Class 142 Bad Condition

[350401]

Most 150s are awful, however went on a 150/2 on the 18:17 MAN-KNF (Mid Cheshire line) service. Refurbished and SO nice. Clean, sensible layout of bike and disabled areas, new seats. I wish they'd hurry up and refurbish all of them like that!

 

[driver9000]

Poshbakerloo I think you are refering to the Winsford accident where 142008 met its end when an 87 struck it. One of 2 out of 96 142s written off the other was 142059 which hit the buffer stops at Liverpool Lime St in 1990

 

[MCR247]

No, there was one near liverpool a few moths ago

 

[TrainBrain185]

Granted, the 156 was one of the few types of units to work reliably from the start without any major modifications. However, they bear more of a family resemblance to the 150 than Met Camm's stylish 151 design.

I used to travel by DMU a lot in the early 80s before there were any Pacers or Sprinters. The ride on the first generation units was really bad and I seem to recall that Wigan to Southport took nearly an hour calling at all stops. Today a Pacer will do it for around 35 minutes. You need to take a ride on an old preserved DMU to find out how bad they were compared to Pacers.

Someone else on another forum pointed out that whatever unit replaces the Pacers will need to be able to carry 6-8 cycles like the 142s can. Another suggestion has been to build a new fleet of Pacers with bogies.

Sensible comments Ed. I remember the Met-Cam Class 151 well and seen one prototype down BREL Tech Centre in Derby when new. In a nutshell, the 151 was a fresh design ahead of its time and looking at it even today, it still is! Why it was overlooked? I will never know for sure, but my hunch is that it was so bloody good looking a unit and far superior to the inferior looking BREL designed 150, the BREL engineers would not give it house room. The 151 oozed style and looked fit for purpose for a new generation but BREL engineers to me were stuck in a time warp and look what we got afterwards were awful looking 150 and later 155/156 and even 158's. Only now, years later have we caught up to the flare of the 151 design with the 170/180/185 series units.
I also wished folk would not moan about the Pacer. After a dreadful start in their lives, once again down to original BREL designed mechanicals, they have turned into a good useful motor for todays branch line work and with TLC by the train ops, should go on a lot longer yet.
Regards:

 

[ed1971]

I would rather be stuck in a hot 150 that a hot, noisy, bumpy and all most dangerous 142 (the bodyshell sheers away from the under frame in crashed it happened somewhere in Cheshire not long ago it says on wikipedia)...

Yes, it happened on 23 June 1999. The Pacer came off rather well considering that it was hit at 50 mph by a train formed of a class 87 locomotive and a rake of MK3 coaches. A total weight of 500 tons, (approximately the same weight as 12 class 142 units). It is doubtful that a 101 or 150 would have fared much better in this accident.

The Ladbroke Grove crash also happened in 1999. The leading carriage of the Thames Turbo class 165 (a development of the 150) was completely destroyed in the impact with the HST. The second carriage was withdrawn as well. A multiple unit colliding with an HST is bound to come off second best.

Two class 150/2 vehicles were written off when almost new. The leading carriage of 150209, (52209), derailed and struck a bridge at St. Helens Central station on 11 November 1988, killing the driver. 52212 from 150212 was written off after colliding with a civil engineer's crane at Seamer 15 September 1987 forming th 0618 Scarborough to York service.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sensible comments Ed. I remember the Met-Cam Class 151 well and seen one prototype down BREL Tech Centre in Derby when new. In a nutshell, the 151 was a fresh design ahead of its time and looking at it even today, it still is! Why it was overlooked? I will never know for sure, but my hunch is that it was so bloody good looking a unit and far superior to the inferior looking BREL designed 150, the BREL engineers would not give it house room. The 151 oozed style and looked fit for purpose for a new generation but BREL engineers to me were stuck in a time warp and look what we got afterwards were awful looking 150 and later 155/156 and even 158's. Only now, years later have we caught up to the flare of the 151 design with the 170/180/185 series units.
I also wished folk would not moan about the Pacer. After a dreadful start in their lives, once again down to original BREL designed mechanicals, they have turned into a good useful motor for todays branch line work and with TLC by the train ops, should go on a lot longer yet.
Regards:

Hi TrainBrain185,

I really wish that we were riding around now in 151s instead of 150s. Unfortunately, I never saw the two prototype units and sadly they have been scrapped a few years ago.

Metro Cammel clearly paid a lot of attention to detail unlike BREL's 150. In fact their 101 units were the last first generation DMUs in service in any quantity and gave 47 years service. If the 151 had gone into production and only lasted half as long then BR would have done well.

From what I can see, the 150 is merely a DMU variant of the earlier class 318 and 455 EMUs.

Regards.

 

[driver9000]

No, there was one near liverpool a few moths ago

That was 142042 that lost an engine near Broad Green last month, the body didnt come away from the frame

 

[WillPS]

The 150s (and 142s to some extent) do hold an advantage over the later Sprinters though, and that is their wide doors - much more appropriate for the services Sprinters typically operate.

 

[jopsuk]

Do you mean with a particular operator? The 156s have doors appropriate to the sort of services they were designed for- would you want to head up the West Highland in a 150 or pacer?

 

[ed1971]

That's right. The 156s were designed for Cross Country services, but are now being used on local Northern stopping services, having ousted 142s on some routes, eg: Wigan North Western to Liverpool Lime street. However, they have much better lineside visibility than 150s.

 

[Oswyntail]

.....Metro Cammel clearly paid a lot of attention to detail unlike BREL's 150. In fact their 101 units were the last first generation DMUs in service in any quantity and gave 47 years service. If the 151 had gone into production and only lasted half as long then BR would have done well.......

I may have got this entirely wrong, but aren't the 156s the production version of the 151.

 

[ed1971]

With regards to 150s (particularly 150/1s), would it be feasible to give them a complete interior refurb and fit them with more modern quieter engines, so that they don't sound like a Pneumatic drill? http://www.everytime.cummins.com/assets/pdf/4951253.pdf
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I may have got this entirely wrong, but aren't the 156s the production version of the 151.

No, they are altogether different. http://members.madasafish.com/~dysgraphyk/156/photo/DC_151002_RTC_0685.jpg

 

[WillPS]

I wasn't saying I preferred the 142s or 150s... I was just saying that is one advantage they have.

For as long as I've known 156s, they've been on mostly local work... certainly they weren't on CrossCountry duties come privatisation?

 

[ed1971]

I remember the 156s being introduced in 1988. They were designed for BR's Provincial sector's cross country services such as Cambridge to Blackpool North.

However as you mention, they have been used on local services since privatisation. I recall that the widespread introduction of 158s in 1991 caused a cascade ousting many first generation DMUs. We never had 150/1s in the North West until 1990, all 150s allocated to Newton Heath were 150/2s. However, Derby based 150/1s did pass through Manchester Vic on the Llandudno junction to Wakefield westgate service. When some of these were allocated to Newton Heath, there were a number of 3 car 150s made up of 150/1 outer cars and a 150/2 centre car.

 

[poshbakerloo]

It is doubtful that a 101 or 150 would have fared much better in this accident.

a 150 would have done much better than a 142 or 101 and it is MK3 not MK1 like the 101 and not based on a light weight bus like the 142...

 

[ukrob]

a 150 would have done much better than a 142 or 101 and it is MK3 not MK1 like the 101 and not based on a light weight bus like the 142...

No, it MAY have done better.

 

[poshbakerloo]

No, it MAY have done better.

if it was involved in the same accident it would have done due to the structure of the train...

 

[ukrob]

if it was involved in the same accident it would have done due to the structure of the train...

I think you are missing my point.

Nobody KNOWS if it would have done better in exactly the same accident. The chances are it would, but we don't know that. There are many more factors than just being based on a different body shell.

 

[ed1971]

a 150 would have done much better than a 142 or 101 and it is MK3 not MK1 like the 101 and not based on a light weight bus like the 142...

The 165 involved in the Ladbroke Grove accident did not come off any better. The first carriage was completely destroyed. The unit 165115, was in fact withdrawn altogether after the accident. The 165 looks like a development of the 150, but 23 metres long.

A 175, 180, 185 or 220 would likely come off better in such an accident, but it is the job of the signals to keep trains safely apart.

 

[GWRtom]

give me a 150/2 over a 142 anyday at least with 150/2s there not like green houses in the summer unlike ther 150/1 counterparts 142s are still good to in my opnion

 

[ed1971]

No one is suggesting that the Pacer fleets couldn't have been a lot better than what they are, IE: longer with bogies and decent seats. However, they have probably helped to prevent 'Beeching II' and should be appreciated more.

 

[dieselman]

142 what a fantastic train they keep me busy fixing them!

 

[ed1971]

Maybe, but at least they are not as complex as a 175 or 180 for example!

 

[poshbakerloo]

the 142s look odd aswell

 

[ed1971]

I don't really think that the 142s look odd. The 143s and 144s do have front ends that are more in line with rail practice. After all, there is nothing much more odd looking than the front ends of 150/2s, 153s, 155s, and 156s, which look like a monstrous carbuncle! The 150/1 does have a tidier front end, but that is about all that is going for it.

 

[SouthEastern-465]

Whatever modifications the Class 142 "Pacers" have they will always be crap,there unreliable for one and two there just ugly!.
Regards

 

[poshbakerloo]

Loads of DMU and EMUs have gangway ends, they needs them for expandability...

 

[johnb]

I don't really think that the 142s look odd. The 143s and 144s do have front ends that are more in line with rail practice. After all, there is nothing much more odd looking than the front ends of 150/2s, 153s, 155s, and 156s, which look like a monstrous carbuncle! The 150/1 does have a tidier front end, but that is about all that is going for it.

Weird - I don't like the 150/1 front ends at all, whereas the corridor connections on the classes you list look normal to me. Possibly because I grew up in Surrey where all the trains were units with corridor front ends...?

 

[WillPS]

Loads of DMU and EMUs have gangway ends, they needs them for expandability...

But they don't look as fugly as they do on the Mk.3 based Sprinters. Wessex Electrics and the more modern Electrostars wear them much better.

 

[ed1971]

Whatever modifications the Class 142 "Pacers" have they will always be crap,there unreliable for one and two there just ugly!.
Regards

For the intense work that they do, I don't think that they are as unreliable as some more recent units. For example the 180s that Northern have taken on temporarily. Apparently they are a real headache. The 175s were also troublesome for a number of years after introduction. It probably all boils down to them being overly complex.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Weird - I don't like the 150/1 front ends at all, whereas the corridor connections on the classes you list look normal to me. Possibly because I grew up in Surrey where all the trains were units with corridor front ends...?

You are probably correct that gangway connections were familiar to you before, but they were not familiar in the Northern area, until the introduction of 150/2s, except for the 123s that worked there for a time.

 

[SouthEastern-465]

For the intense work that they do, I don't think that they are as unreliable as some more recent units. For example the 180s that Northern have taken on temporarily. Apparently they are a real headache. The 175s were also troublesome for a number of years after introduction. It probably all boils down to them being overly complex.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


You are probably correct that gangway connections were familiar to you before, but they were not familiar in the Northern area, until the introduction of 150/2s, except for the 123s that worked there for a time.

Yes but if a trains engine fell out of it that aint really reliable is it?