other lines include the Calder Valley which more than likely would have been singled apart from at select railway stations (e.g. Todmorden, Hebden Bridge and Sowerby Bridge)
Well - we are all entitled to our own opinion, but I always thought that the Pacers were a mistake. Just as mainland Europe (the non-Communist areas) was getting rid of 4 wheel passenger stock, BR rediscovered that concept. They were never likely to run as smoothly as bogie stock, and they were too small for many of the routes on which they were inflicted.
And to suggest that they "saved" lots of lines is a common myth. Lines around big cities, especially those with PTE/PTAs were never in danger of closure in the 1980s. Only a handful of very rural lines might have been under threat.
The mechanical (engine) parts were largely based on bus designs, and the typical service life of a bus is about 15 years --- so Pacers have considerably exceeded their expected lifetimes, and should have moved into history about 15 - 20 years ago
There were problems with 158s and their introduction was delayed. The air con never worked properly. In fact it would have been better to have opening windows on them.1. The 158's were a tad more expensive than the pacers.
2. I'm not sure the aircon on 158's (which appeared to only work in winter and had only 2 emergency openers during summer) was necessarily better than pacers with windows open.
Not sure on the timings the pacers were all ordered and under construction before the sprinters. I thought the sprinters were ordered because West Midlands PTE didn’t think the pacers were good enough.
cost wise I would be interesting to know if overall they were cheaper. They have had a lot of money spent on them and still can’t match a 15x MTIN.
Settle - Carlisle was a line BR proposed to close. The pacers didn’t save it. Cleethorpes- Sheffield (Via Brigg) was still effectively closed despite the pacers. Be interesting to know what lines were rescued because of the pacer, when the closure order was issued / removed.
in Lincolnshire most of the expense in running a train service is network rail related. Spalding - Sleaford is only open for 8 hours because of the cost of opening the signal boxes. (Along with no-one can be bothered to re-write the timetable now this is resolved)
But I would love to see the economics of Middlesbrough- Whitby. I suspect the cost of maintaining the infrastructure far outweighs the cost difference between a 156 and a 142.
I take it by the very specific nature of your description that this was mooted at some stage but I'm not sure it was pacers that saved the day; correct me if I'm wrong but as I remember it, the Calder Valley Manchester Vic - Leeds services went from 1st gen DMUs to 150s (before the WYPTE 155s then 158s), 142s making it only as far as Rochdale and the Oldham loop. Not sure what was going on at the Eastern end mind.
I remember as a kid liking the 142s when they were new because they made a nice noise (like the old Leyland buses that were everywhere at the time) and they had door buttons to press, but I did miss the forward view from the 104s!
The Calder Valley wasn't in danger of being singled, and it never saw Pacers regularly.
Neither were as high as that in general running, they were more similar but 142s slightly more fuel efficient (as you might expect for something only 60% of the weight of the 150 and with more modern engine but having to be worked harder to reach 75mph).I'm sure that I read that a Pacer does around 10 MPG per carriage whereas a 150 is about 5.5 MPG.
I wonder if I'll ever see a
lovely Pacer at Liverpool Lime St
ever again?
Could someone explain what differences there are, if any, between 143s and 144s. The only one I can see is that some 144s are three carriages.
Living in the Welsh valleys, I'm way more familiar with pacers than I'd like to be. I'm always happy to see a 150 roll into my local station, but I inwardly groan every time I see a 142/143 trundling in. I don't think there's a single aspect of the pacers I prefer to the 150s. They're just so uncomfortable.
Despite that, I know for a fact that I'm going to miss them when they're gone. I grew up with them after all, they and the 150s are the only trains that come to Merthyr, so it's going to be very surreal for me when something replaces them. They do have a certain character to them, with the nickname "Nodding Donkeys".
honestly I’d say the Class 143/144 was a huge improvement over the Class 142. In any case, all the Pacer classes have more than done their time.
I’ve travelled on a lot of Pacers in South Wales and South West England and find the comfort levels similar as they use the same seats, Pacers have a worse ride quality but not so bad comparatively to be a problem IMO.
I'd certainly say they're better looking. But in every other aspect I'd say "huge improvement" is a bit of an overstatement, for me anyway. They are definitely well past their use by date though.
I'll miss the 144's. Good little trains to travel on.
Absolutely, they are much easier on the eye. I would probably say in other areas, such as performance, they are the same as 142s.I'd certainly say they're better looking. But in every other aspect I'd say "huge improvement" is a bit of an overstatement, for me anyway. They are definitely well past their use by date though.
I'll second that, 144's always seemed to survive the rigours of intensive use, even the interiors managed to stay reasonably ok. A 144 bonus was you could rest a foot or coffee on the square heating duct on the floor. The abysmal 142's were inferior in every way, with the interiors always scruffy, lots of badly patched interior wall panels and plenty of rattles. How much this was because of poor design, lack of spares or just bad cleaning and maintenance I would not feel qualified to say.
Yes, the heating duct is handy for putting things on.
The 101s and 108s were much, much better to travel on.
Not as handy as a fold down table would be. I'm curious, why weren't any pacers fitted with them? Most if not all 150s have them?
They should have done really. Although to be fair, Northerns 150's don't have them either.
As I posted in another thread, the Mat Cam 1st generation dmus (classes 101, 111 etc.) often rode almost as badly as Pacers at speeds above 40-50 mph. The 108s were much better, as were the 104s in their early years. The 110s also rode well, but I found them excessively noisy if sat in one of the power cars.In the north east we thought that the 143s were bad enough. Then they were swapped out for 142s.
The 101s and 108s were much, much better to travel on.