DMU cascade

[whole diary]

[Lee]

It sounds to me like there is a kind of frenzy akin to blood lust developing "up north", driving a desire to kill the spawn of the devil Pacers off.

In such a prevailing mood, one suspects they will have little truck with modification proposals to keep them in service, no matter how reasonable they might appear to seasoned observers such as ourselves.

Or perhaps I've been watching too many horror movies recently...

[northwestuser]

And Andy McDonald, the Middlesbrough MP^▸ (Member of Parliament), said: ^The performance is shocking. The travel time from Saltburn to Darlington is 53 minutes.
... and how much better would it be with a 150 / 153 / 156?

There are some sections of track where Pacers are restricted to 20mph, where a Sprinter could safely run at 50mph but if there's an extended section of over a few miles where that happens Pacers are kept off the route and it's timetabled to be operated by a 150.  Blackburn to Clitheroe used to have a section like that until the track was upgraded a couple of years ago.

Analysis on Chester-Altrincham-Manchester services by TfGM^▸ (Transport for Greater Manchester. ) suggested that replacing 142s with 170s could shave 5 minutes off the journey time (6% of the total journey time) on an all-stops services and apparently the 170s have very poor acceleration compared to the 172s.  The analysis was done before 172s were built so maybe by replacing 142s with 172s you could save 10% of the total journey time.

I'm not 100% sure how TfGM came up with that analysis as AFAIK^▸ (as far as I know) a 170 has never run along the Chester-Altrincham-Manchester line but a variety of DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) and locos have past and present from Pacers, Sprinters, 175s, Voyagers, class 31s 57s, 60s and 66s.

[northwestuser]

Are suggestions that the new Northern franchise will be required to dispose of all pacer trains slightly worrying. They aren't the best trains on the network, but as the FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 143s show they can be brought up to a reasonable standard and Porterbrook believes there is a case for making the necessary modifications to them to allow continued operation beyond 2020. The reality is that Pacers are very cheap to lease so it seems to me that they'd be an ideal train to keep some around of to cater for future growth. Considering that we currently have a shortage of DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) it seems madness to scrap hundreds of DMUs because they have been released by new EMUs^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit). Who knows what will happen in 5 or 10 years time, the Pacers could potentially still have a useful role to play.

The 143s and 144s are a lot better performing than 142s and provide a less rough ride.  The 141s that we exported to Iran have been left to rot in sidings as Iran thought they were life-expired.

If Pacers do get the accessible refurbishment Porterbrook are proposing their capacity will be reduced to around 80 seats per train meaning they'll be unsuitable for 99% of Northern Rail services in single formation, if they don't then legally they should be scrapped no later than 31st December 2019.  It's believed Porterbrook see the Wales & Border franchise as the most likely party to sign a new 10+ year lease for Pacers and without a new 10+ year lease agreed they can't justify doing the high expense of making 143s and 144s accessible.

At present with the Northern franchise it's generally the shorter services that have too many passengers for the Pacers to be used on so they get used on the 60-120 minute services where they cope better with loadings.  Until recently the 90 minute Pacer operated between Southport and Manchester Airport did a section over jointed track - if you had back problems and dared to do that as a return journey you'd have been very brave!

[northwestuser]

The reality is that Pacers are very cheap to lease so it seems to me that they'd be an ideal train to keep some around of to cater for future growth.

Pacers may have cheap leasing costs but the operating cost of a 3 car 172 is cheaper than the operating cost of a Pacer+153 formation with the 3 car 172 giving you more capacity as well.

[Southern Stag]

If Pacers do get the accessible refurbishment Porterbrook are proposing their capacity will be reduced to around 80 seats per train meaning they'll be unsuitable for 99% of Northern Rail services in single formation, if they don't then legally they should be scrapped no later than 31st December 2019.  It's believed Porterbrook see the Wales & Border franchise as the most likely party to sign a new 10+ year lease for Pacers and without a new 10+ year lease agreed they can't justify doing the high expense of making 143s and 144s accessible.

So about the same capacity as a 153 currently then, but the accessible refurbishment for a 153 would have an impact on the 153's seating capacity too, and it is generally believed that modifications to a 153, whilst retaining them as single car units, will be uneconomical. If we were to keep pacers there is no reason they'd have to be used as they are now, with much more rolling stock available they could be used more in double formations on quieter services with other DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) such as 150s displaced to strengthen other services. If electrification continues at the currently proposed pace then we probably won't have a problem of a shortage of DMUs. If however electrification grinds to a halt in CP6^▸ (Control Period 6 - The five year period between 2019 and 2024) or CP7 with continued growth in demand we could be back to the current situation. With it now looking increasingly likely that we won't see a new order for DMUs it just seems to me to be short sighted to scrap hundreds of DMUs which are currently in service, at least until the future of the railway network becomes clearer. If the government were to announce that Pacers were to be scrapped with a commitment to a rolling electrification project I wouldn't see a problem, but at the moment we don't have that certainty as to what the future holds.

[northwestuser]

With it now looking increasingly likely that we won't see a new order for DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) it just seems to me to be short sighted to scrap hundreds of DMUs which are currently in service, at least until the future of the railway network becomes clearer.

They probably wouldn't be scrapped initially.  In total 17 x 142s had already been withdrawn from the Northern franchise - 12 following the arrival of more Sprinters as a result of the introduction of 185s to the rail network and 5 due to the Oldham-Manchester line being converted to Metrolink.  However, these 17 trains have all been reintroduced to the Northern franchise as a result of passenger growth, 12 of them had a holiday with First Great Western between Northern withdrawing them and taking them on again.

I'd be surprised if any Pacers are withdrawn before December 2018, which is when Manchester-York is expected to have usable electrics.  The DMUs released by North West and Thames Valley electrification will probably all be needed for extra capacity.

[Lee]

Can you add to grahame's list, folks?...

In my defence for not noticing, I'll point out that he was formerly minister for transport.

It would appear that the Transport Secretary himself is not immune from the odd identity crisis... - http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/transport-minister-patrick-mclaughlin-says-6831970

[Lee]

Direct award for Northern announced until February 2016.

[ChrisB]

two weeks too late, some might say

[Lee]

DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) announcement link - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-deal-for-rail-in-the-north

5 PTEs^▸ (Passenger Transport Executive) have co-signed the deal, it mentions.

[4064ReadingAbbey]

And the Pacers are here to stay^

Voith of Heidenheim has just released the following statement (which is my translation of the German original):

Quote
Angel Trains, one of the UK^▸ (United Kingdom)'s leading leasing companies for rail vehicles, has commissioned Voith with the delivery of 188 new final drives and cardan shafts for their Class 142 fleet. Voith has adapted the construction of the KE- 485 final drive so that it can be installed as a 1:1 substitute without further vehicle changes. The upgrade will increase the reliability of the drives and reduce operating and maintenance costs of the operators.
Voith will supply wheel sets consisting of the modified final drives, axles, wheels and axle bearings and the overall package also includes new drive shafts. The components will be supplied during 2015. The Class 142 diesel multiple units from Angel Trains are currently operated by Arriva Trains Wales and Northern Rail.

"The conversion illustrates the commitment of Angel Trains to long-term product responsibility and a high customer value," said Mark Hicks , Technical Director of Angel Trains. "For the project, Voith has been a strong partner, especially its more flexible and innovative approach has guided the design of the integrated drive system."

Voith has been certified for its entire service program in the UK already with the Railway Industry Supplier Approval Scheme ( Risa's rail industry supplier certificate). In addition, the Voith factory in Heidenheim was recently certified by Risa for the assembly of complete wheel sets. Voith is currently working to get certification for its ultrasonic axis tests for wheel sets.

Voith is increasingly concerned with a wide range of optimisation projects such as retrofitting, modernisation of power transmission and clutch systems and other initiatives to reduce life cycle costs. These technically demanding projects underline the high quality of the Voith product portfolio, extensive experience and technical know-how, as well as the advantages of a close collaboration with all stakeholders.
End quote

(Any errors are all mine!)

[anthony215]

I still have my doubts abut whether or not the class 142's will see life beyond 2020.

As for the class 143's I suspect these will last for a good number of years post 2020 with a decent refurbishment.
It has been suggested that the Valley lines electrification (not including the Maesteg and Ebbw Vale branches could be delayed to allow more use to be gotten out of the class 143 fleet if they do get this life extension work (Caused a  bit of a storm in the WG). I just want the valleys to hurry up and be electrified just to get rid of the pacer fleet although the 143's are pretty much ok to travel on compared to the 142.

FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s class 165/166 fleet I think will be very much in demand from 2016 when the Thames Valley starts to go over to emu operation although I think FGW will fight to retain a large number of them especailly to use in the west of england like when Portishead is re-opened. I can personally see a 3 carriage class 165 being full and standing when it arrives at Bristol TM^‡(resolve) from Portishead.

[Rhydgaled]

And the Pacers are here to stay^

Voith of Heidenheim has just released the following statement [snip /]

I wonder if a full TSI-PRM^▸ (Persons with Reduced Mobility) convertion is in order for that fleet as well or whether the plan is to provide a toiletless unit for short distance workings, given that Angel (I think) were the ROSCO^» (Rolling Stock Owning Company - about) that wasn't planning to TSI-PRM upgrade their pacers?

[anthony215]

Yes it was Angel who decided it wasnt worth upgrading their class 142 fleet.

[eightf48544]

FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'s class 165/166 fleet I think will be very much in demand from 2016 when the Thames Valley starts to go over to emu operation although I think FGW will fight to retain a large number of them especailly to use in the west of england like when Portishead is re-opened. I can personally see a 3 carriage class 165 being full and standing when it arrives at Bristol TM^‡(resolve) from Portishead.

Yes agreed they are a prized asset. However they come with a couple of draw backs. Like the Chiltern fleet they are not comaprtible elctrically with the 15X varients and they are also have a bigger loading gauge so are restricted to where they can run without extensive gauge widening.

See comments in other posts re suitablity for Salisbury to Southampton for instance. Most GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) locos were always banned on this section hence loco changes at Salisbury . So they will probably be most use on stopping services around Bristol. Whether the 166s, if they fit the loading gauge, with their 2*3 seating and  dodgy air conditioning  will really be suitable to replace the 158s between Bristol and Brighton remains to be seen I am sure the Cotswold line people can voice an opinion.