Class 142 original literature

[cjmillsnun]

With reference to the word "civilised" used in the literature in the first posting, would the "civilised mentality" that was prevailing at the time this document was published be the same mentality that trumpeted the advent of new social housing constructed with prefabricated concrete panels that subsequently were found to suffer from the effects of degradation in the contained concrete reinforcing bars...

No. Pacers were a blight from the 80's. There was little or no social housing at all constructed in that decade. It was the decade of "right to buy"

 

[O L Leigh]

Well...all three of those things apply to the Pacers, so when combined with the alarmingly weak bodyshells I'll be sticking with the 158s myself.

Are you sure about that...? Do you want to reconsider?

Cl158s took these things to a whole new level. It was these units that necessitated the invention of track circuit actuators (TCAs). Until these were fitted, Cl158s were not allowed anywhere on the network unless in multi with another Sprinter class to the extent that deliveries of new units from Derby to Haymarket always had a Cl150 borrowed from Etches Park tagged onto the tail of the formation to ensure that it didn't simply disappear from the panel and get rear-ended by something else. Newton Heath split their Cl158s and created hybrid units using cars split from Cl156s until TCAs were fitted so that they could continue in traffic.

As for weak bodyshells, Pacers meet the same standards as the Cl150s. These may not necessarily be the same standards to which new trains are constructed, but they are no less robust than any other train of a similar vintage. But surely the trick is not to bump into anything in the first place. TPWS has prevented any collisions as a consequence of SPADs and, although collisions still occur with buffer stops and, as at Norwich, stabled units, these are still incredibly rare occurrences.

O L Leigh

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

No. Pacers were a blight from the 80's. There was little or no social housing at all constructed in that decade. It was the decade of "right to buy"

Department of Transport and Local authority stupidity is not just confined to a 10-year time period, which is a matter that I felt no need to state, having lived through the 1950/1960/1970 period, prior to the 1980 period.

 

[bronzeonion]

I thought the modern TOCs of today were full of crap! Maybe its a railway tradition.

Honestly when I travelled on the Chiltern 121 from Princes Risborough to Aylesbury and compared it to a journey of similar length on a Northern 142 with the mouldy looking car style seats I came to the conclusion that the Pacers really were a step back in every way!

 

[ert47]

No. Pacers were a blight from the 80's. There was little or no social housing at all constructed in that decade. It was the decade of "right to buy"

Who on Earth in their right mind would want to live in a Pacer?!

 

[Yew]

Are you sure about that...? Do you want to reconsider?

Cl158s took these things to a whole new level. It was these units that necessitated the invention of track circuit actuators (TCAs). Until these were fitted, Cl158s were not allowed anywhere on the network unless in multi with another Sprinter class to the extent that deliveries of new units from Derby to Haymarket always had a Cl150 borrowed from Etches Park tagged onto the tail of the formation to ensure that it didn't simply disappear from the panel and get rear-ended by something else. Newton Heath split their Cl158s and created hybrid units using cars split from Cl156s until TCAs were fitted so that they could continue in traffic.

As for weak bodyshells, Pacers meet the same standards as the Cl150s. These may not necessarily be the same standards to which new trains are constructed, but they are no less robust than any other train of a similar vintage. But surely the trick is not to bump into anything in the first place. TPWS has prevented any collisions as a consequence of SPADs and, although collisions still occur with buffer stops and, as at Norwich, stabled units, these are still incredibly rare occurrences.

O L Leigh

Just because they met the standards does not make them equal...

 

[34D]

they were rubbish from day 1. Their transmissions had to be changed after 18 months because they kept breaking!. Go figure

Besides, you need to check some of your facts. The first unit to have it's transmission changed was 142050 which was converted in 1988, three years after it was constructed. It was sent to Heaton for trials during summer of that year, after which it was decided to convert the rest of the fleet. That is 3 years, not 18 months.

It may well be that you are both correct. Knowing the Leyland Hydracyclic bus gearbox, I am sure that some will have gone within a year (and been replaced like with like) but that it took 3 years for the first Voith to be fitted?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Are you sure about that...? Do you want to reconsider?

Cl158s took these things to a whole new level. It was these units that necessitated the invention of track circuit actuators (TCAs). Until these were fitted, Cl158s were not allowed anywhere on the network unless in multi with another Sprinter class to the extent that deliveries of new units from Derby to Haymarket always had a Cl150 borrowed from Etches Park tagged onto the tail of the formation to ensure that it didn't simply disappear from the panel and get rear-ended by something else. Newton Heath split their Cl158s and created hybrid units using cars split from Cl156s until TCAs were fitted so that they could continue in traffic.

Are you sure? I seemed to recall that the 156/158 hybrids were for winter and because of the "wrong kind of leaves" not getting on with the class 158s disc brakes?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Who on Earth in their right mind would want to live in a Pacer?!

Well, if it was a house at least it wouldn't need to move anywhere!

 

[O L Leigh]

Just because they met the standards does not make them equal...

I'm not sure I know what you are suggesting.

Of course there will be differences in how loads are absorbed due to the different construction techniques, but the jury is out. The Pacer that collided with the Cl87 didn't fare well, but then neither did the Cl150 that collided with a bridge at St Helens nor the one that collided with a road/rail vehicle at Seamer. In both instances the damaged cars were scrapped.

It may well be that you are both correct. Knowing the Leyland Hydracyclic bus gearbox, I am sure that some will have gone within a year (and been replaced like with like) but that it took 3 years for the first Voith to be fitted?

Pacers didn't use Leyland gearboxes.

But the records don't lie. The first unit converted was in 1988 and the programme was completed during 1991.

Are you sure? I seemed to recall that the 156/158 hybrids were for winter and because of the "wrong kind of leaves" not getting on with the class 158s disc brakes?

Yes, sort of. It is the same thing we are talking about.

The problem was that the disc brakes did not scrub the wheel treads clean of leaf mulch contamination in the way that tread brakes would have done. This contamination would then be "baked" onto the treads by the pressure of the wheels on the rail, forming a kind of varnish that is both incredibly slippery and electrically insulating. The result is that Cl158s struggled for grip during the autumn and, more worryingly, would fail to operate track circuits which would mean that they would disappear from signalling panels and could not rely on the safety interlocking features that the track circuits provide. Running them in multi with a tread-braked unit or splitting them up to run them as hybrids ensured that this did not happen.

O L Leigh

 

[Muzer]

I was on Northern 142s and 144s, which is my first time on pacers, last Sunday. They don't strike me as trains I'd choose to be on if given a choice between them and another unit (as I was at one point), but they didn't seem *too* bad to me. Sure, the ride wasn't brilliant, but it wasn't *terrible* either.

Though I've also heard that there are some original unrefurbed ones with Arriva Trains Wales and maybe First Great Western, so I should probably try those too...

 

[TEW]

The ATW and FGW pacers have all been refurbished to the same good standard. They both have the same interior fitted, just they have been painted differently.

 

[WatcherZero]

I was on Northern 142s and 144s, which is my first time on pacers, last Sunday. They don't strike me as trains I'd choose to be on if given a choice between them and another unit (as I was at one point), but they didn't seem *too* bad to me. Sure, the ride wasn't brilliant, but it wasn't *terrible* either.

Though I've also heard that there are some original unrefurbed ones with Arriva Trains Wales and maybe First Great Western, so I should probably try those too...

Ride quality has improved a fair bit now most jointed rail has been replaced by welded rail. I almost miss that clickety click you used to get

 

[beano900]

"Better suspension, even at 75mph". A pacer at 75mph is like some sort of death ride.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4

 

[northwichcat]

"Better suspension, even at 75mph". A pacer at 75mph is like some sort of death ride.

Actually if it's doing 75mph on the WCML or ECML it's OK as it doesn't bounce as much on the mainlines (probably because the track is maintained to a higher standard for up to 125mph running.) However, if an Intercity train passes it in the other direction on an adjacent track you really know about it!

 

[TOCDriver]

I was on Northern 142s and 144s, which is my first time on pacers, last Sunday. They don't strike me as trains I'd choose to be on if given a choice between them and another unit (as I was at one point), but they didn't seem *too* bad to me. Sure, the ride wasn't brilliant, but it wasn't *terrible* either.

Though I've also heard that there are some original unrefurbed ones with Arriva Trains Wales and maybe First Great Western, so I should probably try those too...

They're not bad little vehicles. They're very simple in mechanical terms and are quite reliable - they get the job done. But with ticket prices being what they are, our customers deserve a little bit more comfort in my opinion.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

They're not bad little vehicles. They're very simple in mechanical terms and are quite reliable - they get the job done. But with ticket prices being what they are, our customers deserve a little bit more comfort in my opinion.

Surely our "passengers"...not our "customers"

 

[D365]

Surely our "passengers"...not our "customers"

Numerous companies in the railway public service industry seem to be shifting towards much favouring the latter term...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Numerous companies in the railway public service industry seem to be shifting towards much favouring the latter term...

But that does not make it right....

 

[northwichcat]

But that does not make it right....

"The customer is always right"

I don't think anyone has ever said that about passengers.

So on that basis the customer Paul Sidorczuk can say "Pacers are unsuitable for running services in Cheshire" and be correct.

 

[tom1649]

I much prefer being referred to as a passenger than a customer on any train or station. Might be my OCD showing here but it annoys me in the same way that the term 'train station' or to a lesser extent 'train manager' does. A 'guard' is just as important a job without the need for a posh title. It is disappointing that many LUL staff refer to 'customers' now, but I guess they risk failing the 'mystery shopper' if they dare to call a passenger a passenger.

As for the Pacers, I find them to have more character than many other units and the visibility is excellent, with no chance of claustrophobia on the bus bench examples.

 

[northwichcat]

As for the Pacers, I find them to have more character than many other units and the visibility is excellent, with no chance of claustrophobia on the bus bench examples.

Really? If I was one of 200 passengers on a train I would feel a lot more claustrophobic on a 142 than a 156. The latter would certainly make alighting easier for people who are sat in a window seat.

 

[ed1971]

So much wibble and piffle.

1st gen DMUs were terrible. Those that do not remember the Pacers and Sprinters coming new onto the rails do not remember just how terrible passenger travel was on secondary and regional services prior to their introduction. Wheezy old DMUs and clapped out Goyles and Tractors hauling dirty, threadbare, ageing Mk2 coaches. Poor reliability, slow timings, uncomfortable seating, cold and draughty saloons, dirty and smelly interiors. Simply awful. It almost didn't matter how limited the new rolling stock was, a new, clean, bright train that would easily accelerate up to 75mph rather than clattering along and barely creeping above 60mph was going to be welcomed.

I will admit that the introduction of the Pacers was not always warmly welcomed, even at the time. But the fact that they are now viewed in such a poor light only underlines just how we all felt about the 1st gen DMUs at the time of their withdrawal. It's too easy to look through rose-tinted glasses at what we no longer have, but nostalgia does not inform the discussion. Compared to what went before, the Pacers were an improvement.

Like it or not, there was a desperate need to modernise the network and see off these old trains with something newer. The Pacers may have been a cheap solution, but then BR hadn't got a bottomless pit of money to call upon, and so all options were pursued. It's all too easy to look back now at how things were almost 30 years ago and smirk, but seen in the context of the time the claims in this leaflet are not so strange.

O L Leigh

This is exactly how I remember the first generation DMUs too. I also have a 61 year old friend who doesn't know why there is so much criticism of Pacers when the old DMUs they replaced were so bad.

I seem to recall that 142050 was actually built with Voith transmission. There was a photo of it's new underframe showing the Voith gearbox in a railway magazine of the time.

The first Pacer to receive a Voith gearbox was 141113 at Derby works in 1987. It also received Cummins LTA10R engines at the same time as an experiment. Although no more Class 141s followed, all the later Pacer classes followed.