What can we do about Northern Rail?

[Duke Fame]

Not guilty, m'lud!  For its first 14 posts, this thread was not remotely political.  As long as Duke stayed out of it, it was just about trains. 

Then up pops Duke for the first time in post no 15, and contributes this: 
I rest my case.   

Well, given the suggestion was to contact your MP and that day the chancellor specifically announced investment to replace the pacer, I'd say I was on topic.

[bluebelly]

thanks for the barriers comment duke , i will go and claim my job seekers. i work for northern firstly as atrain driver and now in a ticket office.in the time ive worked in the office the flow off passengers has quadrupled.the reason no more rolling stock has been implemented as no company/buisness would spend millions on new stock if they wernt assured they would get their return out of them. and as for the trains being manafactured abroad, the pendalinos ,class 170/175 ,london docklands where all made in compstall.beard and cornall would still be in buisness if it wasnt down to the franchise system.

[Dave]

Not guilty, m'lud!  For its first 14 posts, this thread was not remotely political.  As long as Duke stayed out of it, it was just about trains. 

Then up pops Duke for the first time in post no 15, and contributes this: 

Well, there is no need, in his autumn statement, just 4 years into the coalition govt, there is a pledge to replace the Pacer train. The former government had 13 years so well done the coalition government.

I rest my case.   

[wheels]

Yes, we should be grateful that privatisation has brought us such a wide choice of railway companies providing services into Manchester. ;-)

I have no truck for Duke he is usually wrong but Dave I think pot and kettle come to mind when you accuse him of turning a debate about trains into a political debate.

As an aside isn't everything in life political???

[Duke Fame]

Duke engages in his usual effortful contortions to turn this thread about trains into one about politics.

Hmmmmm cough

... no cheers for the Tories, who were responsible for introducing these cheap and nasty little trains in the first place!

Glasshouses dear boy

[Dave]

Duke engages in his usual effortful contortions to turn this thread about trains into one about politics.

The pacers were built by British Rail Engineering in Derby, using some designs and technologies borrowed from British Leyland.  The reason they built a rubbish train was nowt to do with being a nationalised industry - it was simply because, as ringi points out, that was in effect what the customer (British Rail) had asked for - something temporary and as cheap as possible. 

Thankfully, the privatised train companies don't always go abroad for their trains - many of them are still built at the same Derby works, now owned by Bombardier.

Btw, now I've seen everything: http://www.pacerpreservationsociety.co.uk/     

 

[Duke Fame]

The Pacer was a reasonable choose at the time, as they were only intended as a short-term solution to a shortage of rolling stock.   It was intended that they would have been replaced by existing much better DMUs cascaded from newly electrified lines a long time ago!

At the time the other option would have been to close a lot of the rural branch lines that had few passengers, hence making everyone use buses.    Since then more people have started to commute by rail.   (Remember that as that time most buses had the same seats as the Pacers.)

Just looking at Rose Hill, the passenger numbers have nearly double over the last 10 years.

Therefore new trains or trams are needed as quickly as possible.

I was meaning that nationalised industries were not allowed to source away from the other state suppliers. Protecting the state suppliers allowed them to avoid innovating hence the trains supplied by British Leyland weren't as gos as those built abroad. By hte time a real market as introduced, the British suppliers had a sub-standard product and the new TOCs went abroad for their rolling stock.

[Dave]

Yes, we should be grateful that privatisation has brought us such a wide choice of railway companies providing services into Manchester. ;-)

[ringi]

Wasn't that symptomatic of a nationalised rail system that the domestic producers could get away with supplying something that wasn't that great in the knowledge that the customer could not go elsewhere

The Pacer was a reasonable choose at the time, as they were only intended as a short-term solution to a shortage of rolling stock.   It was intended that they would have been replaced by existing much better DMUs cascaded from newly electrified lines a long time ago!

At the time the other option would have been to close a lot of the rural branch lines that had few passengers, hence making everyone use buses.    Since then more people have started to commute by rail.   (Remember that as that time most buses had the same seats as the Pacers.)

Just looking at Rose Hill, the passenger numbers have nearly double over the last 10 years.

Therefore new trains or trams are needed as quickly as possible.

[Duke Fame]

As for this:  ... no cheers for the Tories, who were responsible for introducing these cheap and nasty little trains in the first place! 

Wasn't that symptomatic of a nationalised rail system that the domestic producers could get away with supplying something that wasn't that great in the knowledge that the customer could not go elsewhere

[munchkjn]

Melancholy is spot on - the difference is jaw-dropping!  Our friends from the soft south can't believe it when they see our trains.

And it's not just the London commuters who have better trains.  A few months ago I went to the Isle of Wight by train. You catch a Bournemouth train from Stockport, and get off at Brockenhurst.  From there it's a ten minute ride on a five-mile single track branch line to Lymington Pier, where the ferry goes from.  The train that shuttles back and forth on this very short and obscure line is a smartly refurbished and comfortable Class 158.  Meanwhile, on a 40 mile route between two of the UK's major cities, Manchester and Sheffield, we get the ridiculous little class 142 pacers. 

As for this:  ... no cheers for the Tories, who were responsible for introducing these cheap and nasty little trains in the first place! 

It's not a north-south thing, it's South-East versus the rest. Bristol and the south-west have an appalling rail service especially when compared to Greater Manchester. Greater Bristol has a population of over a million people yet has only a fraction of the suburban lines Manchester enjoys (all unelectrified) and all the trains are equally as decrepit as those on the Hope Valley line. Also they have been refused funding by government for a metro/tram system countless times since the 1970's. Aside from the South-East, Manchester is relatively well served by rail and tram. That doesn't mean to say I'm happy about the stinking 142s as I'm a bitter, regular rail commuter from Marple to Manchester.
 

[Duke Fame]

As someone who has commuted by rail from Stockport to Surrey via London for the past six weeks, I think I can say without undue prejudice that the South has it much, much better than the North in terms of rail services.  Gleaming modern trains with 8-12 coaches are standard fare just for regional commuter services.

If any service down there had a 142 on it, it would probably be headline national news.

In fairness, they all work & don't claim benefits

[Dave]

Melancholy is spot on - the difference is jaw-dropping!  Our friends from the soft south can't believe it when they see our trains.

And it's not just the London commuters who have better trains.  A few months ago I went to the Isle of Wight by train. You catch a Bournemouth train from Stockport, and get off at Brockenhurst.  From there it's a ten minute ride on a five-mile single track branch line to Lymington Pier, where the ferry goes from.  The train that shuttles back and forth on this very short and obscure line is a smartly refurbished and comfortable Class 158.  Meanwhile, on a 40 mile route between two of the UK's major cities, Manchester and Sheffield, we get the ridiculous little class 142 pacers. 

As for this: 

just 4 years into the coalition govt, there is a pledge to replace the Pacer train. The former government had 13 years so well done the coalition government.

... no cheers for the Tories, who were responsible for introducing these cheap and nasty little trains in the first place! 

[Melancholyflower]

Babs do you want salt & vinegar on those chips.

As someone who has commuted by rail from Stockport to Surrey via London for the past six weeks, I think I can say without undue prejudice that the South has it much, much better than the North in terms of rail services.  Gleaming modern trains with 8-12 coaches are standard fare just for regional commuter services.

If any service down there had a 142 on it, it would probably be headline national news.

[Duke Fame]

Indeed.  And if the Chancellor actually referred to Pacers on Trans-Pennine Express then he needs to get his facts straight - there aren't any!   But it doesn't inspire confidence, does it!    If he can't get such such simple facts right, then why should we believe anything he says?   

Or someone who used to work in education may pay attention to the wording, I'll let you do the maths or err English.

I suspect Northern will get the TPE trains as TPE give up the leases. That said, they will be fine for the Marple line although I'm not sure how they will keep them clean unless they are refurbed and the carpets etc taken out.