Those wreched nodding donkeys...

[poshbakerloo]

Whilst I personally hate the 142,3 and 4s...They aint gonna go any time soon...
They arn't even all that old (mid 80s)...

...I think the main issue is the fact they get used on a lot of long-ish distance routes, like Sheffield-Lincoln. Thats 1hr 15mins. I've done that route several times, quite often hung over on the way back lol...makes me feel awful!

 

[yorksrob]

Well, in my view they should be first on the list to go. Before the HST's, 150's, PEP style electrics and anything else currently on the network

 

[TrainBrain185]

I believe that Pacers were tried on the Cornish branches but were unsuitable because of the tight radius curves.

The removal of branches in Cornwall was never I believe a serious option for all sorts of reasons.

Yes sir, thats true. A lot of them found their way to Heaton for NE local services.

 

[Fincra5]

well i have to admit i really don't like them. However they are cheap to run and maintain compared to some other DMUs

 

[Drsatan]

well i have to admit i really don't like them. However they are cheap to run and maintain compared to some other DMUs

Not for long though. Given their age it'll become difficult to find spare parts for them in about 10 years. Some of them break down every 2000 miles or so, whereas the 150s have an mpc rate of about 12000-15000 (depending on operator).

Exeter's had to put up with 142s/143s since December 2007 when many 150s/153/158s had to go to Northern & EMT at the insistence of DafT. They're definitely unsuitable for the Barnstaple branch since they're only 2 cars long (and thus become standing room only pretty quickly) and the ride quality's pretty ****e, not helped by the fact that most of the Barnstaple branch is still jointed track. The 142s are definitely the worst since they lack high-backed seats, so you're more likely to get whiplash in an accident, whereas the 143s have high-backed seats at the expense of legroom. Many of the Exmouth-Barnstaple/Paignton trains are only 2 cars when they should be four, which, from what I've heard, means passengers are often left behind. A few weeks ago, I went to Exmouth with a few friends from Uni, one of whom's a Bulgarian girl; after the ride on a 142 she probably thinks Bulgarian trains are better (& cheaper) than British ones, which is ironic given that Bulgaria is a relatively poor country whereas Britain has the 6th largest economy in the world by Purchasing Power Parity...

In other words, get rid of the ****ing pacers! Only problem is, I don't know what's going to replace them though given that the order for 1500 carriages has been cancelled.

 

[ukrob]

Not for long though. Given their age it'll become difficult to find spare parts for them in about 10 years. Some of them break down every 2000 miles or so, whereas the 150s have an mpc rate of about 12000-15000 (depending on operator).

Lol. Those statistics mean nothing if you don't compare like for like.

I'm sure 'some' 150s fail every '2000 miles or so' too.

You need to put the MPC for both to compare.

In other words, get rid of the ****ing pacers! Only problem is, I don't know what's going to replace them though given that the order for 1500 carriages has been cancelled.

I think the fact that there ever was an order for 1500 carriages, let alone cancelled, is news to everyone here, and at the DfT.

 

[royaloak]

it was about 50 coaches, but by the time the cascade of stock was finished 1500 stock transfers took place.
not serious!

 

[merlodlliw]

I think Pacers are quite spacious, when i get of a pendolino and straight onto a pacer am like wow this is so spacious!!!

Or you could say its like getting off a train & on to a 25 year old bus,except
25 year old PSV buses have been sold off to the East. As for space,when I
get off a 175 at CDF & on to a Valley lines pacer its like, is this really a train.

 

[SouthEastern-465]

Come on Guy Pacers aren't that bad there quite nice and spacious

There ugly busses on rails.

 

[yorksrob]

Lol. Those statistics mean nothing if you don't compare like for like.

I'm sure 'some' 150s fail every '2000 miles or so' too.

You need to put the MPC for both to compare.



I think the fact that there ever was an order for 1500 carriages, let alone cancelled, is news to everyone here, and at the DfT.

That may or may not be the case, but at least the 150's provide a half decent standard of passenger accomodation. If they had to spend money on keeping one lot of them going over another, I know which ones I'd choose

Are there any figures as to how much more expensive it is to run services using 150's, pairs of 153's compared to Pacers?

 

[daccer]

In these days of billion pound rail projects the fact that we cant replace the Pacers has always struck me as being a little bit of an anachronism.

They were built for a different era when the railways were dying slowly but surely and the only real factor at play was to ease the passing as cheaply as possible! Those days are gone now. we are seeing a resurgent railway with a bright future and the fact the Pacers are still around seems strangely out of place in todays modern world.

The Pacer replacement plan has been scrapped and Daft are now relying on cascades prompted by electrification. This is going to take a decade or so to see enough diesel units being replaced to let the Pacers go. And what will the Pacer replacement units be - classes 150-158 which themselves will 30 years old! The fact the Govt is saying that diesel unit builds are no longer viable means that the current crop of units are going to have to plough their lonely furrows for some considerable time. It all seems particularly weird when class 172's can be ordered from Derby with little lead time and these units would revolutionise rural routes where Pacers currently hold sway.

 

[Fincra5]

The 1st time i travelled on one was in the summer from exeter to barnstaple, pacers are by far the most uncomfortable trains i have ever experienced.

 

[HSTfan!!!]

No matter how much people hate pacers, they will always be regarded as saviours of many branch lines at the end end of the day.

 

[yorksrob]

No matter how much people hate pacers, they will always be regarded as saviours of many branch lines at the end end of the day.

As I have said several times, i'm still not convinced for the following reasons:

1) Plenty of branchlines and basic railways have survived without Pacers which leads me to suspect that there are several other factors some of them political which would have impacted on the final decision as to whether to keep a branch line open more than the day - to - day cost of running one type of train rather than another. It also suggests that other cost savings such as de-staffing, single tracking etc would have been far more significant in saving such lines.

2) I've yet to see any concrete evidence that Pacers are significantly cheaper to run than other types of unit anyway (although I have asked whether this existed in a previous post and am still open to someone coming up with it)

3) As far as day-to-day running costs are concerned, I would have thought that staffing costs, fuel costs of running any train at all, and route maintenance costs would be far more significant than the difference in the day-to-day running costs of one unit over another - so much so as to render such a difference insignificant in any final decision whether to keep a branchline open or not.

4) Whilst the Pacers were no doubt cheaper to build than other units from the same era, If they hadn't been built I still suspect that we may just have had a slower replacement of the heritage fleet with the other types of train, such as 150's 153's etc.

5) As a previous poster has pointed out, many of the Pacers don't operate on branchlines at all, but instead work on secondary and commuter routes which would have been difficult to close from a planning or political point of view.

6) I think most services that aren't profitable are subsidised on the basis of how useful they are to the community, therefore their continued operation relies on the number of bums on seats. Since the Pacers are a cramped lower quality passenger environment than pretty much any other unit, I wonder whether they might actually put people off using the train and to an extent supress demand on these services, actually damaging the case for keeping them open in comparison to other units.

 

[ukrob]

2) I've yet to see any concrete evidence that Pacers are significantly cheaper to run than other types of unit anyway (although I have asked whether this existed in a previous post and am still open to someone coming up with it)

I can't speak for running and maintenance costs, but their track access charge (per vehicle per mile) is 3.95p (at the most) against 4.99p (at the least) for a 15x vehicle.

142 3.95
143 3.93
144 3.93
150 4.99
153 5.26
155 5.21
156 5.42
158 6.07
159 6.00

I'm also aware that this didn't really have much effect when they were introduced so it isn't helping the argument either way, it is just posted for interest.

 

[royaloak]

So a pacer is only 3/4 the cost of a 150, I would call that a significant saving.

 

[yorksrob]

Thanks ukrob, the difference is presumably because they are lighter and cause less track wear?

I suppose the extra wear and tear of later unit types could have been a factor in justifying closure. I don't know how closely track access charges reflect these underlying costs but if they are closely linked would it have been enough to close the line.

 

[poshbakerloo]

They just need to quit running Pacers on high use commuter lines...and long distance routes...i.e. Sheffield-Lincoln...

 

[ukrob]

They just need to quit running Pacers on high use commuter lines...and long distance routes...i.e. Sheffield-Lincoln...

Nothing new to add to the thread? You have already said that.

 

[4SRKT]

We have the truly absurd situation on Northern of the new(ish) Leeds-Brighouse-Manchester service being operated by Pacers 100% of the time. This is a long run, linking several large towns, and should be a quality service. Meanwhile, services between Huddersfield and Wakefield (surely the most pointless service ever), and also between Leeds/Wakefield and Knottingley, we regularly have 158s, even 3-car versions. On these routes a Pacer would be more than adequate.

Since the new Calderdale line service is always worked by Pacers, I can only assume that the above is not simply caused by dickhead behaviour at Neville Hill every day.

 

[Muttley]

4) ....Whilst the Pacers were no doubt cheaper to build than other units from the same era....

Agreed, right up until they needed new engines, new gearboxes, new brakes, new doors.....

They were crap when they were built and they`re crap now.

 

[4SRKT]

Pacers seem to me to serve some sort of purpose even now. Some of the routes on which they operate (or should operate) have incredibly low passenger volumes on them. Better a Pacer than the only other sensible option, closure. Now that the bus seats have been stripped out of all the 144s and most 142s, they're much better then they used to be anyway.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, I've caught the Brighouse service from Cottingley to Victoria before and it is very long for a pacer. I can only assume it's because it used to be the Leeds - Huddersfield and they've used the same stock. I do use the Huddersfield - Wakefield quite often (handy for getting back from the Head of Steam ) and sometimes its a Pacer, sometimes something nicer. Perhaps because it's all in West Yorks Neville Hill can throw out whatever's available at the time, whereas because the Brighouse service goes into Manchester they have to use GMPTE units and are more restricted.

"Pacers seem to me to serve some sort of purpose even now. Some of the routes on which they operate (or should operate) have incredibly low passenger volumes on them. Better a Pacer than the only other sensible option, closure."

I think in these cases a single car 153 would be better but still cheap

 

[37372]

Pacers seem to me to serve some sort of purpose even now. Some of the routes on which they operate (or should operate) have incredibly low passenger volumes on them.

Perhaps in BR days yes, but these days when the amount of passengers has continued to grow, particularly in the north, I don't think this point is all that relevant any more. Just about all the routes I can think of that pacers travel along in Northern land are very well used. Yes they were a useful stop-gap, but these days passengers really do deserve better.

 

[TrainBrain185]

Yes, I've caught the Brighouse service from Cottingley to Victoria before and it is very long for a pacer. I can only assume it's because it used to be the Leeds - Huddersfield and they've used the same stock. I do use the Huddersfield - Wakefield quite often (handy for getting back from the Head of Steam ) and sometimes its a Pacer, sometimes something nicer. Perhaps because it's all in West Yorks Neville Hill can throw out whatever's available at the time, whereas because the Brighouse service goes into Manchester they have to use GMPTE units and are more restricted.

"Pacers seem to me to serve some sort of purpose even now. Some of the routes on which they operate (or should operate) have incredibly low passenger volumes on them. Better a Pacer than the only other sensible option, closure."

I think in these cases a single car 153 would be better but still cheap

I find it strange how a train can cause so much comment on this Forum? I have read all the comments on more than one thread about these things albeit a different title.
I simply cannot understand why the Pacer generates such negative comment? My opinion, as mentioned on other Pacer threads is that they had nothing short of a terrible start in their lives, but they have certainly improved over the years with lots of investment in modifications to improve reliability.
I use them on the NE services with all units served from Heaton and have no complaint about them, sometimes I even prefer using a Pacer on the 2200hrs Newcastle-Darlington than the 2147hrs TPE Manchester Airport CL185, also means I can grab an extra pint in Newcastle before the Pacer journey!!
OK.....those 153 huh? Well, when Heaton had some of these horrible second generation bubblecars, I can say without doubt, before Metro arrived, Sunderland and Durham Coast passengers hated the 153 with venom, as did the conductors because the narrow doors were at either end and taking ages for passengers to alight and board whereas the Pacers were more user friendly by having better doors and general access.
So for me, the 153 is my dislike.

 

[4SRKT]

Perhaps in BR days yes, but these days when the amount of passengers has continued to grow, particularly in the north, I don't think this point is all that relevant any more. Just about all the routes I can think of that pacers travel along in Northern land are very well used. Yes they were a useful stop-gap, but these days passengers really do deserve better.

The sorts of routes I'm thinking of are Leeds-Morecambe and the ridiculously under-utlised set of routes around Wakefield/Castleford/Ponte. Also Hudds-Sheffield-Lincoln. These could not be described as very well used by even the most passionate defender of local rail services (and I am definitely not that man!).

 

[yorksrob]

I find it strange how a train can cause so much comment on this Forum? I have read all the comments on more than one thread about these things albeit a different title.
I simply cannot understand why the Pacer generates such negative comment? My opinion, as mentioned on other Pacer threads is that they had nothing short of a terrible start in their lives, but they have certainly improved over the years with lots of investment in modifications to improve reliability.
I use them on the NE services with all units served from Heaton and have no complaint about them, sometimes I even prefer using a Pacer on the 2200hrs Newcastle-Darlington than the 2147hrs TPE Manchester Airport CL185, also means I can grab an extra pint in Newcastle before the Pacer journey!!
OK.....those 153 huh? Well, when Heaton had some of these horrible second generation bubblecars, I can say without doubt, before Metro arrived, Sunderland and Durham Coast passengers hated the 153 with venom, as did the conductors because the narrow doors were at either end and taking ages for passengers to alight and board whereas the Pacers were more user friendly by having better doors and general access.
So for me, the 153 is my dislike.

I can't say as I find the general access much better at all on a Pacer. If anything towards the middle of the pacer there's usually only one set of doors between the two carriages which takes ages to get out of if theres a crush! Yes, they might be wider but theres also that step into the doorwell which I should imagine is a pain for prams and things.

Personally, I commute using Pacers and 15- series trains every day and I hate the Pacers compared to the others. There aren't enough facing seats, the airline ones are too close together, there's nowhere to put my tea, they're smaller than any other 2 car set so get full up more quickly, the interior looks cheap and unfinished. about the only good thing I can say about them is that Northern usually keep the loos nice and clean. Most of the 15- series suffer from one or two of these problems but not all.

I far prefer the 153's although on my line (Leeds - Sheffield via Cass) you'd probably need a pair of them.

The sorts of routes I'm thinking of are Leeds-Morecambe and the ridiculously under-utlised set of routes around Wakefield/Castleford/Ponte. Also Hudds-Sheffield-Lincoln. These could not be described as very well used by even the most passionate defender of local rail services (and I am definitely not that man!).

I've been on the Leeds - Castleford - Pontefract and the Leeds - Morcambe routes several times and both of these can get quite busy sometimes, certainly enough to justify a 150

With regards to local railway services, they're one of the few things on my council tax bill breakdown that I use regularly (along with the dustmen) so I'll happily defend them.

 

[Drsatan]

Personally I think the 142s are an embarrasement to the UK. Any foreigner who turned up at Manchester Victoria would be appalled to have to spend two or more hours, for quite a hefty price, on what is basically a glorified bus.

 

[Old Timer]

Agreed, right up until they needed new engines, new gearboxes, new brakes, new doors.....

They were crap when they were built and they`re crap now.

Another unfair comment as many lines may have tipped the balance and been closed without them.

The whole point of the ROSCOs was that they had an incentive to invest in new rolling stock. That incentive has in many ways been removed by the massively bureaucratic Vehicle Acceptance system that will prioritise an unsafe unit as against a newer unit simply to appease the safety taliban and the engineers who will never dare make a decision not backed up by some one else as long as they have a hole in their bottom.

The whole pendulum within the Railway Industry has swung towards covering your arse first and above all else. Had this been the case 180 years ago we would still have a man with a red flag walking in front !

 

[4SRKT]

Personally I think the 142s are an embarrasement to the UK. Any foreigner who turned up at Manchester Victoria would be appalled to have to spend two or more hours, for quite a hefty price, on what is basically a glorified bus.

Although TBF the only Pacer service from Victoria on which this amount of time would apply is the Leeds via Brighouse one. In practice anyone going from Manchester to anywhere beyond Sowerby Bridge would be quicker to go to Piccadilly and change at Hudds.