Back to the Past: Why weren't Pacers replaced sooner?

[RailWonderer]

In the early 1980s Pacers were stated to be a short term solution until suitable replacements could be found. Their intended lifespan should've been until the late 1990s, early 2000s when the South saw mass fleet replacements and ToCs were mandated by the then SRA to replace their fleets. Why was Arriva Trains Northern, Northern (in all its iterations) and First North Western not made to order more new rolling stock? I know there were union disputes, fines and shortages of drivers etc but why did they let the service fall apart for so long?

 

[pdeaves]

Ultimately, someone has to pay.

 

[DarloRich]

Cash: Both unwillingness to spend and willingness to earn!

 

[Mat17]

Why was Arriva Trains Northern, Northern (in all its iterations) and First North Western not made to order more new rolling stock? I know there were union disputes, fines and shortages of drivers etc but why did they let the service fall apart for so long?

I can't speak for Arriva Trains Northern, but First North Western did order new stock (or their immediate predecessors did). The reason the 175s didn't replace the Pacers is because they were ordered to replace loco hauled stock and Class 101s.

FNW also replaced class 309 around the same time as well. A few years before the 305s had been culled as well.

I almost forgot.... Northern Spirit ordered the 333s to replace the 308s.

 

[norbitonflyer]

After the asbestos deadline, the next priority in the 1990s/2000s was to replace Mark 1 slam-door stock, which had crashworthiness issues as well as falling-out-of-trains issues. Most of this was to be found on electrified routes in the south east. The Pacers, being built to more recent standards, were deemed safe to continue for a bit longer - and then a bit longer still - and then a few more years pending electrification which never came .....

 

[The exile]

Not to mention the rise in passenger numbers which stopped things falling off the bottom of the cascade fir several years.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Lots of trains in the BR era were built for a short lifespan. Many lasted a long time. The Hastings units also spring to mind

 

[Towers]

The Pacers were simple, generally reliable, and cheap both to lease and operate - and, shock horror, actually perfectly adequate for plenty of routes.

Travelling on a Pacer was no worse than travelling on a Class 150 still is today, and will continue to be for some years to come. Their withdrawal was primarily a political move, driven by a vocal few with certain agendas. I very much doubt that the passengers of Northern or TfW, who were crammed into short formed services in the middle of a pandemic, thought that their withdrawal was so vital that it was sensible to push it through despite there being no replacement ready. Given the multitude of hurdles that have beset numerous fleets of eye-wateringly expensive new trains, there is a lot to be said for the simple, fit-for-purpose approach of a train like the Pacer.

End of rant!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

In the early 1980s Pacers were stated to be a short term solution until suitable replacements could be found. Their intended lifespan should've been until the late 1990s, early 2000s when the South saw mass fleet replacements and ToCs were mandated by the then SRA to replace their fleets. Why was Arriva Trains Northern, Northern (in all its iterations) and First North Western not made to order more new rolling stock? I know there were union disputes, fines and shortages of drivers etc but why did they let the service fall apart for so long?

The successive DfT franchises in the north did not allow for Pacer replacement until the 2015 Arriva one.
The 2004 Abellio/Serco franchise was let by the SRA, along with Arriva Trains Wales, at a particularly low point in rail finances, as "no growth" franchises.
Both franchises were high subsidy affairs (and still are), so new stock was deemed unaffordable.
That meant they just had to soldier on with existing stock for what turned out to be another 15 years (ATW had the nearly-new 175 fleet).
Pacers were also particularly cheap to own and run, so any replacements would have cost more.
Northern did have use of some 180s for a spell on some Blackpool services, until more 156s (I think) arrived to replace them.

Even in 2015, the DfT machine didn't want to buy new trains for Northern, and had to be overruled by the Secretary of State at the time (Patrick McLoughlin) who knew that they had become a political liability.
The final nail in their coffin was the lack of disability provision, which forced them off the rails at Northern/ATW/GWR by 2020 (with a slight overrun for a few units).

 

[JonathanH]

It shouldn't be ignored either that Northern did release pacers in 2007 when they sourced 158s and started a cascade - this was effectively driven by TPE getting the 185s. Some of the 158s they had lined up were diverted to Scotland. Eventually the spare pacers (including those which went to FGW) had to be put back into service to cope with additional demand.

 

[Dr Hoo]

In the early 1980s Pacers were stated to be a short term solution until suitable replacements could be found. Their intended lifespan should've been until the late 1990s, early 2000s when the South saw mass fleet replacements and ToCs were mandated by the then SRA to replace their fleets. Why was Arriva Trains Northern, Northern (in all its iterations) and First North Western not made to order more new rolling stock? I know there were union disputes, fines and shortages of drivers etc but why did they let the service fall apart for so long?

Can you provide an official/authoritative link/source/reference (probably from within BR) for your premise?

"These will never last" sort of comments from journalists and enthusiasts in the 1980s don't count.

 

[py_megapixel]

Travelling on a Pacer was no worse than travelling on a Class 150 still is today

From this statement I can tell that you do not have any kind of condition which either significantly impairs your mobility or increases your sensitivity to sound. Many people do, and were glad to see the back of them.

A refurbished 150 - even on the cheap as Northern have done it - is far, far superior to a Pacer.

 

[Towers]

Can you provide an official/authoritative link/source/reference (probably from within BR) for your premise?

"These will never last" sort of comments from journalists and enthusiasts in the 1980s don't count.

Don't forget that the HSTs were also only supposed to be a stopgap, weren't they intended to last ten years? So it doesn't seem unreasonable that the Pacers would have been intended to be similar.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Nov 2021 ==

From this statement I can tell that you do not have any kind of condition which either impairs your mobility or increases your sensitivity to sound. Many people do, and were glad to see the back of them.

A refurbished 150 - even on the cheap as Northern have done it - is far, far superior to a Pacer.

Well we'll have to agree to disagree then, the racket inside a 150 is pretty much unrivalled in my experience! And of those doors, rattling whilst in motion and positively exploding if something passes at speed! I always found TfW's Pacers to be an equal travel experience to the 150s that they interworked with.

I accept that a Pacer has entrance steps of course, but that's what the ramps are for.

 

[43096]

Don't forget that the HSTs were also only supposed to be a stopgap, weren't they intended to last ten years? So it doesn't seem unreasonable that the Pacers would have been intended to be similar.

Another of those urban myths. Again, if you can find a definitive source for that, please post it.

There was no way BR were going to be authorised to buy new trains that would be intended to last 10 years.

 

[JonathanH]

Don't forget that the HSTs were also only supposed to be a stopgap, weren't they intended to last ten years?

That is a bit of a misquote. They might well have been expected to last ten years on the routes they were introduced to but they would have been cascaded elsewhere.

To some extent, this is what happened - HSTs only operated on the ECML as the primary rolling stock fleet for 13 years. The ECML fleet was then cascaded elsewhere, and obviously retained on the peripheral ECML routes which needed diesel traction.

 

[norbitonflyer]

The Pacers were simple, generally reliable, and cheap both to lease and operate -

I thought leasing charges were arranged, certainly at first, to be age-agnostic, (leasing charges to be the same for otherwise-similar units of different ages) to avoid franchises cherry-picking the oldest (cheapest) rolling stock.

 

[Towers]

I thought leasing charges were arranged, certainly at first, to be age-agnostic, (leasing charges to be the same for otherwise-similar units of different ages) to avoid franchises cherry-picking the oldest (cheapest) rolling stock.

I don't think many TOCs often had the option of "cherry picking" their DMU fleets!?

 

[6Gman]

The Pacers were simple, generally reliable, and cheap both to lease and operate - and, shock horror, actually perfectly adequate for plenty of routes.

Travelling on a Pacer was no worse than travelling on a Class 150 still is today, and will continue to be for some years to come. Their withdrawal was primarily a political move, driven by a vocal few with certain agendas. I very much doubt that the passengers of Northern or TfW, who were crammed into short formed services in the middle of a pandemic, thought that their withdrawal was so vital that it was sensible to push it through despite there being no replacement ready. Given the multitude of hurdles that have beset numerous fleets of eye-wateringly expensive new trains, there is a lot to be said for the simple, fit-for-purpose approach of a train like the Pacer.

End of rant!

I would agree with almost all of that except I would rank a 150 above a 142 for passenger comfort in most cases.

The only occasion on which I have felt nauseous on a train journey ever was Chester to Llandudno, 70mph on a bucking Pacer on jointed track was a really nasty experience.

However, Southport to Wigan (for example) was little different to being on a Sprinter.

Given that many of the services they were used on were commercially close to being basket cases "cheap and cheerful" (or just "cheap") had much to commend it!

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

Why weren't Pacers replaced sooner?​

Simple answer; because they weren't used in London and the south east.

They might have gone sooner had not passenger numbers in the south increased, meaning that what ever rolling stock was no longer considered suitable for sensitive southen sensibilities and bottoms never got cascaded down to the proles and peasants of Wales and Northern England.

 

[WesternLancer]

Why weren't Pacers replaced sooner?​

Simple answer; because they weren't used in London and the south east.

They might have gone sooner had not passenger numbers in the south increased, meaning that what ever rolling stock was no longer considered suitable for sensitive southen sensibilities and bottoms never got cascaded down to the proles and peasants of Wales and Northern England.

I suspect on that (plausible) logic they would never have even been built...

 

[Clarence Yard]

Simple answer - they were ordered to last the full lifetime of a BR DMU and accounted for as such, by BR.

The story that there were only ordered to last a short time is wibble.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Simple answer - they were ordered to last the full lifetime of a BR DMU and accounted for as such, by BR.

The story that there were only ordered to last a short time is wibble.

Thank you for confirming that.

 

[Starmill]

Some 142s were withdrawn in 2009 after the former Oldham Loop was closed.

I'm afraid I can't remember how many but I have a feeling it was about 12? They weren't stored for very long though, and some were back quickly, others went for a spell at First Great Western and then returned in 2011.

 

[StephenHunter]

That is a bit of a misquote. They might well have been expected to last ten years on the routes they were introduced to but they would have been cascaded elsewhere.

To some extent, this is what happened - HSTs only operated on the ECML as the primary rolling stock fleet for 13 years. The ECML fleet was then cascaded elsewhere, and obviously retained on the peripheral ECML routes which needed diesel traction.

They were more of a Plan B in the event of the failure of the Advanced Passenger Train, weren't they?

 

[Bevan Price]

Pacers were seen as a cheap solution to replace asbestos-laden 1st generation dmus, after it had been decided that Class 210 demus would be much too expensive to build in bulk.

I think many assumed that, being based on a bus design, they would have similar lifetimes as a bus (15-20 years). A fairy tale was propagated that they would help to save branch lines, but most of them were inflicted on "big city" suburban services for which they were totally unsuitable (mainly by being much too small).

And whilst reliability eventually improved, they were far from trouble-free in their early years, particularly unreliable door interlocks (common solution involved the guard's boot.)

 

[Sm5]

Another of those urban myths. Again, if you can find a definitive source for that, please post it.

There was no way BR were going to be authorised to buy new trains that would be intended to last 10 years.

WD’s werent Intended to last 10 years.
RODs neither in WW1 for that matter.

 

[StephenHunter]

WD’s werent Intended to last 10 years.
RODs neither in WW1 for that matter.

Those weren't under BR though.

 

[Lloyds siding]

Can you provide an official/authoritative link/source/reference (probably from within BR) for your premise?

"These will never last" sort of comments from journalists and enthusiasts in the 1980s don't count.

Not from BR, but Leyland Bus.
Eric Woodcock's 'Zavanak' website https://zavanak.com/ says:
'Trains based on this design would be far from perfect. Accommodation would be basic, they would be quite noisy inside, and the absence of bogies presented the risk of excessive track and tyre wear on chords (fancy rail term for curves, and yes, trains do have tyres but they are made of metal).
On the other hand they would be cheap and the lead time on getting them built would be months not years. And anyway, they would surely have a relatively short operating life by rail standards, and be replaced by something more substantial in due course.'
and
'The Pacers were envisaged as a stop-gap solution when British regional railways were in desperate straits, and were therefore anticipated to have a fairly short life at the front line.
And of course, they were put to use in a role they were never designed for and it is remarkable they held together for so long. And as for that ‘stop-gap’ no-one really worked out how long they were meant to last (twenty years tops?) and when privatisation came along any logical fleet renewal plans got lost in the noise.'

Eric worked at Leyland for many years, icluding designing parts of the Leyland National, and then at the Workington factory attempting to sell buses and promoting the BRE-Leyland railbus.

 

[Bevan Price]

WD’s werent Intended to last 10 years.
RODs neither in WW1 for that matter.

The lifetimes of WDs was of secondary importance. They were basically intended to support military transport activities in WW2, and probably regarded as expendable. I think they were a much-simplified derivative of the Stanier 8F 2-8-0s that could be built quickly & cheaply in large numbers. After WW2, over 700 of them were bought (probably cheaply) as an easy method to replace elderly worn-out (or unreliable) freight locos. (Amongst the latter were the 175 troublesome Fowler LMSR 7F 0-8-0s.)

 

[StephenHunter]

The lifetimes of WDs was of secondary importance. They were basically intended to support military transport activities in WW2, and probably regarded as expendable. I think they were a much-simplified derivative of the Stanier 8F 2-8-0s that could be built quickly & cheaply in large numbers. After WW2, over 700 of them were bought (probably cheaply) as an easy method to replace elderly worn-out (or unreliable) freight locos. (Amongst the latter were the 175 troublesome Fowler LMSR 7F 0-8-0s.)

Also, in mainland Europe, a lot of locomotives there had been destroyed in bombing raids or by virtue of being targets of opportunity for aircraft like the Typhoon.