Pacers have a future.

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You however did appear to imply that the London did not have such 'arachaic' and poor-condition stock as the North does running in and out of its cities. I disproved that with the examples I gave. I am well aware that the Pacers are in worse conditon internally but by absolutely no means whatsoever is the South short on such aged stock. Let's not forget either that FCC 313s have the same (or very, very similar to) seating as Northern 144s!

Matt, I have a different mind-set when the Class 144 Pacers are discussed but can I draw your attention to the fact that is was the Class 142 Pacers which were the ones to which I had referred to in my posting, not any Class 144 unit.

Incidentally, can I ask you to look up the meanings of the words arachaic" (as used in your posting) and the word "archaic".

 

[RobShipway]

That is still not much to give confidence to intending rail travellers on those lines where the Class 142 Pacers are the norm. May I be so bold as to hark back to the earlier days of bicycle construction and state that the poor ride of the "boneshakers" had much to do with the lack of any "damping" suspension on those items rather than the conditions of the roads that they did so traverse.

I think to be honest it is down to what the class 141/142 where based on which is the old Leyland National Bus that was introduced back in the Mid 1970's and I am sure that they also used the Leyland National chassis with the suspension, which to be honest was not that good even when it was used as a bus. The class 143/144 are based on the Walter Alexander bus body and chassis which is of better build quality than the Leyland bus as more time was taken in getting the build quality correct.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Matt, I have a different mind-set when the Class 144 Pacers are discussed but can I draw your attention to the fact that is was the Class 142 Pacers which were the ones to which I had referred to in my posting, not any Class 144 unit.

Incidentally, can I ask you to look up the meanings of the words arachaic" (as used in your posting) and the word "archaic".

Yes, however I only drew a very brief comparison at the end of my post to the 144s, the main body of my post was about 142s. 'arachaic' was a typo (as I suspect you knew as no such word exists). My profound apologies that such slight errors cause such great confusion.

Anyway, as far as I'm concrned I'm done arguing here if at the end of it it all comes down to such minor details in each other's posts.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned I'm done arguing here if at the end of it it all comes down to such minor details in each other's posts.

Matt, if you read the point made by Robbies, you will see that he has explained the difference between the Class 141/142 Pacers and the Class 143/144 Pacers very well indeed. I am sure that these are somewhat more than "minor details" and I do sincerely thank him for making the posting clarification that he has gone to the trouble he has gone to, by making his posting to further that part of the debate.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Matt, if you read the point made by Robbies, you will see that he has explained the difference between the Class 141/142 Pacers and the Class 143/144 Pacers very well indeed. I am sure that these are somewhat more than "minor details" and I do sincerely thank him for making the posting clarification that he has gone to the trouble he has gone to, by making his posting to further that part of the debate.

Yes, however the main body of my post was about the 142. The brief, brief comparison to 144 seating (no technical aspects) was just that - a brief comparison of non-technical aspects. I can appreciate that there are quite big differences between 142s and 144s, and yes I would say 144s are a better unit. Also, I meant minor details of posts, not the actual units. As far as I'm concerned that's the end of the matter.

 

[RobShipway]

Matt, if you read the point made by Robbies, you will see that he has explained the difference between the Class 141/142 Pacers and the Class 143/144 Pacers very well indeed. I am sure that these are somewhat more than "minor details" and I do sincerely thank him for making the posting clarification that he has gone to the trouble he has gone to, by making his posting to further that part of the debate.

No problem Paul. I thought it would be best to show the origins of the Railbuses as they are known.

I am not sure if anyone here is within the bus industry on this forum, but how many of the Leyland Nationals are still used in public service in comparison to the Alexander bodied single decker buses of the same period?

It might also be worth noting that Leyland Bus as far as I know, has long since gone out of business whereas Walter Alexander is part of the Alexander Dennis coach building company which still continues to this day. Leyland Bus was acquired by Volvo Buses in 1988 and ceased all production in 1993 at the Workington factory. These may seem like minor points as Paul has mentioned, however when it comes to parts to improve the class 142 trains parts I would suspect are limited, whereas with the class 143/144 parts used in these trains I have no doubt are still used in the Alexander Dennis buses, so would have a better chance if they where to be re - designed in some way for future regulations I suspect.

 

[150001]

I used one of the Class 142 units last night on the Southport to Manchester Airport service and your comment that they are "A good example of British engineering at its best" leaves me in despair. The ride was very poor, the internal decor and door condition left so much to be desired and as a 21st century offering to the British transport scene, a disgrace that should not be tolerated.

I couldn't agree more; passengers are having to pay higher fares and it rubs salt in the wounds when they are "treated" to the wonderful joys of a Pacer. They hardly create a good impression to visitors when compared to the likes of trains in Germany for example. Fortunately my local trains are 172s and 168s which are excellent; it's shame to say that this high standard isn't kept up nationwide (Northern Rail).

 

[Haydn1971]

I'm not entirely convinced by the talk of cascading DMU's down either, it's clear that many routes need the 1/4 or 1/3 door placement to speed passenger entry and exit - the 156/158 units just aren't suitable for the commuter services that the Pacers run on, which also aren't that suitable either - I'd be more of a mind to push the 170/185's (minus first class) onto replacing the busy routes currently served by Pacers and 150 units, leaving the 156/158's to run the quieter middle distance routes (upto three hours), with the 22x's serving the busier middle distance routes.

 

[Bevan Price]

As I have commented elsewhere, Class 185 and 22x series are fuel-hungry beasts. I cannot see any TOC wanting to use them on services currently operated by 15x series units, because it would lead to a large increase in their fuel bills. At least, not without significant modifications for example replacing the engines with something much less powerful, and maybe some intermediate coaches becoming unpowered.

 

[ainsworth74]

Class 185 and 22x series are fuel-hungry beasts. I cannot see any TOC wanting to use them on services currently operated by 15x series units, because it would lead to a large increase in their fuel bills.

You mean like TPE who didn't, in the end, replace their fleet of 158s with 185s?

 

[Bevan Price]

You mean like TPE who didn't, in the end, replace their fleet of 158s with 185s?

No I mainly meant TOCs like Northern and other operators working semi-fast or stopping services with 150s, 156s and 158s. If you can keep time with engines of 350 hp or less, you won't really want to replace them with heavier trains and circa 750 hp engines .

And even TPE have adopted more eco-operating techniques to save fuel since the 185s first entered service.

 

[MCW]

But if you look at flows that do not currently exist then they might be justified. For instance, Skegness to Sheffield, linking up with a Peterborough to Sheffield to travel onwards to Carlisle. A little imagination might be all that is needed!

I like that idea!

more routes to explore

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But if you look at flows that do not currently exist then they might be justified. For instance, Skegness to Sheffield, linking up with a Peterborough to Sheffield to travel onwards to Carlisle. A little imagination might be all that is needed!

I can now already envisage certain forum members' imaginations already being activated by your posting to give free rein to the production of some of the more outrageous "fantasy" routes.

Some postings should carry a footnote..."Please do not ask for reality, as a refusal often offends"....

 

[WatcherZero]

This is a good point that many miss on Pacer-bashing threads - the lines that Pacers run on really aren't great in places, which exaggerates the ride quality

Having ridden them on very old track and on track that was newly replaced I can say its not really the condition of the track that has an effect, its purely whether its jointed or continuous weld and the severity of the corners.

 

[sheff'd victoria]

Please no! A future for Pacers? Argh!!! The only decent future for a Pacer is to be scrapped and become a razor blade in a second life.

I would keep the 3 car sets as spare units but the rest can be flogged on e-bay for 99p

 

[northwichcat]

Agree with your cascade proposals but confused by your use of the word 'replacing'.
Do you mean replacing as in displacing or as in sending to the scrapyard?
With growing passenger numbers, lack of funds for new trains, the name of the game has to refurbishing older trains for another 10 years life, effectively increasing the overall fleet of trains (and by definition number of seats), OK there may be some engineering issues, i.e sagging in 153s, severe corrosion etc.
Available paths may be problem but running 150s and pacers as 4 car trains as the norm has to be priority.

I agree that we need more carriages in operation. My understanding is the recent ATOC report was referring to the likes of Pacers and 150s directly being replaced by EMUs and cascaded DMUs (as a result of electrification) on their existing routes. However, they have left the door open for more new DMUs if growth supports it.

By 2020 Pacers will be around 35 years old. That's above the average DMU lifespan and the average DMU has had a lot more spent on it's build. At the moment they aren't reliable enough when operating in multiple - doors not opening on both sets correctly is a very common problem when you've got a TPE service 3 minutes behind the Northern service, that can cause knock on delays.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Pacers ride is fine, on continually welded rail. Jointed it is not pleasant at all and voer pointwork at high speed isn't too great either. But i do not mind a ride on a pacer. If something nice could be done with them at a reasonable cost i see no reason to get rid completely. Even if half fleet are removed and some kept just to back us up in the peaks. Maybe even football specials.

 

[talltim]

I think to be honest it is down to what the class 141/142 where based on which is the old Leyland National Bus that was introduced back in the Mid 1970's and I am sure that they also used the Leyland National chassis with the suspension, which to be honest was not that good even when it was used as a bus. The class 143/144 are based on the Walter Alexander bus body and chassis which is of better build quality than the Leyland bus as more time was taken in getting the build quality correct.

I think you will find that the underframe of a 142 isn't that much different to that of the 143/144 and that there isn't much bus equipment under the body.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

By 2020 Pacers will be around 35 years old. That's above the average DMU lifespan and the average DMU has had a lot more spent on it's build. At the moment they aren't reliable enough when operating in multiple - doors not opening on both sets correctly is a very common problem when you've got a TPE service 3 minutes behind the Northern service, that can cause knock on delays.

What a most excellent summation. Look at the existing condition of the Class 142 Pacers in the year 2013 as an expected mode of rail transport for the general travelling public, then extend the degradation graph curve up to 2020. Britain is not a third world country, so why should the rail travelling public in certain parts of Britain be subject to the internal and operational degradations of these arcane modes of travel.

 

[sprinterguy]

I think to be honest it is down to what the class 141/142 where based on which is the old Leyland National Bus that was introduced back in the Mid 1970's and I am sure that they also used the Leyland National chassis with the suspension, which to be honest was not that good even when it was used as a bus. The class 143/144 are based on the Walter Alexander bus body and chassis which is of better build quality than the Leyland bus as more time was taken in getting the build quality correct.

To add to what talltim has said, the Pacer underframe/chassis is derived from that of the BR VDA van, not a Leyland National bus. I believe that the suspension draws from the research that BR undertook in the late sixties and seventies into the ride qualities of four wheeled vehicles at high speeds.

I also didn't think that the bodies of the class 143 and 144 Pacers drew from any design of Walter Alexander buses that were in production at the time. I believe that they were a custom design developed especially for these classes of Pacer (EDIT: I've done some reading and I'm wrong about that last bit, but the first paragraph is entirely accurate).

 

[northwichcat]

Passenger on a Pacer this afternoon: "How long ago was this train built? It looks like it was built in 1985!"

Guard: "It was built in 1985!"

 

[RobShipway]

To add to what talltim has said, the Pacer underframe/chassis is derived from that of the BR VDA van, not a Leyland National bus. I believe that the suspension draws from the research that BR undertook in the late sixties and seventies into the ride qualities of four wheeled vehicles at high speeds.

I also didn't think that the bodies of the class 143 and 144 Pacers drew from any design of Walter Alexander buses that were in production at the time. I believe that they were a custom design developed especially for these classes of Pacer.

Correct from further investigation that I have done. However, all the Pacers besides the bodywork contain bus features including such things as the doors, which for the class 143/144 I believe are still available from Alexander Dennis, whereas for the class 142 they are not available as Leyland bus went out of business in the 1990's as per my earlier post.

If the chassis is a BR VDA Van frame, then they could be anything up to 50 to 60 years old and I do not believe was specifically built at the time the Pacers where being built, hence why I would suggest replacing the Pacers with new Class 172's as I think maintenance cost wise it would be cheaper and easier all round.

 

[sprinterguy]

If the chassis is a BR VDA Van frame, then they could be anything up to 50 to 60 years old and I do not believe was specifically built at the time the Pacers where being built, hence why I would suggest replacing the Pacers with new Class 172's as I think maintenance cost wise it would be cheaper and easier all round.

They're not actually VDA van frames - They would be the wrong length, for one. I said that the Pacer underframe is derived from that of the VDA van, suitably strengthened, with changes instructed by the work that BR had done with high speed four wheel vehicles as part of the "Alternative Technology" project.

 

[Kali]

Related to this research, I think you mean ( which in itself is getting on some now... ) : http://www.traintesting.com/HSFV1-4.htm . Sad reading traintesting, RTC Derby's work made a really small me go "hey, this looks interesting, I'll do that when I grow up". Good job I did something else

VDAs showed up in the late 60s also? or at least the design they were derived from.

 

[317666]

No I mainly meant TOCs like Northern and other operators working semi-fast or stopping services with 150s, 156s and 158s. If you can keep time with engines of 350 hp or less, you won't really want to replace them with heavier trains and circa 750 hp engines.

On the note of keeping time, 170s replacing Sprinters on semi-fast or stopping trains is a bad move. I find that when a 170 ends up on a 156 diagram in Norfolk, it struggles to keep to time due to having slower acceleration. Higher top speed, yes, but on a stopping train that isn't as important as acceleration.

 

[RobShipway]

On the note of keeping time, 170s replacing Sprinters on semi-fast or stopping trains is a bad move. I find that when a 170 ends up on a 156 diagram in Norfolk, it struggles to keep to time due to having slower acceleration. Higher top speed, yes, but on a stopping train that isn't as important as acceleration.

That is why I said in an early post that replacing the pacers and even the likes of the 156's, should be new class 172's as they have better acceleration that 170's or 185's etc... I believe?

 

[sprinterguy]

That is why I said in an early post that replacing the pacers and even the likes of the 156's, should be new class 172's as they have better acceleration that 170's or 185's etc... I believe?

Better acceleration than a 170 and better fuel economy than a class 185. The 172s certainly seem to at least equal the class 150s, surely the fastest accelerating of the Pacer and Sprinter classes, in terms of acceleration.

 

[Greybeard33]

That is why I said in an early post that replacing the pacers and even the likes of the 156's, should be new class 172's as they have better acceleration that 170's or 185's etc... I believe?

According to the ATOC document, an order for new 172s, or any other existing DMU class, is unlikely to be an option:

36. It is widely expected that present and future EC legislation regarding emissions from diesel engines (Directive 97/68/EC and its subsequent amendments, implemented in Great Britain as the Non-Road Mobile Machinery (Emission of Gaseous and Particulate Pollutants) Regulations 1999, known as NRMM) will increasingly make it difficult or even impossible to procure and operate new DMUs having underfloor diesel engines, with an affordable business case. Indeed, EU consultation on possible tightening of the rules is now underway. Existing diesel trains can continue to operate for as long as necessary thanks to an amendment agreed in 2011.

IMO a relatively small order for an entirely new design of DMU is also unlikely to have an affordable business case, particularly if the carriages have reduced passenger capacity due to the space taken up by above-floor engine compartments.

 

[yorksrob]

Unless we do go for electrification of the entire network in the next 30 years or so (which I find fairly unlikely), the chances are, we're going to have to obtain some new DMU's at some stage - EU or no EU.

 

[D365]

Unless we do go for electrification of the entire network in the next 30 years or so (which I find fairly unlikely), the chances are, we're going to have to obtain some new DMU's at some stage - EU or no EU.

Exactly what I've been saying.