Pacergeddon!!!

[sprinterguy]

Several times; between Harrogate and Leeds/York - do they still work that route?

Many duties on the Harrogate line have now been taken over by 150s, but there's still a couple of Pacer operated diagrams.

 

[snbower]

Costa do not charge around £4 for a Cappucino! Completely inaccurate. The largest one possible from an outlet at say Leeds Station will be no more than £3

 

[northwichcat]

Costa do not charge around £4 for a Cappucino! Completely inaccurate. The largest one possible from an outlet at say Leeds Station will be no more than £3

Northern claim the average fare paid is £2.90. That's probably the average cost of an off-peak day return in West Yorkshire. Between two adjacent towns in Cheshire on my local line it's £4 single or up to £5.60 return and we get a higher proportion of Pacers than West Yorkshire does on average.

 

[tbtc]

Northern claim the average fare paid is £2.90

It sounded very cheap when I first heard the figure, but it does sound about right, when you consider that most journeys (on Northern) are under half an hour duration, many journeys are wholly within PTE boundaries (they are both more frequent within PTE boundaries and also tend to be a lot busier), plus a reasonable number of passengers don't pay for full priced adult tickets (OAPs, DUOs etc).

However, this needs to be tempered with the fact that the same seat can be occupied a few times over a journey (say Leeds - Bradford, Bradford - Halifax, Halifax - Todmorden, Rochdale - Manchester), unlike other TOCs which have higher average ticket prices, but only tend to have one person occupy a seat during a longer journey.

 

[northwichcat]

However, this needs to be tempered with the fact that the same seat can be occupied a few times over a journey (say Leeds - Bradford, Bradford - Halifax, Halifax - Todmorden, Rochdale - Manchester), unlike other TOCs which have higher average ticket prices, but only tend to have one person occupy a seat during a longer journey.

Yes on operators like Virgin one seat may be occupied for 2 hours or more by someone with a £10 Advance ticket.

I also wonder how longer fares add up in Northern's revenue. For instance, you can buy tickets like Knutsford to London for £1 more than a Stockport to London ticket. Does this mean Northern only get £1 from the revenue of that ticket or does it mean Virgin get less than from a Stockport-London ticket or would both Northern and Virgin get lower amounts of revenue?

 

[142094]

Several times; between Harrogate and Leeds/York - do they still work that route?

I enjoyed it, much in the way I enjoy fairground rides. But I wouldn't wish it my worst enemy as a regular commute, nor any older or frail person at any time.

It depends on what you are comparing safety in a Pacer to safety in a different type of vehicle or other rolling stock.

Pacers were safe when they were designed, but design standards change. That still doesn't necessarily mean that Pacers are inherently unsafe. All this shows is that we have developed more rigourous standards. I'll also say at this point that I believe that no one has ever been killed or seriously injured when riding a Pacer (in comparison with more modern stock such as a Pendolino where one person has died in an accident).

But it isn't just the ride I have issues with - it's the sheer embarrassment that we still run such poor stock, and yet we claim we want to attract motorists to use the railways. Fat chance, if all we have to offer is a pacer!

The type of rolling stock is not the only consideration to make when attracting motorists to the railways. Areas such as Leeds, Newcastle and Manchester have seen high growth in rail use in the past decade, even though these areas typically have the most Pacers and older rolling stock.

And I cringe at the mere thought of a foreign tourist thinking this is what we call quality.

This line is often trotted out along with the arguments for High Speed Rail to be built in the UK. In actual fact, when you have a look at other systems in Europe, away from the flash TGVs and their equivalents, their local networks are often much worse in the UK when taking into account both rolling stock and frequency. I can tell you I've been on many trains in Europe and across the world that I would say are more dangerous than a Pacer.

 

[507 001]

It depends on what you are comparing safety in a Pacer to safety in a different type of vehicle or other rolling stock.

Pacers were safe when they were designed, but design standards change. That still doesn't necessarily mean that Pacers are inherently unsafe. All this shows is that we have developed more rigourous standards. I'll also say at this point that I believe that no one has ever been killed or seriously injured when riding a Pacer (in comparison with more modern stock such as a Pendolino where one person has died in an accident).

Don't be daft, Are you really suggesting that a pendolino is more dangerous than a Pacer, just because one person died? Is that not because the only accidents that Pacers have really been in were ECS movements? Winsford for example?
I'm sorry but if grayrigg had involved a pacer the deathtoll would have been considerably more!

 

[northwichcat]

The Pendolino crash was caused by problems with the track not the train. Given it was a service that had left Euston on an early Friday evening I imagine it would have been quite busy so having only one person dying could probably be used to back up how safe Pendolinos are in crashes.

 

[142094]

Don't be daft, Are you really suggesting that a pendolino is more dangerous than a Pacer, just because one person died? Is that not because the only accidents that Pacers have really been in were ECS movements? Winsford for example?
I'm sorry but if grayrigg had involved a pacer the deathtoll would have been considerably more!

Taking things at face value - no one has yet to die on a Pacer.

There are quite a few people on this forum who are quick to say that Pacers are unsafe - how do you know that they are unsafe? Again people like to give this statement without backing up their arguement - with even the BBC seeming to join in with this.

 

[507 001]

They have been quite lucky in the sense that they haven't actually been involved in an accident as serious as Grayrigg, but if they did I would be very worried about their integrity. The fact that in at least 2 accidents the bodywork has been completely shunted off of the frames? And the fact that at winsford the 87(?) had hardly any bodywork damage but the pacer was destroyed?

The Pendolino crash was caused by problems with the track not the train. Given it was a service that had left Euston on an early Friday evening I imagine it would have been quite busy so having only one person dying could probably be used to back up how safe Pendolinos are in crashes.

The fact that there wasn't a single seat out of place or broken window also backs them up.

 

[4SRKT]

Yes on operators like Virgin one seat may be occupied for 2 hours or more by someone with a £10 Advance ticket.

I also wonder how longer fares add up in Northern's revenue. For instance, you can buy tickets like Knutsford to London for £1 more than a Stockport to London ticket. Does this mean Northern only get £1 from the revenue of that ticket or does it mean Virgin get less than from a Stockport-London ticket or would both Northern and Virgin get lower amounts of revenue?

Or on advance tickets with EC fares from most stations in WY are the same as from Leeds. Does this mean Northern get no revenue? I doubt it, so EC must be taking a smaller slice of an already meagre revenue pie.

 

[ACE1888]

27th October is a Thursday. I should know...it's my birthday!

I've only been on a Pacer once in my life, from Liverpool Lime St. to Wigan and didn't think it was too bad, although there was a certain novelty factor. I can see why people using them on a regular basis would get annoyed.

And of course, that could come from monotony as opposed to cumfort; I'm fed up of ScotRail's 170s and was almost audible in my joy at getting a 158 from Glasgow to Dundee a few weeks back

Apologies and should have said '27th November' of course, ammended accordingly

 

[142094]

They have been quite lucky in the sense that they haven't actually been involved in an accident as serious as Grayrigg, but if they did I would be very worried about their integrity. The fact that in at least 2 accidents the bodywork has been completely shunted off of the frames? And the fact that at winsford the 87(?) had hardly any bodywork damage but the pacer was destroyed?

One of those accidents being with a buffer stop - I would have thought that any train hitting a buffer stop at high speed would have similar sort of damage. You also can't compare easily between a locomotive and rolling stock due to the differences in weight and design between the two.

 

[ainsworth74]

You also can't compare easily between a locomotive and rolling stock due to the differences in weight and design between the two.

Just as you can't compare a 390 with a 14x. I don't understand why you brought the sole fatality suffered on a 390 into this as some sort of proof that 14xs aren't unsafe (not that I think they are unsafe). The simple fact is that a 14x has never been in an accident as bad as Grayrigg was, I don't know of a single case where a 14x has derailed at high speed (or 75mph in 14xs case), rolled over, smashed through OHLE masts and fallen down an embankment. You cannot compare the only fatal 390 accident with any accident that has involved a 14x.

Also don't forget that the 142 which had a collision with an 87 was running ECS at the time, if it had actually had passengers on board the outcome might have been very different.

 

[507 001]

One of those accidents being with a buffer stop - I would have thought that any train hitting a buffer stop at high speed would have similar sort of damage. You also can't compare easily between a locomotive and rolling stock due to the differences in weight and design between the two.

I highly doubt that a 150 would be physically sheared from its underframe, or a 350 or a 390 or a 365 or a turbostar or a ....... need I go on?
They would probably mount the buffer stop yes, possibly crumple the front end, but come apart? Doubt it.
You really can't defend the crash worthiness of a pacer. Even if you like them.

(I don't think they are unsafe as such, at least not to the point where I wouldn't travel on one, I just wouldn't like to be in even a slow speed shunt in one.)

 

[142094]

Just as you can't compare a 390 with a 14x. I don't understand why you brought the sole fatality suffered on a 390 into this as some sort of proof that 14xs aren't unsafe (not that I think they are unsafe). The simple fact is that a 14x has never been in an accident as bad as Grayrigg was, I don't know of a single case where a 14x has derailed at high speed (or 75mph in 14xs case), rolled over, smashed through OHLE masts and fallen down an embankment. You cannot compare the only fatal 390 accident with any accident that has involved a 14x.

Also don't forget that the 142 which had a collision with an 87 was running ECS at the time, if it had actually had passengers on board the outcome might have been very different.

Why include the reference to the Pendo? Quite simple really - those who are saying that Pacers are unsafe do so without justification. I can say they are safe by looking at the number of deaths caused by travelling in a Pacer compared to a Pendolino - currently 0 for Pacers and 1 for Pendolinos.

Now, if someone came to me and said Pacers are unsafe due to 'x' reason, then I may agree. AFAIK no-one on this forum has done any work on the crashworthiness of a Pacer or any other class of train. However they are quick to point out the fact that in the Winsford crash, the frame sheared away from the body - perhaps this could happen on any other design of train. Also note that the report, first mentioned in the OP, said:

There is no suggestion that the trains are unsafe today.

Also note that the 87 involved in the crash also came away from its bogies - is that not unsafe as well?

The report also mentions that Northern give each train regular checks and no unit would be allowed onto the system if it was unsafe. Do you think Northern, the ROSCOs, Network Rail and the DfT would allow something to go onto the system if it was as unsafe as people are suggesting? No of course they wouldn't.

The simple fact is that over time, design standards and the safety concerns of people change. This does not necessarily mean that something built previously is unsafe.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I highly doubt that a 150 would be physically sheared from its underframe, or a 350 or a 390 or a 365 or a turbostar or a ....... need I go on?
They would probably mount the buffer stop yes, possibly crumple the front end, but come apart? Doubt it.
You really can't defend the crash worthiness of a pacer. Even if you like them.

(I don't think they are unsafe as such, at least not to the point where I wouldn't travel on one, I just wouldn't like to be in even a slow speed shunt in one.)

Again, unless I see some evidence then I cannot agree.

 

[4SRKT]

And let us not forget that the unattainable quest for perfect safety costs an absolute fortune, which translates into higher fares. Aguing about whether a pacer is safer than a Pendo or not misses the point. Clearly a Pendo is structurally safer, but railways are SO SAFE that the chances of either being involved in any sort of accident is incredibly small. Building all this expensive safety requirement into trains is just a massive waste of money. Like it or not, life does have a price and we all pay it every time we go to the booking office. However, the number of lives actually being saved is tiny, and by any objective standards (road casualties for example) the cost is wholly disproportionate.

 

[WestCoast]

I'm a Pacer commuter and if I was looking at 14x units as an irregular traveller I'd find them rather quirky and different. However, when you travel on one 10 journeys a week and sometimes have to stand while the unit is bouncing about, I find myself really starting to loath them. For standing passengers, they are rubbish. It's the only train where I've heard 'normals' complaining.

Also worth noting is the distribution of Pacer types - Yorkshire and the North East has the arguably better 144s and more of the Northern Spirit/ATN refubished 142s, with high backed 2+2 seating.

On the other hand the North West usually sees 142s with the crappy 'Merseytravel' rock hard seating or the bus benches of the ex-FNW units (both 3+2, which may offer more capacity, although getting three people of larger proportions on a 3-seat bus bench is painful!).

I do strangely find that the type of seating does have a quite a major effect on the overall experience.

I think all this talk of how old the stock is quite irrelevant - it's the standard and suitability of the stock we should focus on. The slammers in the South East were good at what they did, Pacers perhaps not so much so.

I find with Northern, the 150s and 156s could be fantastic if they were given a decent 'SWT-style' refurbishment.

 

[142094]

However, the number of lives actually being saved is tiny, and by any objective standards (road casualties for example) the cost is wholly disproportionate.

When you think that around 2,000 people were killed on the roads last year in the UK alone, this puts railway safety into perspective.

I'm a Pacer commuter and if I was looking at 14x units as an irregular traveller I'd find them rather quirky and different. However, when you travel on one 10 journeys a week and sometimes have to stand while the unit is bouncing about, I find myself really starting to loath them. For standing passengers, they are rubbish. It's the only train where I've heard 'normals' complaining.

Also worth noting is the distribution of Pacer types - Yorkshire and the North East has the arguably better 144s and more of the Northern Spirit/ATN refubished 142s, with high backed 2+2 seating.

On the other hand the North West usually sees 142s with the crappy 'Merseytravel' rock hard seating or the bus benches of the ex-FNW units (both 3+2, which may offer more capacity, although getting three people of larger proportions on a 3-seat bus bench is painful!).

I do strangely find that the type of seating does have a quite a major effect on the overall experience.

I think all this talk of how old the stock is quite irrelevant - it's the standard and suitability of the stock we should focus on. The slammers in the South East were good at what they did, Pacers perhaps not so much so.

I find with Northern, the 150s and 156s could be fantastic if they were given a decent 'SWT-style' refurbishment.

For the record I use Pacers quite a lot, and have been a commutter on them too. I see things from both sides before someone starts complaining that I'm a Pacer apologist.

Also for the record the North East doesn't see 144s - these are confined to Yorkshire and occasionally the North West on selected routes.

As for standing - this happens on almost all types of stock - you can't level this argument solely against Pacers. I'm sure anyone who is standing, whether it be on 30 year old stock or 30 day old stock will moan.

Seating and comfort in general is a personal thing and very hard to measure. I agree that the bus type seating does have more complaints than any other type of seating on a Pacer, although there will be people who will argue that the seating on Voyagers and 185s are worse.

In many cases those commuters who travel by rail are not concerned with the rolling stock they have to travel on - the complaints about a single type of rolling stock are very low in number. Most complaints are about industry-wide problems including overcrowding, late running and lack of information. You'll also find that, given the opportunity, people will over-complain if they think something can be done to improve the service they use.

 

[WestCoast]

Also for the record the North East doesn't see 144s - these are confined to Yorkshire and occasionally the North West on selected routes.

Yes, I realise this. I should have differentiated between the two regions.

As for standing - this happens on almost all types of stock - you can't level this argument solely against Pacers. I'm sure anyone who is standing, whether it be on 30 year old stock or 30 day old stock will moan.

I find the 'standing experience' on a Pacer worse than on a Sprinter and more modern stock. There is lack of standing aids away from the doors

In many cases those commuters who travel by rail are not concerned with the rolling stock they have to travel on - the complaints about a single type of rolling stock are very low in number. Most complaints are about industry-wide problems including overcrowding, late running and lack of information. You'll also find that, given the opportunity, people will over-complain if they think something can be done to improve the service they use.

Among 'non-enthusiasts', I've heard more negative remarks about 142s more than any other train . My local line serves many tourists during the summer and you hear peoples' negative comments about the rolling stock. Not that this represents official complaints or anything like that - it won't be reported in any form of quantitative data.

 

[northwichcat]

When you think that around 2,000 people were killed on the roads last year in the UK alone, this puts railway safety into perspective.

Comparing road safety and rail safety are two completely different things. Anyone driving a train does so for a profession while anyone who passes a test can drive on the road - in some cases the test was taken in Poland 30 years ago.

The safest form of travel is actually air travel.

Also for the record the North East doesn't see 144s - these are confined to Yorkshire and occasionally the North West on selected routes.

The 144s can also finish up in Scunthorpe.

Didn't they go to Middlesbrough on a daily basis in the past?

As for standing - this happens on almost all types of stock - you can't level this argument solely against Pacers. I'm sure anyone who is standing, whether it be on 30 year old stock or 30 day old stock will moan.

Yes you can. If you're stood up on a 158 then you are much less likely to have an accident than on a Pacer.

The main reason being the train doesn't bounce.

A secondary reason is there is more to hold on to. What are you suppose to hold on to on a Pacer? The overhead rack until all the blood drains out of your arm. Then what? The seat backs are too low down to offer anything to hold on to, even on the ex-ATN 142s the seats are much lower down than on a 158 and while a few of them have grab handles most of them don't.

There is also the issue of capacity. If 180 people turn out for a service and a Sprinter turns up not only do less people stand but the ones standing are less squashed in.

 

[Lampshade]

Among 'non-enthusiasts', I've heard more negative remarks about 142s more than any other train . My local line serves many tourists during the summer and you hear peoples' negative comments about the rolling stock. Not that this represents official complaints or anything like that - it won't be reported in any form of quantitative data.

Just read the #northernfail hashtag on any given day.

I was at Piccadilly a few years ago and a 142 pulls in on a Sheffield stopper. I heard one passenger mutter "what? it's a bloody tin can!".

 

[142094]

Comparing road safety and rail safety are two completely different things. Anyone driving a train does so for a profession while anyone who passes a test can drive on the road - in some cases the test was taken in Poland 30 years ago.

The only comparison I'm making is about how acceptable it seems in the mindset of the general public - they seem to accept the current levels of road deaths but when there is a rail crash, there is much more 'interest'.

The safest form of travel is actually air travel.

No doubt it is - although again air travel can be tarnished, much in the same way as the above point

The 144s can also finish up in Scunthorpe.

Didn't they go to Middlesbrough on a daily basis in the past?

Point I was making is that they do not end up in the NE on revenue services today. AFAIK the only 14xs used up this end were 143s and 142s.

Yes you can. If you're stood up on a 158 then you are much less likely to have an accident than on a Pacer.

The main reason being the train doesn't bounce.

A 158 does bounce - perhaps not as much as a 142, but it certainly does.

A secondary reason is there is more to hold on to. What are you suppose to hold on to on a Pacer? The overhead rack until all the blood drains out of your arm. Then what? The seat backs are too low down to offer anything to hold on to, even on the ex-ATN 142s the seats are much lower down than on a 158 and while a few of them have grab handles most of them don't.

I'm sure there will be a few people who cannot reach the seat handles due to how tall they are, but they will be in he minority. Taking your example of 158s, these do not have grab handles as well. I certainly do not know how many people have been injured due to the fact they did not have anything to hold onto, but I expect it to be very low.

There is also the issue of capacity. If 180 people turn out for a service and a Sprinter turns up not only do less people stand but the ones standing are less squashed in.

Again that is an issue of overcrowding, and Pacers being used on routes where other classes of units should be used. In addition, this is not an inherent risk - overcrowding would pose the same problems regardless of unit.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Among 'non-enthusiasts', I've heard more negative remarks about 142s more than any other train . My local line serves many tourists during the summer and you hear peoples' negative comments about the rolling stock. Not that this represents official complaints or anything like that - it won't be reported in any form of quantitative data.

I used to work for a company in an area where Northern operate a large amount of the services - we didn't get many complaints about a single class - and I'd hazard an informed guess that Northern don't either, otherwise we would have heard about it.

 

[WestCoast]

I used to work for a company in an area where Northern operate a large amount of the services - we didn't get many complaints about a single class - and I'd hazard an informed guess that Northern don't either, otherwise we would have heard about it.

There's a big difference between general opinions and official complaints that a firm receives. Pacers are pretty much a fixture of Northern, but when they have gone somewhere else, it hasn't gone unnoticed.

 

[142094]

There's a big difference between general opinions and official complaints that a firm receives.

True, but again you hear complaints when on any train all the time. I could understand that there is a big problem with Pacers if Northern were to receive '000s of complaints about safety but in reality they do not. A lot of people like to moan for no apparent reason as well.

 

[northwichcat]

I'm sure there will be a few people who cannot reach the seat handles due to how tall they are, but they will be in he minority. Taking your example of 158s, these do not have grab handles as well. I certainly do not know how many people have been injured due to the fact they did not have anything to hold onto, but I expect it to be very low.

On the standard 158 seating some seats have handles. Others don't but you can still put you hand on the seat back/top. With the bus bench seat on the 142s you can't grab on to anything on the seat without putting your fist in to someone's back.

Again that is an issue of overcrowding, and Pacers being used on routes where other classes of units should be used. In addition, this is not an inherent risk - overcrowding would pose the same problems regardless of unit.

Yes but the problem we have at Northern is 142s are used to fill in for services which should be operated by a bigger unit. It isn't always the case that a Sprinter has failed. It could be the 142 failed earlier and is able to return to service but the Sprinter filled in on that service and finished up out-of-position for the peak period.

 

[142094]

Yes but the problem we have at Northern is 142s are used to fill in for services which should be operated by a bigger unit. It isn't always the case that a Sprinter has failed. It could be the 142 failed earlier and is able to return to service but the Sprinter filled in on that service and finished up out-of-position for the peak period.

I agree with you, but you and I both know that this is the fault of the DfT (and in some cases, Northern's). However there will be instances across the country where this happens, but will not involve a 14x class.

 

[tbtc]

When you think that around 2,000 people were killed on the roads last year in the UK alone, this puts railway safety into perspective

Yet, when there's a train involved in a crash, you know that the tabloid headlines will be "ANOTHER train crash"...

 

[Anvil1984]

Just to clear up a mini point, in ATN days a 3 car 144 WAS used on the Whitby line for at least a few weeks when the local council decided that for the school run there must be enough seats for the children for safety reasons, later it was changed for a 156
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=92292&showexif=1

picture of a 144 arriving at Whitby credit to photographer taking it

 

[507 001]

Also note that the 87 involved in the crash also came away from its bogies - is that not unsafe as well?

Coming away from bogies is normal, hell, even one of the 156's involved in the 1995 Ais gill accident came away from its bogies.
Coming away from its frames however is far from normal.

You clearly are a pacer apologist, no matter how much you deny it.