ORR concerned at lack of Pacer replacement program

[whole diary]

[northwesterntrains]

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

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

This was researched to death when the RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) 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

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. 

[Tim]

When questioned on it Philip Hammond said public transport will be largely DDA^» (Disability Discrimination Act - about) 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.

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.

[northwesterntrains]

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^» (Disability Discrimination Act - about) 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.

[Tim]

...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.

[northwesterntrains]

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^» (Disability Discrimination Act - about) kicks in anyway but relaxing DDA may tempt DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) to keep them in service even longer.

LED Destination displays and PIS^▸ (Passenger Information System) 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.

[northwesterntrains]

That all presupposes that UK^▸ (United Kingdom) train operators will have to comply with DDA^» (Disability Discrimination Act - about) 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^» (European Union - about) countries to comply with being used in the UK.

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.

[inspector_blakey]

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.

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.

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.

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

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.

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

[JayMac]

...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.

[Rhydgaled]

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

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) 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^▸ (Arriva Trains Wales (former TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company))) 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^▸ (Electric Multiple Unit) 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

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^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) per mile, so electrifing that would be a good move but we're still left with 85 Pacers.

[anthony215]

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.

[northwesterntrains]

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.

Remember part of the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) 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.

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.

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.

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

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

[grahame]

Maybe the 143s and 144s could be given an exemption on condition that they are attached to a 153 when in service.

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.

[devon_metro]

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!