Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Manclion, Dec 4, 2019 at 5:47 PM.
Great to hear
It's a shame, they are good trains in many ways. Cheap and easy to maintain and the ride is on par with Sprinters on welded mainline rail. They ended up with a bad reputation because of their poor performance on jointed rail branch line track. It's also a waste to withdraw perfectly functional rolling stock because it lacks a disabled toilet.
I think we'll see the Class 143s at least stick around for 5 years or so. It's madness to scrap serviceable trains when pretty much every TOC in the UK is short of rolling stock.
Part of the franchise agreement states Northern aren't allowed to pay additional leasing costs, doesn't make sense but that's privatisation for you.
As usual the government are running the supposedly privatised railway. Rail privatisation in the UK is just British Rail with even more bureaucracy!
I never understood this requirement for every single train to have a disabled toilet, especially a Pacer, which is generally used for local services. We don't insist on every bus having a toilet, let alone a disabled one, so why does a Pacer operating a Cardiff to Penarth service need one? The daft thing is that if the Pacers didn't have any toilet at all, they'd be permitted to remain in service, with minor mods to add PIS, lower door controls and compliant handrails. But apparently it's preferencial to exacerbate the rollingstock shortage by having no trains at all, rather than having a handful without disabled toilets.
I expect the Class 143s will get the toilets ripped out and put back into service when someone realises we actually need more trains not fewer trains.
But all that is common sense and that's not allowed on modern British railways!
*from what I've heard they'll be allowed to continue in service past the original deadline only if they have the toilets locked out of use and are permanently coupled to class 15x units*
Separate names with a comma.