The design thinking behind Pacers

[GW43125]

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

OT I know but if you think that's overegging it, Gatwick Express describe their 387s as "comfortable"!

 

[delt1c]

Unsung hero's. If they hadn't came along when they did how many lines would have been lost. Unsuitable for a lot of current services, Yers but then history repeats, 116,117,118 were unsuitable for some of the long runs they worked with suburban style doors and interiors plus no gangways . 105's were unsuitable for KINGS CROSS services running as 8 car with 4 guards compartments and 8 driving cabs.
Lets look at the positives that the Pacers brought. Remember using the refurbished ones on Cardif Valleys and can say they were fine.

 

[billio]

Although I agree that Pacers need to be removed from active service as soon as possible, in my mind that have one advantage: the open nature of the carriage (especially when fitted with the original seats) allows a good view all round for passengers. This would be an advantage on scenic, heritage railways where the view from a Mark 1 compartment leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[Goldie]

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?

That's the thing about Pacers. They weren't just cheap. They were almost malevolently, deliberately bad - born of a desire to punish people who chose or had to use public transport; or (even worse) appease governmental paymasters who wanted to punish those who used public transport. Of course I don't have any evidence to support that view, except to say: just look at the things! There is no way that anyone could ever have looked at a Pacer and thought: "this is an improvement." Even as an easily excited seven year old, I can remember getting on my first ever Pacer for a trip from Sheffield to Leeds and realising almost straight away that the journey in question was far, far outside the Pacer's actual capabilities.

There's going to be nostalgic some Pacer revisionism as they finally bite the dust, and I don't mind that at all, provided that we never forget that these were bad trains that added very little to the open waggons that the Stockton and Darlington used to transport passengers at the dawn of the railway age.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's the thing about Pacers. They weren't just cheap. They were almost malevolently, deliberately bad - born of a desire to punish people who chose or had to use public transport; or (even worse) appease governmental paymasters who wanted to punish those who used public transport. Of course I don't have any evidence to support that view, except to say: just look at the things! There is no way that anyone could ever have looked at a Pacer and thought: "this is an improvement." Even as an easily excited seven year old, I can remember getting on my first ever Pacer for a trip from Sheffield to Leeds and realising almost straight away that the journey in question was far, far outside the Pacer's actual capabilities.

Have you ever been on a rotting, rattly, underpowered, wheezing, stinking of fumes heritage DMU? For all Pacers are rubbish, they *were* an improvement.

(The 101s don't count, they were the best of the lot in terms of longevity, and they were depot pets in their latter years).

 

[Goldie]

Have you ever been on a rotting, rattly, underpowered, wheezing, stinking of fumes heritage DMU? For all Pacers are rubbish, they *were* an improvement.

(The 101s don't count, they were the best of the lot in terms of longevity, and they were depot pets in their latter years).

Of course - we didn't have a car at the time so I regularly had the pleasure of travelling on all sorts of first generation stuff. That first impression of the Pacers was basically a straight comparison by my seven year old self with the Class 108s that used to hang around Sheffield before the Pacers arrived. I missed the calm blue and green seats, the bouncy cushions, the orange curtains in first class, the fact that they had first class at all. Looking back as a grown up, I can see too that first generation DMUs - while they had faults - were still designed so as to try and give passengers a pleasant travelling experience. Whereas the design philosophy behind Pacers seems to have been: "This is all you deserve."

 

[TUC]

The leaflet from from Bletchyite claims the Pacers have better lighting. If so, I dread to have seen the predecessors!

 

[KevinTurvey]

I think mega-cheap was the main idea - at the time of development this was only a few years after Serpell and the 1982 strikes and the Thatcher government (and the nation in general it seems) didn't care too much about trains.

I think the use of standard bus components helped keep cost to the minimum, but many of these hadn't been used long term on the railway and failed quickly, so much so that by about 1988 something like half the fleet was out of service awaiting parts (mainly transmissions) They do seem reasonably reliable now though they have been heavily re-engineered.

I recall the pacers when first introduced seemed very fast off the mark, albeit the violent gear change, deafening squealing and general bounciness used to give you a headache after a while - they are not as bad now as they used to be. The DMU's they replaced on the other hand were just so variable in quality, the 101s, 108s, were good. The 104s and 105's had been neglected, some were very poor indeed.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

Many of the early train journeys I experienced were on pre-refurb 141s in that awful green and cream MetroTrain colour scheme of the mid-80s. Many of the other early journeys were on the remnants of the West Yorks heritage DMU fleet, presumably 101, 108, 110, 111, 114. I cannot remember distinct units in general but I know that EVERY heritage set was noticeably more comfortable (and fun!) to a very small me. Particularly the ability to see out of the front or rear, compared to the hideous orange plasticky wall behind the drivers cab of a Pacer.

(Also - whoever thought that sideways seats were a good idea on a train with two axles and no suspension to speak of?)

 

[30907]

Of course - we didn't have a car at the time so I regularly had the pleasure of travelling on all sorts of first generation stuff. That first impression of the Pacers was basically a straight comparison by my seven year old self with the Class 108s that used to hang around Sheffield before the Pacers arrived. I missed the calm blue and green seats, the bouncy cushions, the orange curtains in first class, the fact that they had first class at all. Looking back as a grown up, I can see too that first generation DMUs - while they had faults - were still designed so as to try and give passengers a pleasant travelling experience. Whereas the design philosophy behind Pacers seems to have been: "This is all you deserve."

The 108s were arguably among the best of the first generation bunch so you had a particularly bad "conversion" experience.
I would say "this is all we can afford" rather than "...you deserve"

 

[cambsy]

I was bashing etc when the pacers first came out, and as an oh look something new and shiny young boy, bit of a NED[bashing term], I chased them when were prototypes , They are horrible things to go on, but luckily I’m able to avoid them so tend to only ride them once in many blue moons, wont be sad to see them go.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whereas the design philosophy behind Pacers seems to have been: "This is all you deserve."

I'm not sure it was at all. A more spartan look and bold colours was very much a 1980s thing (150s are hardly much better). The heritage DMUs were children of the 1960s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

(Also - whoever thought that sideways seats were a good idea on a train with two axles and no suspension to speak of?)

I always sat there for the legroom (and to play with the door controls when younger ).

 

[Bletchleyite]

The leaflet from from Bletchyite claims the Pacers have better lighting. If so, I dread to have seen the predecessors!

Tungsten bulbs in some cases, in others tubes, but all in all quite dull.

 

[TUC]

Tungsten bulbs in some cases, in others tubes, but all in all quite dull.

They were scarcely much better in the Pacers. The number of times I got on a Pacer after getting off an ECML train and noticing how gloomy the lighting was in comparision. The fact BR ever thought it was acceptsble ssys much about the sloppy standards applied to Pacers.

 

[LOL The Irony]

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

They were scarcely much better in the Pacers. The number of times I got on a Pacer after getting off an ECML train and noticing how gloomy the lighting was in comparision. The fact BR ever thought it was acceptsble ssys much about the sloppy standards applied to Pacers.

Need I say more?

 

[daikilo]

Tungsten bulbs in some cases, in others tubes, but all in all quite dull.

All started with uncovered bulbs but some were retrofitted in the 1970s with a single line of tubes with "white" covers along the ceiling centreline. The tube covers tended to get dirty and change colour.

 

[TUC]

All started with uncovered bulbs but some were retrofitted in the 1970s with a single line of tubes with "white" covers along the ceiling centreline. The tube covers tended to get dirty and change colour.

Wasn't the obvious thing to do simply to clean them?

 

[railfan100]

The entire network was run on the cheap in those days and did not have the £40 billion plus of debt the current network has today. BR did a great job with the very limited funds that they had, despite fond memories many first generation units were falling apart in the 80's. The answer would would have been simpy build more 'Sprinter's but of course they cost a fair amount more to construct. Despite all these financial constraints it is interesting to note that the design and construction was still handled in the country that the units were to operate in.

 

[TUC]

In any consideration of new rolling stock, a key reference point should be 'would a south east commuter accept this if it were introduced in that region?' With Pacers, we know what the answer to that would be.

 

[6Gman]

That's the thing about Pacers. They weren't just cheap. They were almost malevolently, deliberately bad - born of a desire to punish people who chose or had to use public transport; or (even worse) appease governmental paymasters who wanted to punish those who used public transport. Of course I don't have any evidence to support that view ...

Because that view is untrue?

I worked with managers involved in introducing the Pacers. They really were the saviours of Regional Railways because they showed that routes (which otherwise would almost certainly have closed as the 1st generation units fell apart) could be operated at reasonable cost and thereby paved the way for 150s, 155s and 156s.

 

[satisnek]

The irony with Pacers was that they were built to provide a service on rickety branch lines but the four-wheel chassis was much more suited to the CWR and high speed turnouts of the major routes.

 

[sarahj]

I always sat there for the legroom (and to play with the door controls when younger ).

I used to sit there as well on my commute home from Newcastle to Haltwhistle. Alas that was also the smoking section and my parents always thought I'd been smoking. I remember the issues with the gear boxes and the burn your ankles heating. At one time they had to replace some trains with a 47 and some mk2a. I was so happy when my train home became a 156 going to girvan, and for a while a trolley.

 

[brel york]

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.
Your right about the door locks but it came to light on the mk
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.

In any consideration of new rolling stock, a key reference point should be 'would a south east commuter accept this if it were introduced in that region?' With Pacers, we know what the answer to that would be.

Exactly my point , look up the prototype coach built with bus parts

 

[daikilo]

The irony with Pacers was that they were built to provide a service on rickety branch lines but the four-wheel chassis was much more suited to the CWR and high speed turnouts of the major routes.

This is possibly the biggest concept error with the Pacer, the 75mph HS freight wagon chassis was good enough on branches, but was designed for loaded main line block trains. As for using the National bus body, it was a solution looking for a problem; Alexander Barclay showed there were others, as Alexander and others had done in the bus world. If only the Pacer had been built on say a dedicated two-unit version of the articulated bogie chassis used on early freightliner flats.

 

[30907]

Exactly my point , look up the prototype coach built with bus parts

Which the Daily ??? or perhaps the Evening ??? made a fuss about, not LSE commuters (there werent many on the Brighton to Manchester which is what it was tried on).

 

[edwin_m]

This is possibly the biggest concept error with the Pacer, the 75mph HS freight wagon chassis was good enough on branches, but was designed for loaded main line block trains. As for using the National bus body, it was a solution looking for a problem; Alexander Barclay showed there were others, as Alexander and others had done in the bus world. If only the Pacer had been built on say a dedicated two-unit version of the articulated bogie chassis used on early freightliner flats.

As far as I'm aware the original Freightliner flats weren't articulated, although they were bar-coupled into sets of (usually) five with no buffers on intermediate ends. I don't think any of the later types were either. The floor would have had to be higher to fit an underfloor engine, as seen with the MPV units, and once that happened they could have had conventional instead of small-wheel bogies and ended up not much different from Sprinters.

The original Freightliners also had the guard riding in a modified container placed in the trailing position on the last flat. This wasn't acceptable to the guards and was quickly replaced by a motley collection of passenger brakes, suggesting that the ride of a Freightliner probably wasn't any better than that of a four-wheeler.

 

[MG11]

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?

The Alexander Dennis Enviro 400s are very poor on legroom, however, Streetlites utilise thin, upright seats, so legroom is ample.

Bus seating in the 80s and 90s was more spacious, owing to the buses not having to allocate space for wheelchair users. I imagine the legroom issue on pacers is due to them being shorter than standard railway carriages.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The Alexander Dennis Enviro 400s are very poor on legroom, however, Streetlites utilise thin, upright seats, so legroom is ample.

Bus seating in the 80s and 90s was more spacious, owing to the buses not having to allocate space for wheelchair users. I imagine the legroom issue on pacers is due to them being shorter than standard railway carriages.

Nothing to do with carriage length- just trying to get as high a capacity as possible on paper, regardless of whether people will actually use those seats. 153s and 155s are 23m units but still have a very cramped layout.

 

[D2007wsm]

The A400s can have decent leg room apart from the front O/S seat upstairs, the front N/S seat downstairs behind the door and the sear in the cupboard under the stairs which are in fixed positions. The rest of the seats is down to the specification of the operator.

First West of England operate E400s on their North Somerset services and I travel on these daily. There are several different spec vehicles based on where they come from, the ex London spec vehicles having the least amount of leg room, but the newer First Group spec ones have ample leg room. I'm tall and don't have a problem with these. The best ones are the ex Plymouth Park & Ride vehicles with coach seats, these have loads of room. More so than the 150s, I travelled on a GWR refurbished one last week and the seats by the new bigger toilets are ridiculous for leg room. I can't really comment on a Pacer as I have not been on one for a long time since they are now in Devon.