PaulHarding150
Member
Hi, Can someone please succinctly summarise the differences (technical or otherwise) between a 142 and 143 train for me?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Difference between Class 142 and 143 trains
- Thread starter PaulHarding150
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
sprinterguy
Established Member
Class 142: Built by BREL at Derby, Leyland body panels derived from the Leyland National bus and assembled in Workington. Steel underframe, riveted steel body and roof. Built with roof mounted 'pod' heating units derived from the Leyland National.
Class 143: Built by Hunslet Barclay at Kilmarnock, Walter Alexander bodies. Steel underframe, aluminium alloy body and roof.
Class 143: Built by Hunslet Barclay at Kilmarnock, Walter Alexander bodies. Steel underframe, aluminium alloy body and roof.
Last edited:
Cardiff123
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2013
- Messages
- 1,318
I'd like to know the difference between a 143 and a 144, because there appears to be no difference at all
sprinterguy
Established Member
The class 144 underframes are BREL and they were built at Derby, rather than Hunslet-Barclay at Kilmarnock.
Journeyman
Established Member
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2014
- Messages
- 6,295
The 143 has a somewhat neater and tidier appearance, due to a rather better-designed front end, although the two trains are very similar to travel on (i.e. generally awful).
train_lover
Member
- Joined
- 2 Nov 2007
- Messages
- 409
The Pacers get a hard time from people. These units saved lines from closing. It's also worth noting that compared with other units they are remarkably reliable. Love them or hate them they've done the job!
Journeyman
Established Member
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2014
- Messages
- 6,295
Despite my comment above, I completely agree. They did what they needed to do and have lasted very well - they could quite easily last longer, and PRM-TSI compliance is perfectly possible. They just happen to have become bit of a political football, a bit like the bendy-buses were in London.
Mikey C
Established Member
- Joined
- 11 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 6,850
They have a decent window layout as well, much better than the Peps or Mk3 based DMUs/EMUs
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
This is often said, but I'm not sure how true it is. Although it was the height of Thatcherism I'm not convinced that widespread closures would have been acceptable politically. The Serpell report was rejected for a reason.
The Pacers came about as a cost-saving measure, and also provided work for state-owned Leyland. The alternative wouldn't have been closure in most (if not all) cases, it would have been refurbishment (and maybe new engines) of the more structurally sound heritage units followed by a larger build of Sprinters.
Alhough they're past it now, they've done a decent job of ferrying folk about over the years. There's a few things about them that are quite good, like the big windows and (in some cases) low-backed seats which make them seem spacious, if they're not completely full... not sure I'd want to be on one if it crashed, mind!
The crucial thing about the Pacers was that they established the principle of investing in new stock rather than rearranging deckchairs by struggling on with refurbishing 1st gen DMUs. BR realised fairly quickly that the Pacers were inadequate, but it was a crucial stage in making the investment case for Sprinters which really did revolutionise the Provincial/ Regional Railways network. Gordon Pettitt and Nick Comfort's book The Regional Railways Story is well worth a read for an authoritative account of the policy and investment decisions behind this.
J-2739
Established Member
I would say that the 144s are more iconic than the 142s, here in Yorkshire.
143’s and 144’s are identical mechanically. The underframes are different as mentioned above. The easiest way to tell is that the battery boxes are at the cab end on 143 and inner end on 144.
Internally there are small differences in the cab with regards the driver gauges (much flatter to the desk on a 143) and the toilet is the opposite way around. The sink is on the right entering it on a 143 and on the left on a 144.
As built the passenger saloons were identical (brown and orange striped bus seats in 3+2) but subsequent refurbishments make them very different internally.
Internally there are small differences in the cab with regards the driver gauges (much flatter to the desk on a 143) and the toilet is the opposite way around. The sink is on the right entering it on a 143 and on the left on a 144.
As built the passenger saloons were identical (brown and orange striped bus seats in 3+2) but subsequent refurbishments make them very different internally.
When 150/1s operated with GWR I’d rather take a 143 than a 150/1 when in Devon, better passenger comfort and better windows/seat alignments for views.
Out of Northern’s units I like the car seat 142s. The 144 Chapman seats are OK but they need to put a thicker base cushion like GWR did. The bench seat 142s are OK but the ex-Mersey Travel units are horrific.
Out of Northern’s units I like the car seat 142s. The 144 Chapman seats are OK but they need to put a thicker base cushion like GWR did. The bench seat 142s are OK but the ex-Mersey Travel units are horrific.
randyrippley
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Feb 2016
- Messages
- 5,132
You're forgetting why so few DMU classes were upgraded: asbestos
What you suggest would never have happened
PaulHarding150
Member
In terms of being a driver or guard, is there any difference?
There’s a fairly long thread on here from a few years ago about whether pacers saved any lines.
The general consensus is that they didn’t.
The fact that they had to have new engines and gearboxes at around 10 years old probably made them more expensive than another batch of 150s would have been.
anamyd
On Moderation
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 3,011
i know that if you're trained on e.g. 142s and 143s you'd need conversion to 144s, so there may some small differences between the Pacer classes in that regard. Not sure what they are though!
anamyd
On Moderation
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 3,011
I understand that all the 142/143/144 network Pacers (as well as 141-113) were re-engineered in the 90s (the original Leyland TL11 engines and SCG gearboxes were all replaced with Cummins LT10Rs and Voith hydraulics).
I also understand that the SCG final drives were retained, but were since replaced with brand new Voith cardan shafts in the 2010s on some units. Does anyone know if that's been done to some units in all three network Pacer classes, or only one or two...? I know that at least some 142s have been modified as such.
Bevan Price
Established Member
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 7,341
Yes, the Pacers were a cheap & nasty solution after the otherwise potentially good Class 210s were declared unaffordable, and some of the early 1st generation dmus were starting to fall apart (bodywork corrosion, asbestos, etc.) and needed urgent replacement.
gazthomas
Established Member
This may help:
http://www.railway-centre.com/class-142.html
http://www.railway-centre.com/class-143.html
http://www.railway-centre.com/class-144.html
Extracts from Colin Marsden's books and Modern Railways Illustrated
http://www.railway-centre.com/class-142.html
http://www.railway-centre.com/class-143.html
http://www.railway-centre.com/class-144.html
Extracts from Colin Marsden's books and Modern Railways Illustrated
anamyd
On Moderation
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 3,011
I don't like how for the 142s the original running gear isn't mentioned at all, and oddly for the 143s and 144s it partially is (SCG but no Leyland)
That page for the 142s also says that the body structure was "Aluminium Alloy (bus body sections) on steel frame". I was under the impression that the panels on the Leyland National were galvanised steel, and that the 142 more or less used standard parts with some extra components to provide the extra width.
Sprinter107
Member
- Joined
- 26 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 935
The 142 was based on the Leyland National bus, weren't the 143 and 144 Pacers based on a single deck bus being produced by Alexander at the the time ?
anamyd
On Moderation
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2018
- Messages
- 3,011
agree with what...?
No, the 143/4 body was bespoke, as far as I know, though presumably it used Alexander's usual bus construction method (aluminium panelling on aluminium frames).
Journeyman
Established Member
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2014
- Messages
- 6,295
Structural integrity was another issue. Regional Railways had a proposal to refurbish large numbers of 108s for service in the 90s and beyond, but it was found the lightweight aluminium bodies had become brittle and weak over time, making their crashworthiness somewhat alarmingly bad. The 101s were selected instead.
61653 HTAFC
Veteran Member
Which is why I mentioned structural soundness in my initial post in the subject. Bu definition this would rule out the worst of them i.e. the 108s, those with asbestos, the 104s which were rather rusty.
dubscottie
Member
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 916
The 143/144 were built using components from the Alexander P-type bus body.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/8050359@N07/5691430306
- Status