Porterbrook to create Pacer demonstrator (now unveiled)

[Smudger105e]

144012 is progressing and should be released for evaluation and training within the next few weeks.

Put of curiosity, why do people dislike the Pacers? Is it just the ride quality or are there other things that are objectionable?

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

144012 is progressing and should be released for evaluation and training within the next few weeks.

Put of curiosity, why do people dislike the Pacers? Is it just the ride quality or are there other things that are objectionable?

I'm not sure. It's probably the larger windows and 'nodding-donkey' effect. Although I only use them on Saturdays thanks to poor Brigg service levels. But it is a stark contrast to what Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Midland areas have.

Any idea where it will run first?

 

[47802]

144012 is progressing and should be released for evaluation and training within the next few weeks.

Put of curiosity, why do people dislike the Pacers? Is it just the ride quality or are there other things that are objectionable?

Really I don't object to the ones in good condition with reasonable seats on moderate journey lengths, what is unacceptable is putting them on major longer routes where there is no alternative for end to end passengers such as Newcastle to Carlisle.

 

[Haydn1971]

Put of curiosity, why do people dislike the Pacers? Is it just the ride quality or are there other things that are objectionable?

In order...
1, being used on journeys over 30 minutes
2, poor seating
3, poor legroom
4, screeching, especially on longer journeys
5, fear of death in a collision

 

[Smudger105e]

In order...
1, being used on journeys over 30 minutes
2, poor seating
3, poor legroom
4, screeching, especially on longer journeys
5, fear of death in a collision

1. Is that just a ride issue?
2. Refurbished should address this
3. Ditto
4. I understand the screeching, but why is this worse on long journeys?
5. The don't sit at the back or front!

The 144 being face lifted is getting CCTV, Wifi and new PIS. Will this help to sway opinion?

 

[Bletchleyite]

2, poor seating

Would be easily solved by replacing the seats with something better.

3, poor legroom

...and spacing the "something better" out a bit more.

5, fear of death in a collision

There is no need for anyone to fear death when travelling on any UK train whatever the rolling stock. You are much, much more likely to come to grief by whatever means you chose to get to the station - all of them are more dangerous than any form of UK rail travel.

(edit: except, I think, city bus, because the low speed and large amount of metal around you means accidents tend to be extremely minor)

 

[47802]

1. Is that just a ride issue?
2. Refurbished should address this
3. Ditto
4. I understand the screeching, but why is this worse on long journeys?
5. The don't sit at the back or front!

The 144 being face lifted is getting CCTV, Wifi and new PIS. Will this help to sway opinion?

Yes and No if they were restricted to shorter journeys maybe, however one might say another 4.5 years of these things is enough and having made the commitment on the Northern franchise I don't think it should be back tracked.

 

[Haydn1971]

1. Is that just a ride issue?
2. Refurbished should address this
3. Ditto
4. I understand the screeching, but why is this worse on long journeys?
5. The don't sit at the back or front!

The 144 being face lifted is getting CCTV, Wifi and new PIS. Will this help to sway opinion?

1, noise, vibration, unpleasant heating/ventilation - they are just awful, but about bearable for a 10-15 minute journey
2 & 3, yes, the seats on refurbished units are much nicer, but leg room is still a problem
4, a single long journey is tolerable, having to use them twice a day for an hours journey is enough to send anyone stir crazy
5, I'm a specialist in road collisions as part of my day job - I can assure you, sitting away from the ends won't minimise your injuries when something bigger drives through the train at speed - seeing photographic and video evidence of the end results of vehicle collisions just confirms my view that 99.9% of people don't understand just how horrific serious injuries are, nor have any perception of what a face hitting a solid internal fitting will end like. Hollywood and the games industry has a lot to answer for, contrary to what they would have you believe, seriously crash a car or take a fist in the face and you ain't getting up any time soon.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes and No if they were restricted to shorter journeys maybe, however one might say another 4.5 years of these things is enough and having made the commitment on the Northern franchise I don't think it should be back tracked.

Fair point, though there are other franchises operating single 153s, and the reduced capacity 144 might well be better for doing that than doing what they used to do.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

5, I'm a specialist in road collisions as part of my day job - I can assure you, sitting away from the ends won't minimise your injuries when something bigger drives through the train at speed - seeing photographic and video evidence of the end results of vehicle collisions just confirms my view that 99.9% of people don't understand just how horrific serious injuries are, nor have any perception of what a face hitting a solid internal fitting will end like. Hollywood and the games industry has a lot to answer for, contrary to what they would have you believe, seriously crash a car or take a fist in the face and you ain't getting up any time soon.

But unlike road, the primary way of avoiding injuries through collisions on rail is avoiding the collisions occurring in the first place by way of things like TPWS and strict safety procedures - something the railway is very good at.

I'm not saying new stock shouldn't keep improving (as it does) but I see no need to fear Pacer travel. Even if you were travelling sitting cross-legged on a flat wagon with a chain link fence round the outside, you'd still be safer than in your car. (Not wanting to give the Dft ideas, of course )

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Yes and No if they were restricted to shorter journeys maybe, however one might say another 4.5 years of these things is enough and having made the commitment on the Northern franchise I don't think it should be back tracked.

But does anyone know what the 'Super-Pacers' that are going to replace these are like? It's not the D-Trains or144e.
Pacer replacement may just be the modern version.
Larger Parry People Movers are a good guess.
But it may be something awful like converted freight wagons.

Until I see good plans for the replacement, I want refurbished Pacers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But does anyone know what the 'Super-Pacers' that are going to replace these are like? It's not the D-Trains or144e.
Pacer replacement may just be the modern version.

I would expect it to be Class 172s or the equivalent Desiro or Hitachi train. But of course those are quite expensive, so it concerns me that yet again insufficient capacity may be provided - and to me better long trains of D78s or poshed-up Pacers than a 2-car Class 172 with 8 cars worth of passengers trying to board. (Ideally 8-car 172s, but this is a Tory Government we are talking about).

IOW, a seat on a slightly rubbish train is better than standing rammed up against others in a posher train.

 

[Haydn1971]

There is no need for anyone to fear death when travelling on any UK train whatever the rolling stock. You are much, much more likely to come to grief by whatever means you chose to get to the station - all of them are more dangerous than any form of UK rail travel.

There was a hint of comedic value in my post Neil - I quite agree that your much more likely to die walking down the stairs at home, however, I would argue that in a train collision, I'd much prefer to be in a modern train over a 30 year old historical relic, based upon a bodyshell designed in the late 1960's that's bolted to a freight wagon chassis of a design that probably predates British Rail.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There was a hint of comedic value in my post Neil

Sorry, half asleep...

I quite agree that your much more likely to die walking down the stairs at home, however, I would argue that in a train collision, I'd much prefer to be in a modern train over a 30 year old historical relic, based upon a bodyshell designed in the late 1960's that's bolted to a freight wagon chassis of a design that probably predates British Rail.

As would I, though I'd rather be in a seat in a Pacer than standing in a Pendolino.

 

[Haydn1971]

Hmm... A seat based crash on a pacer or a standing crash on a 390 ? My money would still be on the standing

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hmm... A seat based crash on a pacer or a standing crash on a 390 ? My money would still be on the standing

I wouldn't expect either to be likely to crash, so my choice would be based on comfort. A bit like aircraft - they don't crash often, so it isn't really too important to me whether one might be slightly better than the other in the very unlikely case that it actually does.

TBH, even with a car, where a crash is not all that unlikely at all, crashworthiness is not a big motivator in my choice - comfort, space and economy rank much higher, as all reasonably modern cars are "good enough".

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

Hmm... A seat based crash on a pacer or a standing crash on a 390 ? My money would still be on the standing

This is what happened when a Pacer hit a Virgin train.
There's also a crash at Liverpool that I've just added.
Looks like middle is alot safer than the front!

 

[ainsworth74]

It was a class 87 not an HST.

Good job that the Pacer was empty however otherwise that would have been a very bad accident.

 

[Haydn1971]

This is what happened when a Pacer hit a Virgin train.
There's also a crash at Liverpool that I've just added.
Looks like middle is alot safer than the front!

Not to me... When the train stops, the contents continue to travel at the same speed as the train was travelling until the contents hit something that's also stationary.

A frequent characteristic of fatal road collisions are people not wearing a seatbelt - sadly, this is often teenage girls in the back of cars driven by 17-19 yr olds showing off whilst wearing a seat belt - car crashes, passengers are flung from the vehicle, driver gets just cuts and bruises. Fitting seatbelts on trains isn't going to happen, but the damage created by fixed objects that body parts hit in a collision can be mitigated against - notice how newer trains have soft edges, seats that are designed to buckle safely, buttons and fixings that are likely toke your eye out when hit.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
...also, notice how the locomotive appears relatively un damaged and continued on in service until being scrapped in 2010, the Pacer was however written off following the collision.

 

[alexl92]

Put of curiosity, why do people dislike the Pacers? Is it just the ride quality or are there other things that are objectionable?

They're slow, dirty, the ride is horrendous, they're insanely noisy and can't handle curves without screeching, they're cramped, the seats are uncomfortable and they often stink.

 

[edwin_m]

There was a hint of comedic value in my post Neil - I quite agree that your much more likely to die walking down the stairs at home, however, I would argue that in a train collision, I'd much prefer to be in a modern train over a 30 year old historical relic, based upon a bodyshell designed in the late 1960's that's bolted to a freight wagon chassis of a design that probably predates British Rail.

In the interests of factual accuracy I should point out that the Pacer bodyshell was designed in the early 80s, and the long wheelbase freight wagon designs that form the basis of the Pacer underframe date from the late 60s and 70s.

Any rail vehicle is going to have far greater structural strength than any passenger-carrying road vehicle, and even though the Pacer is based on Leyland National bus components it has been considerably reinforced. The reduction in collisions due to TPWS and other safety initiatives since the 1990s means the Pacers are safer now then when first introduced.

 

[Haydn1971]

In the interests of factual accuracy I should point out that the Pacer bodyshell was designed in the early 80s, and the long wheelbase freight wagon designs that form the basis of the Pacer underframe date from the late 60s and 70s.

The Pacer "product" was, but it was fundamentally based upon the Leyland National Bus which first went into production in 1972 thus designed from the late 1960's. I was been a tad flippant with the chassis to be fair however, that said... I'd still rather not ride on a regular basis on a train based upon something original developed to standards from the 60 & 70's
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Any rail vehicle is going to have far greater structural strength than any passenger-carrying road vehicle, and even though the Pacer is based on Leyland National bus components it has been considerably reinforced.

I'd like to say I'm convinced with that statement but I'm not. The key strength on a pacer would come from the chassis used. That said, the key issues of safety on a pacer and to be fair, any rail carriage of its date are the lack of passive safety built in, the rounded corners, impact deforming fixtures and other such things that have been developed in the 30 years since these things were first built - compare a 80's Ford Escort with a 10's Ford Focus - there's a world of difference in safety inside.

The reduction in collisions due to TPWS and other safety initiatives since the 1990s means the Pacers are safer now then when first introduced.

TPWS doesn't make the Pacer any safer, it makes collisions less likely to happen - which is quite a different matter - Whilst the risk of collision may have reduced, the severity of your injuries are influenced by fixtures inside and the overall construction, thus remain at the same level as without TPWS.

 

[Smudger105e]

The Pacer "product" was, but it was fundamentally based upon the Leyland National Bus which first went into production in 1972 thus designed from the late 1960's. I was been a tad flippant with the chassis to be fair however, that said... I'd still rather not ride on a regular basis on a train based upon something original developed to standards from the 60 & 70's
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I'd like to say I'm convinced with that statement but I'm not. The key strength on a pacer would come from the chassis used. That said, the key issues of safety on a pacer and to be fair, any rail carriage of its date are the lack of passive safety built in, the rounded corners, impact deforming fixtures and other such things that have been developed in the 30 years since these things were first built - compare a 80's Ford Escort with a 10's Ford Focus - there's a world of difference in safety inside.




TPWS doesn't make the Pacer any safer, it makes collisions less likely to happen - which is quite a different matter - Whilst the risk of collision may have reduced, the severity of your injuries are influenced by fixtures inside and the overall construction, thus remain at the same level as without TPWS.

Of course making a vehicle less likely to be involved in an accident makes it safer, in terms of injuries/mile travelled. I do agree that it does not make the vehicle safer if it is involved in an incident.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Sorry, wrong quote used!

 

[34D]

144012 is progressing and should be released for evaluation and training within the next few weeks.

Put of curiosity, why do people dislike the Pacers? Is it just the ride quality or are there other things that are objectionable?

Isnt it just simply because they replaced the 101s 108s etc that were popular with enthusiasts? I have no problem with travelling on them.

History has shown that getting rid of the 141 diagrams in the mid 1990s was a mistake, so let's not do that again.

 

[ainsworth74]

Isnt it just simply because they replaced the 101s 108s etc that were popular with enthusiasts? I have no problem with travelling on them.

Considering they're not liked by the general public (including those who would have no memory of 101s or 108s) I don't think that is it.

 

[Haydn1971]

Considering they're not liked by the general public (including those who would have no memory of 101s or 108s) I don't think that is it.

Indeed, 101 is a Depeche Mode live album and 108 was the speed of pre-n wifi

...and I'm 44 this year

 

[northwichcat]

Isnt it just simply because they replaced the 101s 108s etc that were popular with enthusiasts? I have no problem with travelling on them.

I think that's now inaccurate due to Pacers having been moved around quite a bit. The 142s regularly appear on lines including Southport, Mid-Cheshire and Calder Vale now which would have been Pacer free in the early 1990s, while some places have become normally Pacer free when they wouldn't have been in the early 1990s - I think Windermere and Hull are such examples.

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

I think that's now inaccurate due to Pacers having been moved around quite a bit. The 142s regularly appear on lines including Southport, Mid-Cheshire and Calder Vale now which would have been Pacer free in the early 1990s, while some places have become normally Pacer free when they wouldn't have been in the early 1990s - I think Windermere and Hull are such examples.

I've seen Pacers to Hull twice when last at Doncaster. It's not "Pacer free" at all.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Even in the last days of 101s in Manchester, Marple commuters would moan if a 142 turned up instead of a 101, even though the majority of 101s by that point had very similar seating to the bus benches on the 142s, and even though it was very rare to get a driver who didn't pull the blinds down on the back of their cab. You don't have to be an enthusiast to notice the poor ride quality of the Pacers!

 

[edwin_m]

I'd like to say I'm convinced with that statement but I'm not. The key strength on a pacer would come from the chassis used. That said, the key issues of safety on a pacer and to be fair, any rail carriage of its date are the lack of passive safety built in, the rounded corners, impact deforming fixtures and other such things that have been developed in the 30 years since these things were first built - compare a 80's Ford Escort with a 10's Ford Focus - there's a world of difference in safety inside.

The UIC standard applicable at the time was for a 200 tonne end loading, though I think this was at buffer height and there was a lower figure for cantrail height. I can't imagine any passenger-carrying road vehicle gets anywhere near that. Some passive safety features would have been built in on refurbishment, particularly with replacement seats.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

TPWS doesn't make the Pacer any safer, it makes collisions less likely to happen - which is quite a different matter - Whilst the risk of collision may have reduced, the severity of your injuries are influenced by fixtures inside and the overall construction, thus remain at the same level as without TPWS.

It's a key feature of safety management that it should consider both the likelihood and the severity of accidents. Isn't that applied to road safety too?

Generally TPWS makes collisions less likely. It may also reduce the severity of a collision it can't prevent, by slowing down the trains involved.

 

[Haydn1971]

Well yes, reducing the risk is a key feature of road safety, but to be fair, there aren't many 30 year old cars in daily use on the roads today. Unlike on the railways where there are significant numbers of passengers carried on old stock. Notwithstanding the limited number of safety litigations introduced in the track, plus the revised seats on a select few units, I'd rather take my chances in a modern carriage than a 30 year old one.