Confirmation that Pacers should be abolished

[northwichcat]

Yes. They're the same width as any other normal train.

142s and 150s are actually very slightly wider than 155s and 156s.

The issue with standing in the aisle on a 142 with 3+2 seating is the same as on other trains, in that if a seated person or person standing in the middle of the carriage wishes to alight they isn't much room for them to squeeze past to reach the doors.

Another problem with the way Northern Pacers (and the Northern 150s) are used (on the same lines as where 153s, 155s, 156s and 158s) is that people who catch services run by the better Sprinters see there are tables and then board next time expecting to be able to work on the train and find a 142 running the service and have difficulty using their laptops!

 

[MCR247]

Yes. They're the same width as any other normal train.

Thanks, although I was just curious if there was enough room to stand on any normal train with 3+2, as SWT left 2+2 on the 455 so there was standing room

 

[me123]

Just curious, can people stand in the middle of pacers with 3+2 seating?

I live in Glasgow and use 320s quite a bit. I find that people can't really stand all the way through the train in severe crush-style overcrowding. On the other hand, the 334s (which feature 2+2 in the outer carriages) can have people standing right the way down the middle aisle (in the outside carriages).

However, I don't know how this translates into actual capacity.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

*Some people will say that 2+2 increases standing capacity but overall capacity on an ATN 142 and a 144 driving car is lower than on a FNW or Merseytravel 142.

I would argue that this is the case for Glasgow (although mayvary elsewhere). I find that the actual use of seats on 3+2 is lower in normal levels of crowding than in 2+2 seating (although it does get used in severe overcrowding, which is thankfully rare).

The reason is that there's less room, so out of the ten seats in a "row", only 6-8 are used, whereas all 8 are used with 2+2 (and there's a greater degree of comfort, and there's more space for standees).

But, as I've said, this may well vary across the UK.

 

[4SRKT]

Believe me, if it wasn't possible for people to stand in a unit with 3+2 seating, very many people each day would be left standing on the platforms at Leeds station in the evening as 333 after 333 departed up the Aire and Wharfe valleys.

 

[starrymarkb]

Could someone not give Northern's sprinters a Wessex/Wales and Borders style refurb. Certainly made the 150s a lot more pleasant to travel in (apart from the tight leg room where heaters couldn't be moved)

 

[northwichcat]

Could someone not give Northern's sprinters a Wessex/Wales and Borders style refurb. Certainly made the 150s a lot more pleasant to travel in (apart from the tight leg room where heaters couldn't be moved)

Interestingly the width of the seats on the FNW 3+2 150 refurbs is the same as on the ATW 2+2 150 refurbs. The lack of the arm rests between the seats is the only difference. However, that does have the problem of where is your arm supposed to go if you're sat next to the window?

One problem with the FNW 150 refurbs was they tried to put in an accessible toilet without reducing the number of seats too much. So they put a longitudinal bench seat opposite the toilet entrance, meaning if a wheelchair user needed the toilet then up to 3 people would have to stand up to allow the wheelchair user in to the toilet.

The other difference between the ex-FNW 150s and the ATW 150s is the number of rows of seats and the space between the rows meaning more leg room on the ATW 150s.

 

[Drsatan]

Thanks, although I was just curious if there was enough room to stand on any normal train with 3+2, as SWT left 2+2 on the 455 so there was standing room

I've seen passengers standing on FGW's 142s, although you do have to hold on!

I believe passengers (especially elderly passengers or those with disabilities) prefer to sit, so downgrading seat arrangements from 3+2 to 2+2 is a false economy since it means fewer seats. Apparently SWT's (and TFL's) research claims that passengers prefer to stand for short journeys but I disagree.

One of the reasons given for removing 3+2 seats was that women don't like sitting in the middle seat, although this is probably a generalisation.

 

[4SRKT]

One of the reasons given for removing 3+2 seats was that women don't like sitting in the middle seat, although this is probably a generalisation.

Maybe that's just when they're stuck between you and one of your mates

 

[MCR247]

I've seen passengers standing on FGW's 142s, although you do have to hold on!

I believe passengers (especially elderly passengers or those with disabilities) prefer to sit, so downgrading seat arrangements from 3+2 to 2+2 is a false economy since it means fewer seats. Apparently SWT's (and TFL's) research claims that passengers prefer to stand for short journeys but I disagree.

One of the reasons given for removing 3+2 seats was that women don't like sitting in the middle seat, although this is probably a generalisation.

But with 2+2 seats, more people actually sit down, as in some areas, people don't like using the middle seats, like Glasgow like me123 pointed out

 

[87015]

But with 2+2 seats, more people actually sit down, as in some areas, people don't like using the middle seats, like Glasgow like me123 pointed out

In that case, the train just isn't that busy. Most SE peaks the 3+2 seats are all used, a necessity to get people onto the train.

 

[WatcherZero]

More standing room on a 2+2 so more absolute carrying capacity even with fewer seats.

 

[northwichcat]

More standing room on a 2+2 so more absolute carrying capacity even with fewer seats.

Official standing figures is always 35% of the seating capacity. This figure is set by DfT. A train with more than 35% standing is officially overcrowded.

London Midland ordered 350/2s with 3+2 seating so they didn't have lower capacity than the 321s.

I challenge the people who say no-one ever sits in middle seats on 3+2 formations to travel on some of the busier peak-time Northern Rail, London Midland and Southeastern services with 3+2 seating, as they've obviously never experienced a full train with 3+2 seating, never mind an overcrowded train that's leaving people behind.

 

[tbtc]

Official standing figures is always 35% of the seating capacity. This figure is set by DfT. A train with more than 35% standing is officially overcrowded

I wish more people understood this.

We're very quick to use the word "overcrowded" when we just mean "a little busy" or "some people had to stand".

 

[me123]

I wish more people understood this.

We're very quick to use the word "overcrowded" when we just mean "a little busy" or "some people had to stand".

I suppose it depends on the service. 35% standing may well be par for the course on many suburban services up and down the UK. But on an HST, that sounds like a nightmare! To be honest, a blanket 35% figure is a bit barmy when you consider the wide variety of rolling stock up and down the UK which is all built for different markets.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

...as they've obviously never experienced a full train with 3+2 seating, never mind an overcrowded train that's leaving people behind.

I think you'll find I have. And on the severe overcrowding, yes people do yes the seats. Reluctantly, but they do use them.

I will stress once again that I'm talking about normal levels of crowding on Glasgow suburban trains. And I'm sure it happens elsewhere as well. On the whole, I still believe that the 2+2 arrangement is a much more efficient and flexible option. Perhaps in some areas 3+2 works, but not everywhere.

 

[northwichcat]

To be honest, a blanket 35% figure is a bit barmy when you consider the wide variety of rolling stock up and down the UK which is all built for different markets.

Yes it is a bit barmy. When the figure was first mentioned by DfT a lot of people commented about Merseytravel 142s not being able to hold that many extra standees and people would get left behind but the train wouldn't be classed as overcrowded!

It does also mean if a North East Northern service operated by an ex-ATN 142 gets a maximum load of 145 people on board and people complain about it being overcrowded, Northern can accept that it is overcrowded and 'upgrade' it to an ex-FNW 142, which then wouldn't be overcrowded.

I think you'll find I have. And on the severe overcrowding, yes people do yes the seats. Reluctantly, but they do use them.

People aren't that reluctant to use the middle seats on Pacers but then it's a challenge to remain standing for the entire journey on a Pacer.

Also, from my limited 465 experiences people are more reluctant to stand than to use the middle seats.

 

[me123]

It depends on a lot of things to be honest. There's the local area, the actual degree of crowding, the seats themselves, the BMI of the people on either side...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I'm kind of brining this back up, but I'd like to give some ideas on the flaws of 3+2 seating based on my observations over the past week on busy class 320 trains on the North Clyde Line, Glasgow. Of course, as I've already said

3+2 airline seating simply doesn't work. It's very difficult for people to use the middle seat, because naturally people use the window then aisle seats, leaving the middle one unused (as you would do, to respect the personal space of others). The problem comes when someone wants to use the seat in the middle. It's very hard to get in to it, especially if the person on the outside doesn't move to facilitate maximum utilisation. Yesterday morning, I noted 50% capacity on a busy (definitely more passengers than seats) service within the airline section at the end of the carriage, with people struggling to board the train. (That whole part of the train had 71% seat usage, as not all the seats were in airline-style - better, but still rather poor).

This morning, there was overcrowding (didn't count, but undoubtedly over the 135% threshold) due to a short formed train followed by a train with the middle carriage locked out of use. So it was pretty bad. Again, this morning, I noted 69% of seats (18 out of 26) used in my section of the carriage, with people choosing to stand rather than ask to use the middle seat (one person eventually plucked up the courage, but it took them a while).

Based on these figures, and assuming full use of 2+2 seating (which is very likely), a 2=2 arrangement would have been more successful than the 3+2 seating arranegement. Whilst there would have been more seats, uptake of the seats would have been greater, and therefore more people would have gotten a seat, so there would have been fewer standees and less of a "crush" in the vestibules.

So, it may work in some places, but I'm undeterred in my opposition to them in Glasgow.

 

[WatcherZero]

Your missing one element....children. Child easy fits on 3+2 and saves a seat compared to 2+2.

 

[ST PADDY]

quite simply i disslike 142 pacers if one turns up I will wait for the next train (depending on frequency of service) I much preffer a 158 down to a 155.
A 144 is acceptable as ther ridding qualaties are better than a 142 been built by an established rail firm (Alexandria Barclays).
How ever for D.M U. travel u can't beat the 110/120, 123/4 intercity units of British Rail (bing back British Rail the pork pie is forgiven).

 

[me123]

Your missing one element....children. Child easy fits on 3+2 and saves a seat compared to 2+2.

Yes, children are a consideration. Even Secondary School children use the 3+2 seating when they are on such a train. Very few children on this train at all, though, and to be honest the vast majority of people who travel at the busiest times are adults.

It's not set in stone wherever you are. Despite what I've said, there are people in Glasgow who use the 3+2 (I reckon 318 operated services will have a better chance, because the 3+2 seating in those units is much more spacious than on 320s), and there's probably people in London who don't use 3+2 seating to the full extent. But I was just observing the patterns in my local trains to back up my earlier statements on the thread.

 

[TrainBrain185]

quite simply i disslike 142 pacers if one turns up I will wait for the next train (depending on frequency of service) I much preffer a 158 down to a 155.
A 144 is acceptable as ther ridding qualaties are better than a 142 been built by an established rail firm (Alexandria Barclays).
How ever for D.M U. travel u can't beat the 110/120, 123/4 intercity units of British Rail (bing back British Rail the pork pie is forgiven).

I believe the 144 were a BREL Underframe fitted with bodywork manufactured by Alexander. The 143 however was a BREL designed underframe built by Andrew Barclay, with Alexander bodywork. The 143 was a hideous machine and poor Heaton Depot got the whole lot when new.
You must have plenty time to spare. What happens if you let 3 Pacers pass by? Just give up and go home?

 

[Aictos]

What happens if you let 3 Pacers pass by? Just give up and go home?

That's pretty much what I was going to ask, I wanted to do the Exemouth and Barnstaple branches so had no choice but to use the 142 supplied as I was running to a tight timetable.

Would have given anything to have a Sprinter but beggers can't be choosers!!!

 

[4SRKT]

What ridiculous nonsense these people talk who say they let pacers pass and wait for the next train. Most routes I know that operate pacers have hourly or so services, and don't as planned operate sets other than pacers. I'd like to know the next time one of these people is waiting at, say, Giggleswick for a train, so that I can go up there several days after they've turned up and laugh my balls off at them camping out on the platform waiting for a sprinter.

 

[northwichcat]

Yesterday morning, I noted 50% capacity on a busy (definitely more passengers than seats) service within the airline section at the end of the carriage, with people struggling to board the train. (That whole part of the train had 71% seat usage, as not all the seats were in airline-style - better, but still rather poor).

Maybe they should try running the trains in Scotland with less carriages and see if people use the seats then. Some Northern services easily see around 200 people crammed on a 150 with around 130 3+2 seats. Yes some people do choose to stand before all the seats are occupied, especially groups of people who want to stay together.

I've been on trains when just before the train is due to get busy the conductor comes through and checks luggage isn't occupying seats and that people aren't taking up two seats.

 

[jon0844]

I've seen passengers standing on FGW's 142s, although you do have to hold on!

I believe passengers (especially elderly passengers or those with disabilities) prefer to sit, so downgrading seat arrangements from 3+2 to 2+2 is a false economy since it means fewer seats. Apparently SWT's (and TFL's) research claims that passengers prefer to stand for short journeys but I disagree.

One of the reasons given for removing 3+2 seats was that women don't like sitting in the middle seat, although this is probably a generalisation.

I'd agree that even on quite long journeys (30-40 minutes), plenty of people are happy to stand in the aisle or by the door, even if there are middle seats on a 3+2 train.

People may sit down as a last resort, but I doubt that there's any real advantage of 3+2, given that seats end up empty and there's less standing room space that makes it a nightmare for people sitting down to get out when the aisle is full and there's no passing room.

But it probably varies by rolling stock design (A Met Line train has ample room with 3+2 for example), the location of doors and the type of passenger (commuter or leisure traveller). I find that commuters will voluntarily stand and not moan, while some will force themselves to fit in - or get people with bags on seats to move them.

Leisure travellers may well be timid and feel forced to stand, then moan later when there was actually seating room.

I'm obviously generalising but this reflects what I've seen in a number of locations. Usually, however, there's enough seating off-peak for it not be an issue.. but a few short formed trains OR a big event that sees a lot of people on the train at once (or late trains on a weekend to get people home) can create those problems.

Personally, I'd go with 2+2 seating over 3+2 as the best OVERALL configuration. For suburban routes, I'd also have more open areas with fold-down seating.

 

[142094]

What ridiculous nonsense these people talk who say they let pacers pass and wait for the next train. Most routes I know that operate pacers have hourly or so services, and don't as planned operate sets other than pacers. I'd like to know the next time one of these people is waiting at, say, Giggleswick for a train, so that I can go up there several days after they've turned up and laugh my balls off at them camping out on the platform waiting for a sprinter.

I wish there was a 'like' button for posts like this!

 

[me123]

Maybe they should try running the trains in Scotland with less carriages and see if people use the seats then.

I think I'll pass on that one! As I mentioned somewhere before, new stock being built (ie 380s) is using 2+2 for the reasons I've mentioned, so that looks set to be the trend for the future.

71% overall isn't actually all that far off the average seat usage I reckon, and it's just far too low. When it is under 80% regularly (as it is up here), then there needs to be some discussion about switching to 2+2.

For suburban routes, I'd also have more open areas with fold-down seating.

I've always quite liked this idea. The 170s up here have a fold down section in the vestibules, and it proves very popular in the rush hour (and with parents with their prams). Quite a useful use of space IMO.

 

[yorksrob]

Believe me, if it wasn't possible for people to stand in a unit with 3+2 seating, very many people each day would be left standing on the platforms at Leeds station in the evening as 333 after 333 departed up the Aire and Wharfe valleys.

Ah, but it's a different kettle of fish when the sets of three seats are facing. The Pacer carriages are too small fit in large numbers of facing seating bays so IMO 3+2 seating should be done away with on all of them.

 

[ST PADDY]

What ridiculous nonsense these people talk who say they let pacers pass and wait for the next train. Most routes I know that operate pacers have hourly or so services, and don't as planned operate sets other than pacers. I'd like to know the next time one of these people is waiting at, say, Giggleswick for a train, so that I can go up there several days after they've turned up and laugh my balls off at them camping out on the platform waiting for a sprinter.

Firstly you missed my point of how uncomfotable I find the 142 pacer, maybe in your haste to get a cheap laugh you over looked this point.
Secondly this depended on the frequncy of the service, and yes i would do this at Giggleswick as it`s not that far to walk to Settle for the more comfotable 158s!.
It`s nice to see that there are still people out there that disaprove of personal prefferances. OH and just for good measure yes I stand up when there are seats still availble, I like many people like to be at the window so if there are only isle seats left I would stand, unless of course I was with company, that would just be rude.

 

[PR1Berske]

I wish there was a 'like' button for posts like this!

On the newer/newst versions of VBulletin message boards, you can give reputation points for posts

 

[ST PADDY]

I believe the 144 were a BREL Underframe fitted with bodywork manufactured by Alexander. The 143 however was a BREL designed underframe built by Andrew Barclay, with Alexander bodywork. The 143 was a hideous machine and poor Heaton Depot got the whole lot when new.
You must have plenty time to spare. What happens if you let 3 Pacers pass by? Just give up and go home?

You may be right about the the under frame been BREL I didn`t take to much notice of the new stuff back then.
Yes I do have too much time on my hands been unemplyoed is no fun, however I was simply trying to impress that given the choice of units I wouldn`t take the 142.