8 years left for Pacers?

[ANorthernGuard]

But are Pacers that bad?

In a Word







YES!

 

[yorksrob]

If you're brave enough to visit a toilet on a 142!

I am not so sure - many London inner surburban trains, for example, don't have toilet facilities. London Overground's 378s are new stock which were specifically ordered without toilets.

Well, the 378's are a train pretending to be a tube

I don't know whether they go as far as Watford, for example, but for such journeys they should really have put in toilets.

I would certainly expect the 455 replacements to have them.

 

[WelshZ]

Seeing as the 153's are not cost effective to bring up to standard as well could they be refurbished and used as centre cars with a DDA Toilet installed where the luggage space is in combination with two 142 carriages. yes I know that would look slightly off but they are able to work in multiple so...

The only way I can see a pacer refurbishment working is if either the floor was lowered or if a retractable ramp is placed under the floor (or is that not DDA compliant?)

 

[tbtc]

Hazel Grove & East Manchester Lines to Chinley with Bays. (Works out at roughly 12 - 15 diagrams, but yet again, there is the 'sparks effect')

How would that release 12/15 units?

Maybe half a dozen for the Marple/ Rose Hill Marple services (though you'd still need to run DMUs on the Hope Valley services, I don't see where your additional six/nine units come from (they aren't all doubled up)?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't know whether they go as far as Watford, for example, but for such journeys they should really have put in toilets

Nobody would use them for a Euston - Watford journey though
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But are Pacers that bad?

Compared to the dog-eared rubbish we were travelling around on in the early 90s, they're not that bad!

A decent re-furb and the ATW stock with high backed seats seem pretty good to me, much better than when they had bus type seats. It's more a issue of over-crowding?

They are quite a mixed bag. A refurbished Pacer is okay on a short journey. The problem is that there seems to be no "structure" for what type of Pacers run on which routes, and too many Pacers run on longer distance routes.

Some of the routes in question are the type where you wouldn't sit "end to end" on the Pacer because there is a faster alternative service (e.g. they do a lot of the Northern services from Sheffield to Leeds, but there are faster Northern/ XC services between the two cities, so the Pacers are used more for local journeys in the Dearne Valley/ Barnsley area and from these "midway" places to Sheffield/ Leeds).

If Pacers were confined to just the shorter routes then there wouldn't as many complaints, I can think of a few branches like in East Anglia that they would be okay for

 

[sprinterguy]

Seeing as the 153's are not cost effective to bring up to standard as well could they be refurbished and used as centre cars with a DDA Toilet installed where the luggage space is in combination with two 142 carriages. yes I know that would look slightly off but they are able to work in multiple so...

You'd have to change the couplers: 142s (and Pacers in general) have bar couplers within the unit, they only have BSIs at the outer ends.

 

[WestCoast]

But are Pacers that bad?

Compared to the dog-eared rubbish we were travelling around on in the early 90s, they're not that bad!

A decent re-furb and the ATW stock with high backed seats seem pretty good to me, much better than when they had bus type seats. It's more a issue of over-crowding?

Northern probably have the worst of the bunch, especially in the North West where most of the low-backed seated examples operate (also seen on the Man Picc - Sheffield service, and occasionally in other Northern areas). West of the Pennines mainly sees the 142s that were 'refurbished' by First North Western. They retain the infamous 'bus seats', which aren't comfortable for anything more than the shortest of journeys in my opinion.

Even worse are the 142s that were 'refurbished' with Merseytravel funding. They put in newer style bus seats, which are rock hard and seem to have very little legroom. An absolute disaster!

I find it amazing how much more comfortable (IMO) the ex-Northern Spirit 142s (with high backed seating) seem, plus ATW's 142s/143s and FGW's 143s, which have had enhanced seating fitted. Northern's 144s aren't bad either.

 

[yorksrob]

Nobody would use them for a Euston - Watford journey though
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


They are quite a mixed bag. A refurbished Pacer is okay on a short journey. The problem is that there seems to be no "structure" for what type of Pacers run on which routes, and too many Pacers run on longer distance routes.

Some of the routes in question are the type where you wouldn't sit "end to end" on the Pacer because there is a faster alternative service (e.g. they do a lot of the Northern services from Sheffield to Leeds, but there are faster Northern/ XC services between the two cities, so the Pacers are used more for local journeys in the Dearne Valley/ Barnsley area and from these "midway" places to Sheffield/ Leeds).

If Pacers were confined to just the shorter routes then there wouldn't as many complaints, I can think of a few branches like in East Anglia that they would be okay for

R.e. Watford - Euston, true, but it's still a long way for some of the more exotic locations north of Harrow and Wealdstone.

Regarding the Pacers, I agree with your point in that some of the 143's and 144's with decent seating are reasonable enough for mid-distance runs such as Sheffield - Leeds.

I often use the route for journeys between Normanton and Sheffield though, which is a fair distance and I would be very annoyed to end up doing this journey on a Merseyrail Pacer for example.

 

[ChrisCooper]

An important thing to remember when it comes to things like toilet facilities is the length of journey that most passengers will do, as opposed to the length of journey the stock operates. A lot of toiletless suburban stock such as the 455 (and also 313s and derivatives) runs on services where few people would travel end to end. As others have said too, it also does depend if toilets are provided on stations.

 

[yorksrob]

An important thing to remember when it comes to things like toilet facilities is the length of journey that most passengers will do, as opposed to the length of journey the stock operates. A lot of toiletless suburban stock such as the 455 (and also 313s and derivatives) runs on services where few people would travel end to end. As others have said too, it also does depend if toilets are provided on stations.

One thing to note about the Oldham Loop is that very few stations had toilets.

Also, for radial suburban routes inparticular, whilst proportionally few people will travel end to end on those services, a lot of the people using the smaller stations towards the far end of the line, will be travelling to the urban terminus, so you are guaranteed some fairly long journeys.

Another point about toilets - when I visit my home town of Ashford in Kent, I often see Networkers on scheduled stoppers into London, whereas I don't ever recall seeing an EPB (the Networkers' predecessors which were toiletless) on such a service. I suspect that this operational flexibility has a lot to do with the presence of a loo.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

One thing to note about the Oldham Loop is that very few stations had toilets.

At the time of closure none did - only Shaw & Crompton and Oldham Mumps were staffed, but neither had many passenger facilities.

 

[yorksrob]

At the time of closure none did - only Shaw & Crompton and Oldham Mumps were staffed, but neither had many passenger facilities.

I'd be hard put to describe the "facility" at Victoria as one

 

[WestCoast]

I'd be hard put to describe the "facility" at Victoria as one

It's quite a "facility", isn't it? hock:

On the subject of toilets, Britain is seriously a nation of toilet facilities. You know that you will almost always find a loo everywhere you go. It's not like that in many other countries.

 

[tbtc]

R.e. Watford - Euston, true, but it's still a long way for some of the more exotic locations north of Harrow and Wealdstone.

Regarding the Pacers, I agree with your point in that some of the 143's and 144's with decent seating are reasonable enough for mid-distance runs such as Sheffield - Leeds.

I often use the route for journeys between Normanton and Sheffield though, which is a fair distance and I would be very annoyed to end up doing this journey on a Merseyrail Pacer for example.

Aye, just trying to put some perspective on things, rather than the black/white view that we sometimes get on Pacers.

If there were so few Pacers that we could just restrict them to routes like Manchester - Marple or Preston - Ormskirk or Ellesmere Port - Hellsby then that might be okay.

If we are going to squeeze another eight years out of then we really ought to be tarting up the "bus seated" Pacers at the very least though - especially as actual buses tend to have much better seats these days!

 

[yorksrob]

Aye, just trying to put some perspective on things, rather than the black/white view that we sometimes get on Pacers.

If there were so few Pacers that we could just restrict them to routes like Manchester - Marple or Preston - Ormskirk or Ellesmere Port - Hellsby then that might be okay.

If we are going to squeeze another eight years out of then we really ought to be tarting up the "bus seated" Pacers at the very least though - especially as actual buses tend to have much better seats these days!

Yes, it's definately something I'd specify for early in the next franchise.

 

[tbtc]

Yes, it's definately something I'd specify for early in the next franchise.

Yup, if we are stuck with them for at least eight years then I reckon a refresh would be worthwhile.

Only problem is that turning a 3+2 Merseyrail 142 into a 2+2 unit (with the ATN interior) would mean fewer seats. No way round that though...

 

[yorksrob]

Yup, if we are stuck with them for at least eight years then I reckon a refresh would be worthwhile.

Only problem is that turning a 3+2 Merseyrail 142 into a 2+2 unit (with the ATN interior) would mean fewer seats. No way round that though...

Hopefully with all the cascades, there'll be enough to double up a few by then !

 

[WestCoast]

Only problem is that turning a 3+2 Merseyrail 142 into a 2+2 unit (with the ATN interior) would mean fewer seats. No way round that though...

Those seats are very 'cozy' for three people! Forget the whingeing we heard about 450s at SWT, sitting in the middle is an experience on those 142s!

 

[yorksrob]

Those seats are very 'cozy' for three people! Forget the whingeing we heard about 450s at SWT!

Indeed - and to think people complain about a VEP !

 

[jon0844]

I can think of a few branches like in East Anglia that they would be okay for

Liverpool St services to Norwich and Stansted airport?!

Sent from my Sinclair Spectrum via Tapatalk

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Northern probably have the worst of the bunch, especially in the North West where most of the low-backed seated examples operate .....Even worse are the 142s that were 'refurbished' with Merseytravel funding.

I am with you all the way on these points.

 

[northwichcat]

There is no current legislation that would prevent Pacres from operating beyond 2019 on the national network. The idea that the DDA would prevent them from operating after 2019 is fanciful, in fact its easier to make a 142 DDA compliant than a 158.

As already mentioned, the leasing companies are working on there plans for the Pacers, the first details appeared in Modern Railways back in 2009, along with a couple of artists impressions.

You've got a bit mixed up there. They looked at (past tense) Pacer DDA compliance plans and Porterbrook came up with something like a Turbostar internal design for the 143s. Porterbrook decided however that the cost would be too great to implement given how long they expect them to last. Now if Porterbrook can't justify making the 143s DDA compliant, how can Angel Trains justify making older 142s DDA complaint?

Like I've already pointed out two major transport bodies: Network Rail and TfGM have said Pacers will need replacing by the end of 2019. This was decided on in early 2010, after the plans for making Pacers compliant were declared unsuccessful and is why DDA was referred to and not the Equality Act.

As has been pointed out the Transport Secretary can allow minor infringements to continue beyond the end of 2019. Given a standard wheelchair can be loaded on to a 158 or 159 at probably any station, the fact that the doors are a bit narrow probably won't need changing if the Transport Secretary gives the OK.

something that was backed up lately by the specification for the next Great Western (GW) franchise, it made no mention of replacing the Pacers it operates, and if its not a contractual obligation, there is no need for the winner of that franchise to do so.

FGW have just 8 Pacers and the future GW franchise operator are getting 30+ 4 car EMUs and will likely be using some of the Turbostars to replace 158s on Cardiff-Portsmouth. They will then have spare 158s, which can be used to replace 150s and the 150s can replace 143s, so there is no need to order new DMUs for FGW as Pacer replacement.

We already know there is enough DMUs being freed up by electrification to replace the 142s like for like and the TransPennine electrification will create more. It may be to late for GW but not for Northern or Wales, but it will take everyone from the passengers to the politicians and the staff to stand up and say enough is enough before anything will happen.

Seems to contradict your previous statement a bit there. However, this statement is wrong. The 319s have to provide the extra capacity that should have been provided by a new order of 200+ additional DMU vehicles for Northern,TPE and FGW. There has also been further growth since the order was cancelled and having 4 car units instead of 2 and 3 car units provides less flexibility so more vehicles are required in total. It's possible around 10 Pacers will be freed up by the North West and the 143s will be freed up by Thames Valley electrification but in reality it's going to be a case of all the units could usefully continue in service subject to there being enough funding to do so.

The extent of North TPE electrification and timings are not confirmed. If it is all of North TPE or all bar Scarborough and completed by the end of 2019 then probably around 30 Pacers could be directly and indirectly freed up.

So in total 10+8+30= Maximum of 48 Pacers freed up by electrification, which is around 40% of the total number of Pacers.

 

[WelshBluebird]

from the various comments I hear, the general public don't like them at all. I have never heard so much whinging about any other train class.

Indeed. You know they are not liked when people who generally don't take any note of what kind of train they are travelling in start complaining about them!

 

[Cliveblackpool]

I haven't a problem with the bus type seating, (in good condition!) A 'cosy' seat is far better than no seat!

They were designed primarily for use on rural branch lines, and used a lightweight construction, and have a poorer crash worthiness.
For that reason, imo Pacers should be replaced, or mainly employed on branches, which have lower average speeds / less risk of an accident with a heavy express/ freight train.
Not being fitted with bogies was a poor choice, and as a result were found to be unsuitable for several branch lines, for which they were intended.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Not being fitted with bogies was a poor choice, and as a result were found to be unsuitable for several branch lines, for which they were intended.

Noting what you say, how was the matter of the bogies seen by the design and operational teams, when these units were first launched into service, especially with the branch line problem. Was it never discussed at any design stage? Were evaluation tests ever performed and if so, were the findings made public?

 

[Cliveblackpool]

Noting what you say, how was the matter of the bogies seen by the design and operational teams, when these units were first launched into service, especially with the branch line problem. Was it never discussed at any design stage? Were evaluation tests ever performed and if so, were the findings made public?

I remember at the time they sent a Pacer (Skipper), which was in chocolate and cream down for evaluation in Cornwall. The local Passenger consultative Committee were invited to a trial. (I knew one of them) They reported that the fixed wheel vehicles were unsuitable for 4/5 Cornish branch lines.
I believe that was ignored, and 6 months later or so they started to arrive. Passengers complained of wheel screech etc, but that was too ignored. Gunislake branch often suffered wheel slip too.
Only when they discovered the heavy wheel wear, and damage to the track they were withdrawn on those lines!

 

[ChrisCooper]

It's a shame really there was not more radical thinking at the time from the rail side of things. In that case what we might have ended up with was the same bus body but on an articulated underframe. There would have been no increase in axle weight (often used as a negative of articulation, especially for high speeds or poor lines) in fact it would have been less due to being on 6 axles instead of 4 (or 8 instead of 6 if WYPTE had still wanted the centre cars). Due to short length and narrow bodies the centre throw issue of articulated trains shouldn't have been a problem. Mechanically, just turn the whole lot around and power the outer bogies, just like most trams do. Ride quality should have been as good as a Sprinter.

Ok, crashworthyness would still be the same, but I think that's overexagerted. Not a single person has been killed travelling on a Pacer, and there has been one accident where people would likely have died had the Pacer been occupied, an accident that should not happen today with TPWS. The main accident risk on the railways today is obstruction on the line (particularly road vehicles). A Pacer underframe is still very strong and should withstand these sort of accidents fine. Mk1 units have hit vehicles before and come off no worse than more modern trains. Plus you can't single out Pacers and not the 313s and derivatives. They have seperate underframes and have been shown to not perform greatly in crashes (Newton, 314 and 303 collided, both leading coaches demolished). If a 313 derailed into the path of a 125mph 91 or HST on the ECML, or even one of the other FCC units, I wouldn't say much for the chances of the 313 passengers, any more than if it was a Pacer.

 

[WatcherZero]

Isnt that just what the Sprinters were though? Mk2 of the pacer with proper rotating bogies and suspension.

 

[Lampshade]

Isnt that just what the Sprinters were though? Mk2 of the pacer with proper rotating bogies and suspension.

Nope, 150s are older than Pacers.

 

[WatcherZero]

First sprinter protypes were 1984, first pacers prototypes were 1980? Pacers would therefore be at least four years older in the project stage.

 

[northwichcat]

First sprinter protypes were 1984, first pacers prototypes were 1980? Pacers would therefore be at least four years older in the project stage.

The 150 was a DMU version of the Class 210 DEMU, which was trialled from 1981 onwards and was GMPTE's preferred choice for new units but they proved too expensive.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Only when they discovered the heavy wheel wear, and damage to the track they were withdrawn on those lines!

And the 142s were sent North, with 150s being sent in the opposite direction meaning Sprinters were used on branch lines routes and Pacers used on lines with heavier loadings from the early days.