Yes but if a trains engine fell out of it that aint really reliable is it?
That would more than likely be a maintenance issue rather than unreliability. That goes for any stock in any country.
-
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 Bad Condition
- Thread starter Meridian richard
- Start date
- Status
That would more than likely be a maintenance issue rather than unreliability. That goes for any stock in any country.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
90019
Established Member
And engines falling out of 142s isn't exactly a common problem.
Take a look at this video of Corsican DMUs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=cmSJ0m3buK4&feature=related
This is what 142s could have been like had they not been built on the cheap!
I remember reading that these units have Voith gearboxes, but am still trying to find out the make of engines fitted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=cmSJ0m3buK4&feature=related
This is what 142s could have been like had they not been built on the cheap!
I remember reading that these units have Voith gearboxes, but am still trying to find out the make of engines fitted.
MCR247
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 10,290
Surely ours leave faster than that
TrainBrain185
Member
Judging by the smoke coming out of that thing on YouTube, its gotta be a Paxman Valenta??
Seriously, the 142 is a much superior piece of rolling stock......and judging by the acceleration.......faster!!
I am still not sure what engines are in those Corsican DMUs. From what I've seen of them, a power car has two engines on them and there are trailer cars like the first generation DMUs. I'm not all that sure that the 142s are superior as the Corsican DMUs actually have bogies if you look closely.
Sounds like a rattly perkins.
Hi everyone, just an update to this thread.
The current issue of 'Today's Railways' reports that the cause of the derailment of 142042 near Broad Green was due to a broken engine crankshaft. This has been attributed to metal fatique. The overhauled engine had been fitted approximately a year before the incident and had covered approximately 115,000 miles, with engine overhauls being due at 400,000.
The magazine also reports that 142069 derailed at a station in The Rhymney Valley on 8 August, whilst coupled to a 143. Early indications are that the DMS vehicle of 142069 is beyond economical repair and the DMSL will probably be used as a source of spares.
The current issue of 'Today's Railways' reports that the cause of the derailment of 142042 near Broad Green was due to a broken engine crankshaft. This has been attributed to metal fatique. The overhauled engine had been fitted approximately a year before the incident and had covered approximately 115,000 miles, with engine overhauls being due at 400,000.
The magazine also reports that 142069 derailed at a station in The Rhymney Valley on 8 August, whilst coupled to a 143. Early indications are that the DMS vehicle of 142069 is beyond economical repair and the DMSL will probably be used as a source of spares.
TrainBrain185
Member
I concur with that....interesting indeed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Hi dieselman, not being involved with the Perkins Phaser engine, how does it compare with the standard Cummins engined 158 units?
I really enjoy listening to the sounds of the Perkins powered 158's!!!
I think that I am correct in stating that the Perkins 2006-TWH engine fitted to 165s, 166s and some 158s is based on the old Rolls Royce 'Eagle' engine. These were fitted in SYPTEs Dennis Dominators that worked in Sheffield due to steep hills.
142084 was fitted with 2006-TWHs as a trial in 1991 to find a replacement for the Leyland TL11. However, it now has Cummins LTA10Rs.
The Perkins powered 158s are nevertheless quieter than the Cummins ones.
142084 was fitted with 2006-TWHs as a trial in 1991 to find a replacement for the Leyland TL11. However, it now has Cummins LTA10Rs.
The Perkins powered 158s are nevertheless quieter than the Cummins ones.
TrainBrain185
Member
Hi Ed1971 and dieselman. I worked on some ex SYPTE Rolls Eagle powered MCW Metrobuses. Loved those motors and left their Gardner 6LXB sisters for dead!!
Anyhow, back to 142's/158 and stuff, yes, the Perkins Phaser 2000 Series is based on the Rolls Royce Eagle design. I'm almost sure Perkins took over the R-R Diesel Engine Division some years ago? Nowadays Perkins is owned by Caterpillar!!
The only Sprinters I worked on were the Metro Cammell 156 and no other types hence my question to dieselman regards the Perkins comparison.
Incidently, the views from dieselman are the most sincere appraisal of the 142 I have read on this thread which are based on experience opposed to enthusiast likes or dislikes and are the same views I think of them too.
Drsatan
Established Member
I went on a 142 a few weeks ago from Exeter St Davids to Exmouth. The seats weren't at all comfortable - although if FGW was only going to keep them for 12 months it wouldn't be worth it refurbishing them - but the ride quality was satisfactory, if worse than a 158. The return journey was done on a 143 whose only discernable advantage were its high backed Chapman seats. Still, they're not very comfortable and a poor image for the railways. Although the only thing I know about them from an engineering perspective is that they don't use bogies, I'd agree with most people on this thread that they're not very comfortable and should be withdrawn.
WillPS
Established Member
I got on one of the Northern refreshed Pacers on my way back from Meadowhall, and I've got to say I thought it was brilliant. In my opinion, the bus seats work best in these units and the interior paint job was good as well (although it was weird that they missed the ceiling panels??).
Pulled in from my 5 minute journey in to Sheffield only to find a Merseyrail unit waiting to go to Manchester Piccadilly. Ouch.
Pulled in from my 5 minute journey in to Sheffield only to find a Merseyrail unit waiting to go to Manchester Piccadilly. Ouch.
sheff'd victoria
Member
Bounce Bounce Bounce 
I hate them , as many have said the seating is poor and has no leg room and as for the single wheels
I hate them , as many have said the seating is poor and has no leg room and as for the single wheels
Donny Dave
Established Member
Personally, I would have got the TPE to Manchester, or if the connection was a bit tight, then get the EMT service instead. The TPE service would have got you to Manchester a lot earlier, even the EMT service would have got you there a few minutes before the Northern service.
Swift-Deere
Member
On Pacers i find my self swaying with the motion of the train lol, my friend loves them for some reason
poshbakerloo
Member
I used to like them for novelty reasons...but after an hour travelling on them they anger me!
WillPS
Established Member
I didn't actually get the Pacer to Manchester - especially seeing as there's a choice available. I just think that'd be an awful journey, made worse by Merseyrail's terrible refurb.
I have been to Sheffield on a couple of occasions back in the mid 1990s. I caught the stopper back which was a 142 and enjoyed the passing scenery of the Peak District. I would not have enjoyed it on a 150 with poor natural illumination and lineside views.
poshbakerloo
Member
The 150s do have a higher window line and a larger gap between them. But I guess thats all safety etc...
TrainBrain185
Member
Bounce Bounce Bounce
I hate them , as many have said the seating is poor and has no leg room and as for the single wheels
I love getting the 22:00 Newcastle-Boro via the ECML after having a few beers, they are the best and smoothest things on two rails.....they love a good canter on the Newcastle-Darlington stretch! Absolutely delightful.
Bus seats on a train!!!! They have to be good, i miss the swivel seats though, where you could decide which direction you wanted to travel.
Wheel flange 4 lyf.
they love a good canter on the Newcastle-Darlington stretch! Absolutely delightful.
Wheel flange 4 lyf.
The 156 and 170s have better visibility (so would the 151 had it gone into production), probably because they were designed from scratch, whilst the 150 is based around MK3 carriage stock hence, seats not aligned with the windows.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Some of the Blackpool double decker 'Balloon' trams still have the swivel seats.
The Park Royal built Class 103 DMUs did have bus seats, so the Pacers are not the first DMU so fitted.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Bounce Bounce Bounce
I hate them , as many have said the seating is poor and has no leg room and as for the single wheels
I am 6ft1 and the only time I've had problem with legroom on a Pacer was the first 'Miseryrail' 142. They later corrected this by dispensing with a row of seats and re-spacing the rest of them.
WillPS
Established Member
I still have a problem with the Merseyrail units and legroom. Also, the centre car on the WYPTE 144s are torture in airline seating - they seem to have forgotten to leave and room for leg movement!! Even in the other units, the Richmond seating is bloody awful!
- Status