Am I the only passenger who prefers / preferred Pacers to Sprinters ?

[Justin Smith]

I took a trip to Cleethorpes today with my lad. Out bound via the Northern Rail Gainsborough route and return via the usual TPE Doncaster one.
I was quite looking forward to travelling via Gainsborough as it is not a route I have done too often, but in the event it was a bit of a let down.
Why ?
Well we were in a C150 Sprinter.....
If any rolling stock has a more restricted view out I'd like to know what it is.
The window pillars are very wide, the (solid) sliding door recesses very large, the partitions very "solid" etc etc.
All in all rather claustrophobic and difficult to see out of, especially as my 10 year old wanted the seat by the window !
TBH, I would have much preferred a Pacer.....

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, I preferred a 14x to a 150 in either as-built layout. The person who designed a unit (see also the PEPs) where not one seat has a decent window view, or in the case of the /2s where the legroom is so poor that it's barely suitable for children, had an utter contempt for the passenger.

On the other hand, the TfW and GWR 150s have a nice low-density layout with a good window view, so I'd take one of those over a Pacer. It's a shame the Marston Vale is getting 3+2 seated units, though at least they're /1s with the facing layout, which as it's a quiet line means we can enjoy a bit of legroom even if the view is bad.

 

[Justin Smith]

Yes, I preferred a 14x to a 150 in either as-built layout. The person who designed a unit (see also the PEPs) where not one seat has a decent window view, or in the case of the /2s where the legroom is so poor that it's barely suitable for children, had an utter contempt for the passenger.

On the other hand, the TfW and GWR 150s have a nice low-density layout with a good window view, so I'd take one of those over a Pacer. It's a shame the Marston Vale is getting 3+2 seated units, though at least they're /1s with the facing layout, which as it's a quiet line means we can enjoy a bit of legroom even if the view is bad.

I agree with much of what you say, but am slightly sceptical about this :

TfW and GWR 150s have a nice low-density layout with a good window view

There is only so much they can do to improve the window view out of the Class 150s because of the width of the window pillars and the huge expanse of windowless bodywork (where the sliding door recesses). Even worse, for visibility out, those door recesses are at 1/3 and 2/3 along the coach.
It would be relatively easier to make the coach partitions (by the doors) rather less "solid" but would they bother ? Particularly as glass is inherently weaker ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is only so much they can do to improve the window view out of the Class 150s because of the width of the window pillars and the huge expanse of windowless bodywork (where the sliding door recesses). Even worse, for visibility out, those door recesses are at 1/3 and 2/3 along the coach.
It would be relatively easier to make the coach partitions (by the doors) rather less "solid" but would they bother ? Particularly as glass is inherently weaker ?

You can't give every seat a view, but you can adjust the layout so more seats have a view, compared to the /1 (all facing) layout where no seat really does. The TfW/GWR layout seems to be the best of the options for this.

 

[DarloRich]

I agree with much of what you say, but am slightly sceptical about this :

TfW and GWR 150s have a nice low-density layout with a good window view

Have you travelled on one of the TfW or GWR ones? They are much nicer than the northern ones. They have tables! The window line up is better but the interior is less commuterland than the Northern ones. Horses for courses I guess.

TBH, I would have much preferred a Pacer.....

On a short journey ( say 30/40 minutes) a Pacer is fine. Longer times or rush hours and they were not nice!

BTW - I always said we should have taken pacers for the Marston vale line! EXACTLY what they were designed for.

 

[Topological]

As someone who uses TfW's 150s too often, the layout is not bad.

I understand the point about the door recess and there is a table in the carriage which has limited width on the seats on one side because of the door. That is a cosy seat when the train gets full.

Certainly the Northern variants are worse, but apparently it is beyond the wit of man to design allocation systems that prevent those being allocated on longer distance routes.

I do have a soft spot for the pacers, but life moves on and ultimately the stock provided needs to be suitable for all users. The 150s will soon join pacers as the preserve of the past. It would be interesting to see if any preservation groups take up the 150s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On a short journey ( say 30/40 minutes) a Pacer is fine. Longer times or rush hours and they were not nice!

The advantage of the original ones was that with the bench seats they offered very comfortable 2+1 off peak.

I once did all the way round the Cumbrian Coast on one, that was a bit long!

 

[DarloRich]

I once did all the way round the Cumbrian Coast on one, that was a bit long!

I would have taken the prison sentance tbh.

The advantage of the original ones was that with the bench seats they offered very comfortable 2+1 off peak.

Yes - the bench seats were great!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Certainly the Northern variants are worse, but apparently it is beyond the wit of man to design allocation systems that prevent those being allocated on longer distance routes.

With the TfW long distance routes it's a tradeoff. The layout on the Northern units isn't nice, but they do have considerably more seats. When you're dropping one in instead of a 4-car Mk4 set, the number of seats becomes more important.

I do have a soft spot for the pacers, but life moves on and ultimately the stock provided needs to be suitable for all users. The 150s will soon join pacers as the preserve of the past. It would be interesting to see if any preservation groups take up the 150s.

I'd be amazed if they didn't. I did doubt that people would pay inflated heritage prices for a ride on a 1980s DMU, but the 1980s were a long time ago and plenty of people were doing on the Wensleydale the other week, even on the Friday. It did have a lovely feel of branch lines of my childhood.

 

[jamiearmley]

I'm easy either way on a pacer versus sprinter. The Pacers were quieter in the saloon than the 150 / 155, and the 144 equally as comfortable after the new seats seats were fitted, regardless of the wagon chassis.158, 156, however, beat a pacer hands down.

The Pacer remains a far smoother ride, however, than the 195 which has replaced it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect it's 158s that will be least attractive to preservation of the Sprinter classes, as they still look pretty modern. Wouldn't surprise me to see all of them scrapped.

150s and 156s are distinctly different from modern kit.

 

[GWVillager]

I took a trip to Cleethorpes today with my lad. Out bound via the Northern Rail Gainsborough route and return via the usual TPE Doncaster one.
I was quite looking forward to travelling via Gainsborough as it is not a route I have done too often, but in the event it was a bit of a let down.
Why ?
Well we were in a C150 Sprinter.....
If any rolling stock has a more restricted view out I'd like to know what it is.
The window pillars are very wide, the (solid) sliding door recesses very large, the partitions very "solid" etc etc.
All in all rather claustrophobic and difficult to see out of, especially as my 10 year old wanted the seat by the window !
TBH, I would have much preferred a Pacer.....

I vehemently disliked Pacers, but yes I also preferred them to 150s. I do think the 150s have to go down in history as some of the worst units ever constructed, they do absolutely nothing right that other 15Xs can’t do better.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I vehemently disliked Pacers, but yes I also preferred them to 150s. I do think the 150s have to go down in history as some of the worst units ever constructed, they do absolutely nothing right that other 15Xs can’t do better.

I can see that preserved lines might find 156s more attractive, you could rejig the seat layout to almost* all facing aligned to the windows which would be ideal.

* There's some underseat equipment that may be hard to relocate.

 

[Whistler40145]

The ride quality on a Pacer could be politely described as rough and uncomfortable, 150s are a little better, but I'd prefer a 156 any day

 

[bramling]

I took a trip to Cleethorpes today with my lad. Out bound via the Northern Rail Gainsborough route and return via the usual TPE Doncaster one.
I was quite looking forward to travelling via Gainsborough as it is not a route I have done too often, but in the event it was a bit of a let down.
Why ?
Well we were in a C150 Sprinter.....
If any rolling stock has a more restricted view out I'd like to know what it is.
The window pillars are very wide, the (solid) sliding door recesses very large, the partitions very "solid" etc etc.
All in all rather claustrophobic and difficult to see out of, especially as my 10 year old wanted the seat by the window !
TBH, I would have much preferred a Pacer.....

I’ve always said the same, especially in relation to the 3+2 airline-seated 150s. I’d prefer an original-condition Pacer any time.

*However* there’s nothing wrong IMO with the 150s which have the facing layout (mainly Northern’s ex NWT 150/1s), and the reconfigured interiors by GWR and TFW are pretty decent, the only slight snag is that the seat capacity is low.

Nothing wrong with the venerable old class 156. But I’d probably take a Pacer over a 153.

 

[Bletchleyite]

*However* there’s nothing wrong IMO with the 150s which have the facing layout

There's something fairly significant wrong with them - not one single seat has an acceptable window view, as the alignment is basically 180 degrees off.

 

[bramling]

There's something fairly significant wrong with them - not one single seat has an acceptable window view, as the alignment is basically 180 degrees off.

I wouldn’t go quite that far, the seats in the centre of each section are okay. I know it isn’t perfect, but I find it okay. My view is probably biased having grown up with 317s with the same layout so I see it as normal.

I guess it’s a bit poor that the 95 stock I’m writing this from has a better seat/window alignment though!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wouldn’t go quite that far, the seats in the centre of each section are okay. I know it isn’t perfect, but I find it okay. My view is probably biased having grown up with 317s with the same layout so I see it as normal.

I guess it’s a bit poor that the 95 stock I’m writing this from has a better seat/window alignment though!

PEPs are worse as the layout is the same but the windows narrower!

The 150/2 really was a stupid piece of design. In order to squeeze just the 4 side facing seats in each coach, they made the legroom unacceptably poor. If they hadn't, and had just done one bay then 4 rows of airline seats in each full 2-window section, they'd have been fine.

 

[billio]

I agree that a good feature of Pacers was the visibility, particularly if the seat backs are low. This is why, in my opinion, they are useful stock for heritage railways, allowing passengers to have a good view out of the windows.

 

[Rail Quest]

I very much dislike the pacers and 150/153/155/156s personally. Maybe I prefer the sprinters slightly but its like comparing falling into a puddle of mud head first vs feet first...

At least I find pacers ironically fun to ride on cos of how bouncy they are, don't think Id hold that for the non air-con sprinters.

If we're counting 158/159s, I prefer these by a mile over all the others

 

[hacman]

The Pacers always felt much more light and airy with their layout, especially compared to the likes of class 150 and 156 units, but this benefit was usually of little importance once the train actually started moving at which point their inferiority became rapidly apparent.

 

[bramling]

PEPs are worse as the layout is the same but the windows narrower!

The 150/2 really was a stupid piece of design. In order to squeeze just the 4 side facing seats in each coach, they made the legroom unacceptably poor. If they hadn't, and had just done one bay then 4 rows of airline seats in each full 2-window section, they'd have been fine.

That’s the sprinter fleet all over, they really packed as much as possible into 2-car trains. Pretty much all the fleet are the same. I guess it was that or no train at all.

In those days the priority was seating as many people as usual, which doesn’t seem to be so much of a concern nowadays.

 

[trebor79]

Pacers also much quieter to travel in that a 150, 153, 155 or 156. Some of them are horrendously noisy.

 

[hacman]

Pacers also much quieter to travel in that a 150, 153, 155 or 156. Some of them are horrendously noisy.

Until you go around a corner!

 

[XC victim]

Ever since they were first introduced I have always had a profound dislike for the class 150. Everything about it was and still is terrible.

when introduced the pacers were really not much better (apart form the Class 141, I liked those). But the refurbishments to the class 144 made them quite a pleasant train to travel on, obviously the class 142 was still terrible at the end of their life, especially those that still had the bus seats.

I have always found the classes 153, 155, 156 and 158 to be very decent trains though the 153 & 155’s are definitely showing their age now.

 

[Justin Smith]

I’ve always said the same, especially in relation to the 3+2 airline-seated 150s. I’d prefer an original-condition Pacer any time.

*However* there’s nothing wrong IMO with the 150s which have the facing layout (mainly Northern’s ex NWT 150/1s), and the reconfigured interiors by GWR and TFW are pretty decent, the only slight snag is that the seat capacity is low.

Nothing wrong with the venerable old class 156. But I’d probably take a Pacer over a 153.

The view out of a C156 is much better than out of a C150. The biggest issue with the C156 is the lack of leg room....

The Pacers always felt much more light and airy with their layout, especially compared to the likes of class 150 and 156 units, but this benefit was usually of little importance once the train actually started moving at which point their inferiority became rapidly apparent.

I agree with you about the Pacers light and airy feel. Personally that's more important to me than an inconsistent ride quality.

I can see that preserved lines might find 156s more attractive, you could rejig the seat layout to almost* all facing aligned to the windows which would be ideal.

* There's some underseat equipment that may be hard to relocate.

I agree with this big time. I have long legs and will never sit at any seat with those under seat boxes even if it's he best seat (view wise) on the train, there's effectively no leg room, awful.

 

[Welly]

BTW - I always said we should have taken pacers for the Marston vale line! EXACTLY what they were designed for.

I think Pacers were not put on the Marston Vale line due to being too close to London! Likewise the Aylesbury - Princes Riseborough shuttle - last line to use the 121/122 Bubble Cars.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think Pacers were not put on the Marston Vale line due to being too close to London! Likewise the Aylesbury - Princes Riseborough shuttle - last line to use the 121/122 Bubble Cars.

The key reason Pacers weren't used was that none are PRM-TSI compliant except that single 144 conversion (now scrapped). Converting them would cost a fortune. They're not cleared for the line either, but that's not insurmountable unless there's stuff they'd hit.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I think Pacers were not put on the Marston Vale line due to being too close to London! Likewise the Aylesbury - Princes Riseborough shuttle - last line to use the 121/122 Bubble Cars.

Supposedly there was a proposal in the 1990s for 141s (which had recently been made redundant by the Airedale & Wharfedale electrification) on the Gospel Oak to Barking line.

 

[E27007]

Ever since they were first introduced I have always had a profound dislike for the class 150. Everything about it was and still is terrible.

when introduced the pacers were really not much better (apart form the Class 141, I liked those). But the refurbishments to the class 144 made them quite a pleasant train to travel on, obviously the class 142 was still terrible at the end of their life, especially those that still had the bus seats.

I have always found the classes 153, 155, 156 and 158 to be very decent trains though the 153 & 155’s are definitely showing their age now.

They were all built to match a budget, a budget issued from "up above" to replace first-generation dmus, the budget did not facilitate a 1 : 1 replacement of old for new.
As for the Pacers, they acquired a fan club of bashers as their time drew near, sadly interrupted by the lock down conditions of Covid. I miss their exciting zig-zag motion as they sped along, and their reliability, the second life is with the heritage railways who will celebrate the low running costs of their free-gift Pacers.