The design thinking behind Pacers

[TUC]

Much has been written about the origins of Pacers in terms of the limited budgets and links with bus design. I'm not seeking to rehearse these again. Rather, there are aspects of Pacer design which, even allowing for the above, do not make sense to me and for which I would be interested in understanding the rationale further. For example:
a) the boxes beneath multiple seats, presumably containing equipment, but which give no leg room for those in the seat behind.
b) the placing of door controls to face away from the doors and so make them invisible to those waiting to disembark
c) Evrn allowing for the links with buses and the limited budgets, the use of bus seating when passengers could be travelling for over one hour and when many inter-urban longer distance local bus services of the time had seating that offered more comfort and support.

These seem to me to be design issues which, even in the 1980s, could have been addressed with some thought and creativity. What do others feel?

 

[brel york]

Much has been written about the origins of Pacers in terms of the limited budgets and links with bus design. I'm not seeking to rehearse these again. Rather, there are aspects of Pacer design which, even allowing for the above, do not make sense to me and for which I would be interested in understanding the rationale further. For example:
a) the boxes beneath multiple seats, presumably containing equipment, but which give no leg room for those in the seat behind.
b) the placing of door controls to face away from the doors and so make them invisible to those waiting to disembark
c) Evrn allowing for the links with buses and the limited budgets, the use of bus seating when passengers could be travelling for over one hour and when many inter-urban longer distance local bus services of the time had seating that offered more comfort and support.

These seem to me to be design issues which, even in the 1980s, could have been addressed with some thought and creativity. What do others feel?

I keep posting this reply to numerous links , it was all about money , cheap and cheerful , a great way to stifle demand lol , check out the pacer style prototype coach, described at the time as “British rail brings back 3rd Class travel “

 

[route:oxford]

The limited leg room continues to this day on buses. Just try sitting above the rear axle.

Was the bus seating considerably different to that on a heritage unit?

 

[LOL The Irony]

Remember these things were supposed to be turned into tin cans after 10 years.

 

[ash39]

In my view they are a hugely successful design. Outlived their expected service life by many years. Successful doesn't necessarily mean popular.

Still wouldn't fancy Penzance to Aberdeen on one though

I don't know the answer to your queries on the pacer layout/seating arrangements, but I will say that they aren't the only train with design flaws. The two that spring to mind immediately are mk3 door handles (why so low?), and the door open button on Class 333's. It's way further away from the door than it should be.

Also, any train with a toilet which leaves a passenger unsure if the door is locked or not can be added to that list. A lock should be a sturdy switch that you can be certain of doing the job. Not a button. At least the Pacers have proper door locks, although I was on 142072 last week and the lock was bust

 

[86247]

yes pacers have their faults a lot of faults but their better then a 150/1 or 150/2 which are awful units

 

[TUC]

My point is that the issues I raise:
a) are ones that look like they should have been obvious at the time and
b) do not look to be ones that would have been expensive to address at the design stage.

 

[xotGD]

The remarkable thing about the seats in the bendies is that on Merseyside they spent money replacing the bus seats with seats that are way more uncomfortable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The limited leg room continues to this day on buses. Just try sitting above the rear axle.

Was the bus seating considerably different to that on a heritage unit?

Yes, heritage units used the kind of much deeper-sprung seating you got on olde-worlde buses rather than the thinner version seen on Pacers, Leyland Nationals and the likes. It was always amusing watching everyone bounce and sway in unison but separately from the unit itself

Re buses, part of the difficulty is that a low floor bus with a high rear section for the axle/engine really only allows for one seat layout - you can see how difficult it is to add legroom by looking at the odd layout in the Hamburg Schnellbusse, not to mention the weird layouts you get in Citaros, which while they look fancy really are quite rubbish compared with their predecessor, the O405.

I would hope that with the coming of more electric buses there is consideration of things like having independently mounted rear wheels with separate traction motors allowing low-floor throughout and reducing this issue, not to mention a move to front and rear rather than front and centre doors for improved passenger flow.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The remarkable thing about the seats in the bendies is that on Merseyside they spent money replacing the bus seats with seats that are way more uncomfortable.

That kind of (awful) seat was a fad in late-90s bus design, FWIW.

 

[pdeaves]

My point is that the issues I raise:
a) are ones that look like they should have been obvious at the time and
b) do not look to be ones that would have been expensive to address at the design stage.

Well, the provision of above-floor equipment boxes could well mean that doing 'something else' would be expensive. That equipment has to go somewhere and if there's no obvious room underneath, what's the cheap, simple thing to do?

 

[Bletchleyite]

b) the placing of door controls to face away from the doors and so make them invisible to those waiting to disembark

That's actually a retrofit. The original doors were 4-piece folding doors the same as Leyland Nationals, and the buttons were on the other side (or on the end wall in the case of the inner end doors) with the staff controls underneath at about waist height (I *think* on the bench-seat side of the panel, awkwardly). There were (like many other things on the Pacers) loads of problems with those doors e.g. them blowing open when another train passed. They therefore received the new Peters Bradbury two-leaf doors with locking mechanisms, which open far further back into the saloons, so they had to be moved to a rather less than optimum position on the other side of the pole.

I have seen loads of people miss their stop with that button position, though, they'd have been better moving to full guard control like Merseyrail and removing them.

c) Evrn allowing for the links with buses and the limited budgets, the use of bus seating when passengers could be travelling for over one hour and when many inter-urban longer distance local bus services of the time had seating that offered more comfort and support.

They weren't intended for inter-urban services of that kind of length. They ended up on those services when it was discovered that the 4-wheel chassis, while it rode extremely well on welded rail, was appalling on jointed rail, so they were removed from e.g. the Cornish branches and moved to services for which they were arguably much less suited.

 

[edwin_m]

mk3 door handles (why so low?)

The Mk3 was intended to have internal handles as well, so it wouldn't have been necessary to open the window and reach down, but IIRC they were removed after some doors were opened in motion.

mk3 door handles
any train with a toilet which leaves a passenger unsure if the door is locked or not can be added to that list. A lock should be a sturdy switch that you can be certain of doing the job. Not a button.

Or if it's a button there could be an announcement reminding people to lock the door and telling them when it is locked. Not blathering about goldfish or trying to sell them something.

Apols for OT.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Newer EMUs have a physical switch which is much better.

 

[TUC]

Well, the provision of above-floor equipment boxes could well mean that doing 'something else' would be expensive. That equipment has to go somewhere and if there's no obvious room underneath, what's the cheap, simple thing to do?

In designing products, there's often options that might be the simplest in engineering terms but which are rejected as being unacceptable to customers. Given that the boxes (anyone know what they contain?) prevent passengers from being able to move their legs forward at all, this should have been rejected on that basis. In those situations, there needs to be someone who says 'whatever the solution is, it's not that. Go away and think again'.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The thing is that going away and thinking again costs money.

That setup did have advantages, anyway - Pacers as built (FNW retrofitted on some of them) didn't have bodyside heating conduits and so legroom was better for those on the window side and their ankles didn't get cooked.

It's also a problem that exists on 150s, which is why FNW kept the original layouts at refurb.

 

[TUC]

The thing is that going away and thinking again costs money.
.

Yes, but that's just part of the bread and butter tasks and costs of running a business.

I do suspect that Pacers were purely designed by engineers and without a strong customer focus being taken at every stage.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A lot of that went on in BR. But even so, they were sold as an improvement - and an improvement they were, when compared to draughty, wheezing, slow old 1st generation DMUs.

See attached for the sales pitch - and while it over-eggs some aspects it actually was true.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

In my view they are a hugely successful design. Outlived their expected service life by many years. Successful doesn't necessarily mean popular.

Still wouldn't fancy Penzance to Aberdeen on one though

I would! Just for all that squeel and thrash whilst its nodding and swaying down the line at the top speed of 75mph.

I do think that the idea of the design behind the Pacer was that it had to look modern (by 1980's standards), it had to cater for the lines that they were going to be used on and had to be lightweight. To help keep costs during the production of these wonderful and characterful units down, Leyland with their 142's and Alexandra Dennis with their 143's and 144's would have opted for the cheapest materials going (especially when its quite evident that these Pacers were being built to a budget) - this will explain why bench seats were fitted rather than spending a fortune on top end seats on a fleet of units that were originally going to last for no longer than a decade.

The fact being is that these units have performed extremely well, I do hope that some are saved for use on heritage railways with four being preserved at the NRM these being one 142, one 143, the 144012 ePacer and the 144 three car variant.

I can't see the class 195 Civity last this long, I do think that they'll be replaced within 15 years.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the only thing that will drive the Civities being replaced within 15 years is not build quality but a move away from burning dead dinosaurs to power trains. But then given the modular nature of modern trains I can't see converting them to another power source being all that hard.

In the end you just need to replace the engine and fuel tank rafts with something else that produces rotation at the appropriate speed and torque, and something to power said rotation.

 

[BestWestern]

I would! Just for all that squeel and thrash whilst its nodding and swaying down the line at the top speed of 75mph.

I do think that the idea of the design behind the Pacer was that it had to look modern (by 1980's standards), it had to cater for the lines that they were going to be used on and had to be lightweight. To help keep costs during the production of these wonderful and characterful units down, Leyland with their 142's and Alexandra Dennis with their 143's and 144's would have opted for the cheapest materials going (especially when its quite evident that these Pacers were being built to a budget) - this will explain why bench seats were fitted rather than spending a fortune on top end seats on a fleet of units that were originally going to last for no longer than a decade.

The fact being is that these units have performed extremely well, I do hope that some are saved for use on heritage railways with four being preserved at the NRM these being one 142, one 143, the 144012 ePacer and the 144 three car variant.

I can't see the class 195 Civity last this long, I do think that they'll be replaced within 15 years.

The NRM aren't going to save four Pacers, they don't have the space for a start! The 'ePacer' looks set to be a one-off experiment and isn't representative of anything particularly significant. A 143 surely wouldn't provide anything that a 144 wouldn't, I don't think one of each is needed? Saving a 142 I could imagine would be a possibility. I'd like to see them exported, personally. There must be places that a simple, sturdy design would be well suited to.

As for 'cheap materials', it's worth remembering that the Leyland National was pretty advanced for its day, despite not having been a favourite for everyone at the time! The Pacers may have been a budget use of existing technology, but in the original application it was designed for that technology was pretty up to date.

The 143 and 144 fleets were built by Walter Alexander as it then was (along with BR & Hunslet Barclay); Alexander Dennis was a few decades away!

 

[Intercity Exec]

If I understand the boxes you are referring to correctly, they contain the heater fans. The heating system uses engine coolant which passes into the saloon and across a fan matrix. Originally the trains had roof mounted heating systems, which really didn't work, which is what the large hump on the roof in the middle of the vehicle is. The original TL11 engines were replaced with Cummins LTA10R engines in the early 90s (one temporarily received Perkins 2006TWH engines!) and this is when I believe the engine coolant divert was installed. As far as I know the 143 and 144 had engine coolant heaters from new, hence no roof hump.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes, but that's just part of the bread and butter tasks and costs of running a business.

I do suspect that Pacers were purely designed by engineers and without a strong customer focus being taken at every stage.

Spending money on that simply means you get less rolling stock on the railway and the Treasury demands you pull the plug on a couple of branch lines.

The routes these units were designed for (Cornish branches and such) primarily only really see seasonal traffic, or are only kept open for social reasons.

Spending money on making them marginally 'more pleasant' does not gain you any additional income in that case.

And you also have to consider what kind of stuff they replaced.
They were an improvement in many ways.

 

[Ianno87]

A lot of that went on in BR. But even so, they were sold as an improvement - and an improvement they were, when compared to draughty, wheezing, slow old 1st generation DMUs.

See attached for the sales pitch - and while it over-eggs some aspects it actually was true.

View attachment 40227 View attachment 40228

Fantastic leaflet - thanks for sharing. I'd bite your hand off for some of those prices now...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fantastic leaflet - thanks for sharing. I'd bite your hand off for some of those prices now...

Probably not the wages that went with them though!

 

[sprinterguy]

I do think that the idea of the design behind the Pacer was that it had to look modern (by 1980's standards), it had to cater for the lines that they were going to be used on and had to be lightweight. To help keep costs during the production of these wonderful and characterful units down, Leyland with their 142's and Alexandra Dennis with their 143's and 144's would have opted for the cheapest materials going (especially when its quite evident that these Pacers were being built to a budget) - this will explain why bench seats were fitted rather than spending a fortune on top end seats on a fleet of units that were originally going to last for no longer than a decade.

High backed coach-style seating was provided as an option for the Pacer offering - see the attached image. However as you say I suspect that the cost to BR was considered too high for it to be worth taking up.

They weren't intended for inter-urban services of that kind of length.

The 143s in particular were ordered specifically with journeys such as Middlesborough - Newcastle and Newcastle - Carlisle in mind. Both of these are fairly lengthy inter-urban journeys, and I'd be surprised if at least some of the 142s weren't expected to see service on comparable routes from day 1.

 

[sprinterguy]

The NRM aren't going to save four Pacers, they don't have the space for a start! The 'ePacer' looks set to be a one-off experiment and isn't representative of anything particularly significant. A 143 surely wouldn't provide anything that a 144 wouldn't, I don't think one of each is needed? Saving a 142 I could imagine would be a possibility.

I'd be surprised if the NRM preserves any of the production Pacer classes: The prototype class 140 is already a part of the National Collection, and has spent a considerable number of years decaying away in one of the most remote corners of mainland Britain (though a volunteer effort has recently started to restore it).

 

[47802]

Should be sent to high security compound where they can all be destroyed, anybody found wanting to actively preserve one of these things should be thrown in the stocks.

 

[sprinterguy]

Should be sent to high security compound where they can all be destroyed, anybody found wanting to actively preserve one of these things should be thrown in the stocks.

The Pacer Preservation Society should be top of your "watched list", then. I'm unsure whether the "Peak Pacer Preservation Society" which I've just discovered through a quick Google search are the same thing or a separate splinter group. And before that piece of my search history lands me on the same list, let me be clear that I googled the group in the name of research only.

 

[alexl92]

That leaflet... there’s embellishment and then there’s straight up lying.. smooth, spacious and comfortable?!!!