• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Class 142 Bodyshells

Status
Not open for further replies.

MG11

Member
Joined
4 Nov 2017
Messages
638
Hi all. I was wondering, considering Class 142s use Leyland National bus body shells, were there any modifications done at the time of manufacture to make them stronger and more crashworthy than a standard Leyland National bus shell? After all, they are designed to run at much higher speeds than buses. I was wondering if maybe they had strengthening bars fitted inside the panelling or perhaps a heat treatment to make them conform with rail standards? Thanks all.

MG11
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,784
Location
Nottingham
The gaps between the three windows at the cab end will no doubt contain some structural strengthening. Probably the cab corner pillars too.
 

gareth950

Member
Joined
3 Nov 2013
Messages
1,009
Strengthening or not, photos like these don't fill you with confidence that a 142 has a chance against, well, anything

bd7eaf11-e351-4791-9433-a169c94a69c7.png


train-crashcheshire-g4mt43.jpg
 

Spartacus

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2009
Messages
3,852
I dunno, collisions with pretty solid things! They didn't catch fire which is one bonus, which didn't always happen with the units the preceded them.
 

Eccles1983

On Moderation
Joined
4 Sep 2016
Messages
841
Strengthening or not, photos like these don't fill you with confidence that a 142 has a chance against, well, anything

bd7eaf11-e351-4791-9433-a169c94a69c7.png


train-crashcheshire-g4mt43.jpg


I think the opposite.

One ran for several miles down hill into buffers without brakes and was generally all in one piece when attempting to explore liverpool city centre.

The other was smashed by a train weighing several times its own weight at 50+ miles an hour.

They stood up pretty well to them smashes.
 

whhistle

Established Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
2,636
I bet some stations could use them as additional waiting rooms with some creativity.
 

quarella

Member
Joined
7 Dec 2009
Messages
820
Hi all. I was wondering, considering Class 142s use Leyland National bus body shells, were there any modifications done at the time of manufacture to make them stronger and more crashworthy than a standard Leyland National bus shell? After all, they are designed to run at much higher speeds than buses. I was wondering if maybe they had strengthening bars fitted inside the panelling or perhaps a heat treatment to make them conform with rail standards? Thanks all.

MG11
Although running at higher speeds than a bus it would be in a controlled environment.
 

sprinterguy

Veteran Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,583
Location
Macclesfield
How many people have lost their lives due to crashes ???
On class 142s, none that I know off. The two major collisions pictured above were comparatively fortunate in being empty stock workings. I can't think of any fatal accidents involving any of the Pacer classes, in fact (though 141104s' collision with 156476 in 1989 did result in some serious injuries).
 

driver9000

Established Member
Joined
13 Jan 2008
Messages
4,570
The 142 is not a Leyland National body. It's made up of National body components fitted to a wider shell than the 8'2" bus shell. The 155 was also built using the same body components at Workington but to 23m Sprinter layout. The 141 is a Leyland National body even using the standard Leyland bus dash panel in the drivers cab and a DSD which is also used as the brake pedal in a bus!
 

quarella

Member
Joined
7 Dec 2009
Messages
820
In both photos the saloon area has stood up well with the cab and door area acting as a crumple zone and absorbing the impact.
 

CosherB

Established Member
Joined
23 Feb 2007
Messages
3,041
Location
Northwich
In both photos the saloon area has stood up well with the cab and door area acting as a crumple zone and absorbing the impact.
I'm not sure classing the cab as a crumple zone will endear you with any drivers.
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
11,147
Location
Redcar
In both photos the saloon area has stood up well with the cab and door area acting as a crumple zone and absorbing the impact.

Might be a good idea to read the reports, particularly on the Winsford crash. The destruction of the cab and one window bay, as well as the displacement of both bodies on the 142 by 2 metres isn't standing up well at all.
 

MG11

Member
Joined
4 Nov 2017
Messages
638
The 142 is not a Leyland National body. It's made up of National body components fitted to a wider shell than the 8'2" bus shell. The 155 was also built using the same body components at Workington but to 23m Sprinter layout. The 141 is a Leyland National body even using the standard Leyland bus dash panel in the drivers cab and a DSD which is also used as the brake pedal in a bus!
Thank you for clarifying. So, it seems they are of a railway strength build, although perhaps they wouldn't pass today's new build standards! :lol:

I imagine that is why the 141s were withdrawn prematurely, because of them not having the strength of a train body shell.
 

driver9000

Established Member
Joined
13 Jan 2008
Messages
4,570
I imagine that is why the 141s were withdrawn prematurely, because of them not having the strength of a train body shell.

They were unreliable wastes of tin. Modifications to the couplers, engines and brakes helped but not much.
 

M1544

Member
Joined
20 Sep 2016
Messages
137
Might be a good idea to read the reports, particularly on the Winsford crash. The destruction of the cab and one window bay, as well as the displacement of both bodies on the 142 by 2 metres isn't standing up well at all.

As a result the 142/3/4 pacers all had crash tube modifications following the Winsford crash so that the bodies wouldn’t be likely to slide along the underframes again and to make them as crashworthy as other 1980s era units like sprinters. So they are actually more crashworthy now than they were.
Also the winsford crash was in pre TPWS days which all trains are now fitted with to help prevent spads and collisions.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
19,379
Location
Yorkshire
Thank you for clarifying. So, it seems they are of a railway strength build, although perhaps they wouldn't pass today's new build standards! :lol:

I imagine that is why the 141s were withdrawn prematurely, because of them not having the strength of a train body shell.
It's not why they were withdrawn, but it might well have been a subsequent reason to do so had they not become surplus*.

*= surplus in the sense that they weren't needed to run scheduled services- not surplus in the sense that, rubbish though they were, the capacity they may have offered would have been welcomed even in the 1990s.
 

MG11

Member
Joined
4 Nov 2017
Messages
638
As a result the 142/3/4 pacers all had crash tube modifications following the Winsford crash so that the bodies wouldn’t be likely to slide along the underframes again and to make them as crashworthy as other 1980s era units like sprinters. So they are actually more crashworthy now than they were.
Also the winsford crash was in pre TPWS days which all trains are now fitted with to help prevent spads and collisions.
Ahhh thank you for that, did this involve strengthening the shell, I.e. front and side walls do you know?
 

Wilts Wanderer

Established Member
Joined
21 Nov 2016
Messages
3,199
IMG_0104.JPG This was the result of the Huddersfield collision in 1989. The 156 basically had a bent gangway and broken coupler and was returned to service.
 

Cowley

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
18,987
Location
Devon
It’s popped it’s little destination blind out. :frown:
 

driver9000

Established Member
Joined
13 Jan 2008
Messages
4,570
Ahhh thank you for that, did this involve strengthening the shell, I.e. front and side walls do you know?

It involved putting lots of bolts in to hold the body to the frame. If you look at the step in the doorways you can see them. They are sometimes called Winsford Bolts.
 

GusB

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
8,219
Location
Elginshire
"Beyond Reality - Leyland Bus, the Twilight Years" by Doug Jack, has a section on the 142s and how they differed from the "standard" National bus body. If I've missed anything out, apologies - it's purely a transcription error.
The previous Class 141 rail vehicles had been criticised because they were the same width, 2,500mm, as the National and therefore failed to take advantage of the greater width available to standard gauge trains. British Rail normally works to a width of 2,815mm (9ft.3in.) which can comfortably accept 3+2 seating. The problem was that the highly tooled roofsticks could not be cut and lengthened.

An ingenious solution was found by incorporating cove pieces which effectively added half the desired extra width into each side. This the Class 142 railbuses achieved a nominal overall width of 2,800mm. At the same time the opportunity was taken to include in these cove brackets the necessary reinforcing members to meet the railway vehicle end-loading requirements.

It had been intended to offer this increased vehicle width as an option for customers who required it. In the event Alexander cut the ground from under Leyland's feet with its class 143, built jointly with Andrew Barclay & Sons of Kilmarnock, which met BR's existing width specification and Leyland was left with no choice but to offer the wider version at no extra cost for the whole of the class 142 contract - the so-called wide bodied vehicles. This decision had severe financial implications but was indicative of the area into which Leyland, with BR's assistance perhaps, had propelled itself.
 

MG11

Member
Joined
4 Nov 2017
Messages
638
"Beyond Reality - Leyland Bus, the Twilight Years" by Doug Jack, has a section on the 142s and how they differed from the "standard" National bus body. If I've missed anything out, apologies - it's purely a transcription error.
An interesting read - thanks for sharing.
 

dubscottie

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2010
Messages
1,013
The 156 had a bit more damage than that. There was talk of having to write off a vehicle. If you look at pictures of the 156, the body was distorted back to the second window.
View attachment 39416 This was the result of the Huddersfield collision in 1989. The 156 basically had a bent gangway and broken coupler and was returned to service.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top