains that, although of the same vintage as FGW's, appeared very neglected and dilapidated internally - well-ingrained filth, ragged seat covers etc etc. If that's symptomatic of the level of attention that Northern's units receive below the solebar than it wouldn't surprise me that they can't achieve the levels of reliability with the 142s that Exeter depot did.

The sole exception, incidentally, was the 333 fleet on the Aire Valley Line which looked in good order.


And you'll note that despite facing protest over the poll tax in the 1980s the previous Conservative government lasted until 1997. I'm struggling with the relevance of any of this to Pacer replacement in all honesty!

I'm confused by that comment.

I said earlier in the thread that Northern got better reliability from their 150s than their 142s, with the 142s being the least reliable unit they have, ignoring the 180s.

So are you saying FGW have got better reliability from 142s than 150s?

If so it could be a case of the 142s being more suitable for the routes that are being used on in the West Country.  Northern still use them on routes with very sharp bends, where the Pacer has to squeal round at 15mph, the type of bends that BR banned them from in Cornwall before making 'improvements' to the 142s to not ban them from every line in Britain with a sharp bend.

I agree about the state of the Northern Rail trains not being good.  However, you're talking about 'limited experience' of Northern and then mentioning one small fleet of trains that only operate around Leeds.  Have you for instance been on a Northern 323 which was originally fitted out to an almost identical interior to a 165 or been on a refurbished Northern 150 (i.e. a former First North Western one)?  If you put 50 passengers on the latter and then put them on a refurbished FGW 150 I can't see any preferring the Northern one but there was no way that GMPTE and Merseytravel would have been happy with FNW refurbishing the 150s with 2+2 seating and tables and the big loss in seating capacity that Wessex Trains did.



It doesn't have any relevance now.  You brought up people having short memories relating to politics and I was pointing out in response that some voters would be too young to remember issues with previous governments.

OK, just to be clear, I'll spell things out nice and simply in bullet points.

1. All of the Northern stock I have travelled on that was 14x/15x vintage was a dump internally - this has nothing to do with the standard or specifications of any refurbishment. Quite simply, they were filthy with dirt ingrained more or less everywhere it could be, which gave the impression that the stock was more or less neglected when it came to any kind of cleaning or internal upkeep. The point about the 333s was that this was the only fleet of Northern's I have travelled on that looked respectable inside.

2. The general standard of cleanliness and internal maintenance in FGW's sprinter/pacer fleet appears vastly superior to Northern's - again, I'm not talking about whether refurbishments were specified with 2+2/2+3, just how well the units are looked after.

3. From comments further up this thread, I had gained the impression that FGW's 142 fleet was significantly more reliable than Northern's 142 fleet. I don't know if this is strictly correct in terms of mpc, but what it for certain is that FGW's 142s have not shed any cardan shafts or engines* recently like Northern's have.

4. Taking the points made in (1), (2) and (3) together I was merely speculating whether FGW's 142 fleet performed better than Northern's because it's actually being maintained. Of course the passenger saloon being a dump doesn't necessarily indicate that things aren't being looked after below the solebar (where the engines, wheels, cardan shafts, brakes and other mechanical thingies live), but it certainly creates an overall impression of neglect to a passenger travelling on a Northern unit compared to an FGW one.

My points above are solely a like-for-like comparison of FGW and Northern's sprinter/pacer fleets. Nothing whatsoever to do with the reliability of 150s vice 142s, not really sure where you picked that one up from.

*Blackpool to Liverpool service, some time during 2009.

OK.  I've never been on a 333 but I've seen/heard comments that the 333 interior is actually looking less good now than some of the other Northern units as it's now over 10 years old and other units have had an interior refresh.

The stock Northern inherited was overall in a very poor state.  Ignoring the electric units the only decent interior they had was the FNW 150s but they had 10 x 150s from ATW and before that Valley Lines that retained the original BR interior - including the BR notices.

Initially Northern didn't do anything about the stock, which is why the 142s that went to FGW were in such a bad state.  They have since given at least some of each type of unit an interior refresh.  I think all the 150s have had a refresh, 142s with bus bench seats have, the former FNW 156s have, the 144s have, the 321s have and the 323s are in the process of having one currently.  I'm not sure on the 158 situation as they no longer operate in the North West.


You don't have to refer to a specific carden shaft incident as there's been 3 of them and the most serious of which (which happened in Durham) is currently with the RAIB.


The points about reliability seem to be made by either me or you.  I made the point about Northern's 142 being less reliable than their 150s and you came back with the response that the FGW 142s are more reliable.  You've also stated that you think FGW maintain their units better.  Therefore, we really need to know how the reliability of FGW 142s compares to their other units for the full picture.

I'm not referring to a cardan shaft incident. You'll notice that I'm referring to an incident in which most of an engine fell off the bottom of a Northern 142 working a Blackpool to Liverpool service. I don't have the time to find the details at the moment but I'm sure you'll be able to find more into with a web search.

That was the claim one paper made but the claim was denied with the official reason being given as a problem with the chassis.  That happened a couple of months after the MP for Southport said in parliament that he believed Pacer trains weren't safe to be on the railways.

i know we have discussed this before, and someone brought up the fact that this also effects class 150's .... someone quoted an old wessex report, from what i can tell its just random chance that it has happened to more pacers in service than 150's

Yep, I have a feeling it was a problem with the chassis...the bits of the chassis that hold the engine on ;)

Last week I travelled on an Northern Class 180 and to say I was shocked is an understatement. It was the filthiest train I have travelled on in the past 10 years and as there were no free seats I had pleanty of opportunity to look at the carpets and toilets. I know that people on here complain incesently about Voyagers but they need to travel on the train I did to see how lucky we actually are in the SW.

By the way I was stood in the vestible next to the former First Class coach but you would not have realised it by the state it was in >:(

Sad to see that Northern have managed to bring the state of the 180s down to the lowest common denominator as well. More work that FGW (or anyone else) will have to do to bring them back into an acceptable state once they stop their ridiculous pootling around on stopping services in the north west and get redeployed onto some actual express trains.

Acording FGW's Developement Manger at the Slough meeting.

142s go back to Northern in November!
180 arrive for December.

As you'd expect when you have First Class seating available for standard class passengers everyone goes for the FC seats meaning carriage D needs striping out and starting again as it's so worn down.  The other carriages are in better condition though.

I'm not defending Northern's policy of refurbishment but the 180s weren't in good condition when they first arrived.  Northern were originally told that they'll have them for 6 months and then they'll get the LO 150s as replacement.  FGW complained about that pointing out the 142s they have are subleased from Northern and it got revised so that LO 150s were to go to FGW and the 142s back to Northern.  Northern then complained etc. etc. The 172s for LO kept getting delayed and EC said they no longer wanted the 180s that had been secured for NXEA meaning FGW were allowed to keep the 142s until they got LM 150s.

All this led to the duration of the 180s being extended a few months at a time so Northern presumably kept thinking that they'll lose them in a few months time so it'll be a waste of money to refresh them.


Yes but I wonder when FGW will stop using HSTs on stopping services out of Paddington.

How many 150s will Northern have from LM by November?

The plan is for 6 busy 156 diagrams in Merseyside to be replaced by 4 car 142s and 142+150 combinations.  4 x156s will go to EMT.  The other 2x156s will run 156+150 formations to replace the 180s.  The 156s to EMT are higher priority than releasing the 180s, as they were due to go to EMT in May when the 180s were unallocated.  That means at least 14 x 2 car DMUs are required at Northern before the 3x180s will be released (I imagine it'll be more like 18 x 2 car DMUs though as Northern are short forming services at present even when both 180s are running.)

Presumably if FGW are taking on the 180s they'll get the two 180s that haven't run a service since leaving FGW first?

I understand that Northern would not have been able to make a case for any kind of refurbishment. However, simply keeping trains clean isn't refreshing them, it's basic maintenance. You'll notice that SandTEngineer's post made references to them being filthy, which would suggest that nobody is bothering to clean them properly. Regardless of the length of time the trains were being kept for, they should be kept clean. FGW did an excellent job of this when they were operating the units, and they were very pleasant to travel on right up until the end in 2009. I hope that if the 180s really have deteriorated that much whilst in Northern's care, the ROSCO bills Northern for the remedial work necessary to bring them back up to an acceptable standard.


A red herring - a limited number of HSTs make some local calls around the Thames Valley and Bristol areas in the peaks, but none of them are what I would describe as stopping services: at the very worst they are 'semi-fast'. The slow acceleration of an HST versus a Turbo would eat up capacity which is why they're not used on stopping services per se. And further, all of the HST diagrams are genuine express work for most of the day.

On paper that sounds the right thing to do.  However, I heard Northern have spent hundreds of thousands on parts just getting the trains in to a serviceable condition before they put them in to service.  If that's right and if the ROSCO didn't bill FGW for that and pass on the money to Northern, then why would Northern be billed for not shampooing the carpets and replacing seat covers in the FC section? (Note that there's two ifs in that question.)

I wasn't referring to refurbishment but just to general day to day cleaning.  I can't recall the last time I travelled on a dirty FGW service and I even include those trains used for the Glastonbury Festival services which were always clean the next day.

Class 180s may have not had a good reliability record when with FGW but FGW did keep them reasonably clean when they operated on the Cotswold Line. FGW has also had a better record for keeping all its trains tidier than the former Thames Trains did with regular littler pickers patrolling the trains. Credit where credit is due.

Indeed.  Cleaning was patchy at best at Paddington on Thames Trains services, and there was no such thing as a turnaround cleaner at Oxford or cleaners joining services en-route.

That's one thing the moving maps on the volo system did bring home to me - how long it takes an HST to get up to line-speed after a station stop.  It was very illuminating - even on Brunel's Billiard Table the driver still had his work cut out.

Indeed so - and I think that's being quite charitable! That was one of the main things that really used to annoy me about Thames Trains; units would enter service from the sidings full of litter, and it got worse and worse during the day. In the afternoon peak they were frequently disgusting.

Always brought to mind an old 'Not the Nine O'Clock News' sketch (tried to find it on youtube but failed) - two cleaners sitting in an empty train having a cigarette with full bags of rubbish at their sides. Rowan Atkinson, dressed in a BR guard's uniform, walks down the aisle and barks 'Come on, this train has to be ready to leave in five minutes!'. Said cleaners reluctantly get to their feet and start emptying the contents of their bin bags all over the train  ;D (apologies if I've referenced that sketch before, but it's always amused me...)


I think I read in an article in The Railway Magazine, going back several years to when the 180s were first being introduced, that as an example, between Didcot and Swindon (which as far as I know is flat and without any speed restrictions) an HST will probably only graze 125 mph relatively briefly before having to brake for the next stop. That's a journey that's timetabled for 16 - 20 minutes. I'm sure there are other posters who can confirm or correct me on this though! Shouldn't be too much hard work for the driver though - assuming the road's clear ahead they can probably just drop the power handle into notch 5 and wait for the needle to creep round the speedo.

re moving teh handle round to notch 5: if my Siam driver simulation is correct for an HST you can only do one notch at a time or the am meter goes into the yellow and you get an overload warning. Admittedly this would be for a Paxman engined set.

Drifting off topic...but...I posted a few years ago a graph of HST acceleration performance http://img249.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=00854_img344_122_362lo.jpg (http://img249.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=00854_img344_122_362lo.jpg) - it does vary quite considerably, but an average HST will reach 125mph from a stop on relatively flat track (like between Didcot and Swindon) in around 7-10 miles, and from experience I can tell you that you'll easily reach 125mph on that stretch and be able to hold it for well over 10 miles before needing to brake for Swindon (or vice-versa).


Getting back on topic...

Here's the latest reliability figures I've seen for all of FGW's traction (excluding 08's and 57's!), on a 'Moving Annual Average' miles per casualty basis:

TYPE         2011/12 P2      2010/11 P2    % CHANGE
Class 142      6823            3871          +76%
Class 143      5845            3665          +59%
Class 150      5928            5033          +18%
Class 153      6182            5995          +3%
Class 158      7708            6542          +18%
Class 165      11029           11828         -7%
Class 166      11786           11263          +5%
Class 43       11753           13497         -13%


Overall, at the moment, FGW's Class 142's are more reliable than either 143's, 150's, or 153's, and are not too far behind Class 158's.  Though just a year a go that was a very different picture.  The only common theme is that the Turbo's and HST's remain in a different class reliability wise, although have dipped from this time last year.  Though when you bear in mind some electric unit classes are in the 40000-50000 mark with Class 444's hitting nearly 70000 and those stats soon seem less impressive!

Thanks for putting me straight re the HST acceleration (and for pulling the thread back round onto topic!)...I remember thinking that if a train couldn't hit 125 between Didcot and Swindon then it must have trouble doing so almost anywhere else.

Went on 144001 out of Leeds a couple of weeks ago. This unit had obviously been recently refurished as the inside was very smart, so not all of Northern's units are in a poor state.

The train was absolutely rammed. It was almost like a stunt, how many people can you get into a 144 and still run a service!

A lot of Pacers are like that in the Northern area at peak times, some even like that at off-peak.  There's supposed to be a number of new 4 and 5 car Pacer diagrams starting in December, with the 5 car 144s being on Manchester Vic-Halifax-Leeds services.

I tried to do a MediaCityUK to Cheshire journey involving Metrolink and Pacers on the same day as an England cricket match was on at Old Trafford.  That was a nightmare. 

The first tram at MediaCityUK was too full to accept everyone, so I waited for the next one which picked up everyone at MediaCityUK but was equally overcrowded by the time it got to Exchange Quay.  I then alighted that service at Cornbrook and squeezed on an Altrincham service (it wasn't full to maximum capacity but people standing seemed reluctant to move down the tram.)  A few people alighted at Trafford Bar.  There was around room for 30 extra standees by the time it got to Old Trafford but there were around 3000 waiting to board so about 50 people boarded and oxygen was in very short supply.  About 100 had been allowed on the platform and the Police were holding the rest behind the platform.  At Altrincham the next train was a 4 car Pacer but with the rear unit locked out-of-use, despite there being around 80 people on board and around 200 waiting to board the guard didn't rush to unlock the rear unit so the front unit got dangerously overcrowded.  The guard did unlock the rear unit eventually.