Pacers into the next decade

[whole diary]

[John R]

There's a lot of concern, particularly in the north, that the Pacers will continue into the next decade, and not be withdrawn with the imposition of the more onerous accessibility rules. I'm going to stick my neck out and suggest that they won't continue beyond that date. But I'd be interested in others views.

Why? Let me explain.

Currently there are 290 pacer vehicles, so that's the starting point. Will enough vehicles be cascaded by Dec 19 to replace them? There are a few committed schemes which will achieve that. Using known information and estimating others I reckon the following schemes will release:-

Thames Valley  - out of 154 165/166 vehicles, say 100 released, allowing for residual usage of the units on non-electrified lines.
Gospel Oak - Barking.  8 Cl 172, so 16 vehicles
Birmingham, Walsall, Rugeley, 4 x Cl 170, so 8 vehicles.
North West phase 2, known 14 Class 319's coming in, so at least 28 vehicles.
North West phases 3,4,5, estimate 75 vehicles, looking at off peak diagrams.
Edinburgh - Glasgow, 20 x 3 car sets released, so 60 vehicles
Scottish Intercity, HSTs^▸ (High Speed Train) will displace around 25 x 3 car sets, so 75 vehicles.

That alone gets us to 362 vehicles.   I'd suggest that suppressed demand for dmu stock will comfortably use up the extra 72. But just in case that's not enough to satisfy demand (which I suspect it won't), the following schemes will also help:-

Midland Main Line will release 143 vehicles. Although this would be tight for 2019 (particularly Sheffield), at a push displaced HST's could cover for a year or so to enable a cascade to occur. Talking of HST's, XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)) or Chiltern might be interested or asked to take some to strengthen their services, which would release other stock.

Then there's also Transpennine and Valleys wiring, although again both these will be tight for 2019 given the delays we are currently seeing on electrification projects, and given the current uncertainty over the latter.

Also, it seems clear that scottish electrification will continue up to Alloa following on from EGIP, which is likely to mean completion before 2019.

And finally, there are small elements of diesel working under the wires that might be eliminated, eg Cardiff - Bristol, thus releasing a handful of units.

Given all this, I don't believe any of the owners will be willing to invest in the work required to prolong the life of the Pacers.  So the market will decide. It would also take a very brave government to risk the wrath of the northern population if its clear that adequate volumes of rolling stock is available elsewhere.

[Rhydgaled]

I'm not so sure they will all have gone by 1st Jan 2020.

First of all, number of units is important to consider alongside number of vehicles although without knowing how many doubled-up diagrams there are it is probably going to be hard to come to any really useful conclusion. You say there are 290 vehicles, Wikipedia says 10 are 3-car units, which leaves 260 vehicles or 130 units. So, without that info on multiple working we have to assume we would need to find 130x 2-car units and 10x 3-car ones to be able to withdraw all the Pacers. I think Pacer vehicles are the shortest on the network, so any replacement unit will have a little more capacity, but other routes need units for extra capacity also.

Then there's also Transpennine and Valleys wiring, although again both these will be tight for 2019 given the delays we are currently seeing on electrification projects, and given the current uncertainty over the latter.

...

I don't believe any of the owners will be willing to invest in the work required to prolong the life of the Pacers.  So the market will decide. It would also take a very brave government to risk the wrath of the northern population if its clear that adequate volumes of rolling stock is available elsewhere.

As far as I'm aware from reading various sources, Angel expects to scrap their class 142s (that at least comes from Modern Railways) but one of the other ROSCOs^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about) (Porterbrook I think) has developed proposals for TSI-PRM^▸ (Persons with Reduced Mobility) compliant units (143s and 144s I think). The ValleyLines project has always been unclear, with some sources showing it to be done in the control period leading up to 2019, but others saying it is to start in 2019/20 for completion in 2024. And the government can always protect itself from the wrath of the north by saying something along the lines of "we are having to make spending cuts and it was not considered affordable to find replacment trains for all the Pacer fleet so we had to retain them or we would have been forced to close lines".

Thus, my guess at the moment is that we will see most of the 142s withdrawn by 2020, except perhaps the Valleys units which might be given a derrogation for a year or two to allow enough of the valleys to be wired to get rid of them. 143s and 144s get TSI-PRM compliant upgrades and run for maybe another 10 years (depending on how long is required to justify the ROSCO's investment). Unless this ex-tube-stock DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) proposal comes to fruition, in which case maybe the Pacers will all disappear.

[John R]

Yes, you're absolutely right about the number of units being important. I did try to find information on which diagrams are doubled up in the north of england, but failed miserably.

In many cases the stock displaced by electric stock will also be 2 car, but in many cases it will be 3 car.  This is indeed one of the reasons why you need more than the straight 290, as I'm assuming some juggling to optimise capacity.  e.g., a pacer is replaced by a 150, and a 150 with a 3 car 170. In that way two services get a significant increase in capacity (and improvement in ambience of stock), but ultimately you've taken 3 cars to replace one pacer.

An interesting development which I've posted about elsewhere regarding Scotrail 170s moving south next year. It does emphasise the desperate need in many places for more stock, so the untapped demand is considerable.

[Lee]

Thus, my guess at the moment is that we will see most of the 142s withdrawn by 2020, except perhaps the Valleys units which might be given a derrogation for a year or two to allow enough of the valleys to be wired to get rid of them. 143s and 144s get TSI-PRM^▸ (Persons with Reduced Mobility) compliant upgrades and run for maybe another 10 years (depending on how long is required to justify the ROSCO^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about)'s investment). Unless this ex-tube-stock DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) proposal comes to fruition, in which case maybe the Pacers will all disappear.

Another 10 years?!! It sends a shudder down the spine that, for once, doesn't come from taking a seat on the damn things...

[Rhydgaled]

Thus, my guess at the moment is that we will see most of the 142s withdrawn by 2020, except perhaps the Valleys units which might be given a derrogation for a year or two to allow enough of the valleys to be wired to get rid of them. 143s and 144s get TSI-PRM^▸ (Persons with Reduced Mobility) compliant upgrades and run for maybe another 10 years (depending on how long is required to justify the ROSCO^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about)'s investment). Unless this ex-tube-stock DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) proposal comes to fruition, in which case maybe the Pacers will all disappear.

Another 10 years?!! It sends a shudder down the spine that, for once, doesn't come from taking a seat on the damn things...

It's just a guess, but those TSI-PRM modifications are bound to be expensive, how many years leasing fees would the ROSCO need to get an return on investment? I think it was the new 'Pan Up' column in Modern Railways, written by somebody who used to work for a ROSCO, that predicted there will be Voyagers cut up before the last Pacer is withdrawn.

[John R]

You're referring to Ian Walmsley, who has recently retired at MD of Porterbrook, and who writes some of the most entertaining (and yet eminently sensible) articles I've read in the 35 years I've been reading the railway press.

You've hit the nail on the head - the increase in leasing charges to pay for the mods, together with the guarantee of work that the ROSCOs^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about) would need to have, may make it unattractive to all parties. After all, if the leasing costs have gone up, they won't be quite so cheap as chips any more. 

[Rhydgaled]

You're referring to Ian Walmsley, who has recently retired at MD of Porterbrook, and who writes some of the most entertaining (and yet eminently sensible) articles I've read in the 35 years I've been reading the railway press

Indeed I am, but I couldn't be bothered to look up the spelling of his surname.

You've hit the nail on the head - the increase in leasing charges to pay for the mods, together with the guarantee of work that the ROSCOs^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about) would need to have, may make it unattractive to all parties. After all, if the leasing costs have gone up, they won't be quite so cheap as chips any more.

Still presumablly cheaper than new stock though, which on a high-subsidy TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) like Northern makes things difficult. My question was how long would the ROSCO need to guarantee leasing of the trains to cover the cost of the TSI-PRM^▸ (Persons with Reduced Mobility) modifications. 10 years was my really 'pluck a round number out of the air' guess at answering that question.

[paul7575]

You're referring to Ian Walmsley, who has recently retired at MD of Porterbrook, and who writes some of the most entertaining (and yet eminently sensible) articles I've read in the 35 years I've been reading the railway press.

He was the 'engineering development manager' at Porterbrook, I expect the top man in a Rosco would be more likely to have a banking background...

Paul