ORR concerned at lack of Pacer replacement program

[whole diary]

[northwesterntrains]

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be in service after 2019 but saying that we had 101s in operation in the North West years after they should have been withdrawn.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.

Clearly something is going wrong up North then, FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 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 One where the bus seats have been replaced by a 1990s style of bus seats and had an internal dot matrix display added showing the destination of the train.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^▸ (Passenger Transport Executive) 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.

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

deep clean, new seat covers and interior repaint

doesn't really help mechanically   

[JayMac]

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

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

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

[anthony215]

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

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^▸ (Diesel Electric Multiple Unit)'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

[paul7575]

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^▸ (Diesel Electric Multiple Unit)'s.

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

[northwesterntrains]

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

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

[inspector_blakey]

My limited experience of Northern was of trains that, although of the same vintage as FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'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.

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^▸ (Member of Parliament).  A lot of Conservative supporters thought Poll Tax was a good idea anyway as it meant they paid less tax while others paid more.

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!

[northwesterntrains]

My limited experience of Northern was of trains that, although of the same vintage as FGW^▸ (First Great Western)'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.

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^▸ (British Rail(ways)) 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^▸ (Greater Manchester Passenger Transport Executive. Now TfGM^▸ (Transport for Greater Manchester. )) 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.

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!

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.

[inspector_blakey]

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^▸ (First Great Western)'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.

[northwesterntrains]

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.

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^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) and before that Valley Lines that retained the original BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) interior - including the BR notices.

Initially Northern didn't do anything about the stock, which is why the 142s that went to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 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.

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.

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^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch).

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.

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.

[inspector_blakey]

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^▸ (Rail Accident Investigation Branch).

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.

[northwesterntrains]

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^▸ (Member of Parliament) for Southport said in parliament that he believed Pacer trains weren't safe to be on the railways.

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

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

[inspector_blakey]

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