Are pacers safe?

[cjmillsnun]

Telescoping was far more likely with screw coupled coaches.

But most coaches have had buckeye couplers for a very long time. Certainly coaches of the same era as Pacers (late Mk2s and the Mk3s) used buckeyes.

 

[WestCountry]

There have been plenty of accidents with Sprinters hitting solid objects. Two Cl150/2 vehicles were scrapped quite soon after the class was introduced due to damage sustained after striking solid objects.

That was rather my point. Sprinters have been involved in rather more collisions and other accidents than Pacers (there are more of them, after all), and none of them have been damaged to the extent that passengers' lives would have been endangered (yes, the driver was killed at St. Helens, but the damage was still mostly confined to the cab area). There've been two accidents with Pacers where that was the case, from a smaller set.

The only exact comparison of crashworthiness with a Sprinter would be the Huddersfield collision - head on, so near-identical forces on each unit - the Sprinter had some underframe equipment damaged, the 141's frame was bent and the bodyshell shoved off it and into the next coach. Only one result though.

Meeting specs =/= exactly equalling them, 15x can be (and I believe are) significantly more solid than the Pacers even if both met the standards of the time.

'Safe' is of course a slightly different question - I'd rather be in a 15x than a 14x in a serious accident, but those are so uncommon that it's probably irrelevant. Perhaps the Pacers being cheaper, and allowing more passengers to travel by rail (very safe, regardless of stock) rather than dangerous roads, are 'safer' for a given expenditure than anything else? :P

 

[Emblematic]

The simple fact is that trains have become safer as a continual process over the years. Accidents have become, thankfully, much rarer as the lessons learned have been applied. The stock itself has also improved - the 'death-trap' Mk 1 stock does not meet our modern views of what a safe carriage should be - but at the time their introduction was rightly lauded as a massive improvement over the wooden-bodied efforts of the pre-nationalisation companies. Mk 2 and Mk 3 stock each brought incremental improvements. Modern stock has to meet very stringent requirements, which become ever more stringent with time. Friction-stir welded aluminium is far stronger than previous welding methods. And so it continues.
So to the pacer. It is certainly amongst the 'least safe' stock currently operational, but the risk of suffering any adverse outcome on any railway journey is infinitesimally small. Hopefully the current rounds of electrification mean that the oldest diesel stocks will a) be reduced in number, and b) returned to the quieter branches which their designers had in mind for them. After all, you only reap the benefits of the latest safety standards if you replace stock at the end of its service life with new. That's what we are missing - Pacers (as much else) were not intended to last as long as they have.

 

[route:oxford]

Perhaps Pacers have been involved in fewer accidents - simply because the driver is driving a Pacer?

From memory, Jeremy Clarkson once pointed out that there would be far fewer accidents on the road if, instead of airbags, cars were fitted with a 12" sharp spike in the middle of the steering wheel.

 

[O L Leigh]

It was the same with MkIs. "Of course they're safe" BR chimed for years. And then Clapham Junction and Cannon Street proved that they, er, weren't, just as everybody had been telling them for years.

Pacers have the same design flaws as MkI carriages, namely bodysides that are not part of the chassis and detach when there's a crash. That designed flaw killed people at Clapham Junction and again at Cannon Street, and even then it took another ten years to finally get those death-traps off the railways.

The difference between the Mk1 and the Pacer is that the floor of the Pacer is integral with the bodyshell whereas the Mk1 floor is attached to the underframe. In the event of the body and underframe parting company the floor of the Pacer, together with the seats and all the passengers, stays together with the rest of the bodyshell. The Mk1 simply peels apart like a banana and exposes all the passengers to great peril.

But we've been through all this many many times before. Must we do this all over again...?

That was rather my point. Sprinters have been involved in rather more collisions and other accidents than Pacers (there are more of them, after all), and none of them have been damaged to the extent that passengers' lives would have been endangered (yes, the driver was killed at St. Helens, but the damage was still mostly confined to the cab area). There've been two accidents with Pacers where that was the case, from a smaller set.

Well yes. When we joke that we're sat up in the crumple zone we aren't being entirely flippant.

The only exact comparison of crashworthiness with a Sprinter would be the Huddersfield collision - head on, so near-identical forces on each unit - the Sprinter had some underframe equipment damaged, the 141's frame was bent and the bodyshell shoved off it and into the next coach. Only one result though.

Not exactly a like-for-like collision, I would argue. There is quite a large disparity in weight which would affect the amount of energy each train imparted to the other. The Sprinter would be carrying a lot more energy than the Pacer and, therefore, would inflict much more damage.

You might drive a car with a 5 star NCAP rating, but if you collide with a larger vehicle like a Transit van and your car will come off worst.

Meeting specs =/= exactly equalling them, 15x can be (and I believe are) significantly more solid than the Pacers even if both met the standards of the time.

Belief and fact are different things. You may believe that a Sprinter is stronger than a Pacer because it looks more solid, but that doesn't mean that it is. I've seen a photo taken at Cricklewood of a very badly bent Cl317 driving trailer. The vehicle was actually bent following a collision on the depot with a Cl45 which wouldn't have been at a very high speed. That doesn't strike me as very solid. Click for photo.

O L Leigh

 

[455driver]

Perhaps Pacers have been involved in fewer accidents - simply because the driver is driving a Pacer?

From memory, Jeremy Clarkson once pointed out that there would be far fewer accidents on the road if, instead of airbags, cars were fitted with a 12" sharp spike in the middle of the steering wheel.

Ah so you are saying that the Pacer drivers take more care 'because they are driving a Pacer' than they do when driving any other stock, yes?

You really are a m+++n arent you! :roll:

 

[fowler9]

All the info has been fascinating. I still know which train in regular use in the UK I would least like to be in a crash in, hell, I hate being on Pacers anyway.

 

[Emblematic]

Not exactly a like-for-like collision, I would argue. There is quite a large disparity in weight which would affect the amount of energy each train imparted to the other.

...

I've seen a photo taken at Cricklewood of a very badly bent Cl317 driving trailer. The vehicle was actually bent following a collision on the depot with a Cl45 which wouldn't have been at a very high speed. That doesn't strike me as very solid. Click for photo.
O L Leigh

Talk about disparity in weight though - could they have found anything heaver than a Peak to hit it with!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
From the look of it the loco's buffers have struck the bodywork before the couplings or gangway had a chance to get involved. Would probably have made a mess of the most modern stock in similar circumstances.

 

[Domh245]

Perhaps not relevant, but the largs rail crash did a lot of damage to its 318, it certainly seems just as bad as the lime street pacer incident, but I'm not sure about some of the factors involved (namely speed), but if they were similar speeds, the pacer looked just as bad as the mk3 derived MU

 

[fowler9]

I have heard much talk about Mk3 related units but I'm sure someone with more knowledge than me said the "MK3" units have nothing in common with the coaches other than a ribbed roof.

 

[muddythefish]

Are Pacers safe? No they are not, because the next time I am forced to travel on one I will let down the tyres and cut the brake pipes.

 

[fowler9]

Are Pacers safe? No they are not, because the next time I am forced to travel on one I will let down the tyres and cut the brake pipes.

Mad isn't it. You want to go on a bus with a body shell of that age you have to go to a heritage group running day. Or I can just get the train to work!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Perhaps not relevant, but the Largs rail crash did a lot of damage to its 318, it certainly seems just as bad as the Lime Street Pacer incident, but I'm not sure about some of the factors involved (namely speed), but if they were similar speeds, the Pacer looked just as bad as the mk3 derived MU

I think, when drawing a comparison to the incident at Largs, that you remember that not only did the Class 318 plough through the buffers, but on carrying on, demolished two buildings, before finally coming to a halt on the car park at the front of the railway station.

 

[O L Leigh]

I have heard much talk about Mk3 related units but I'm sure someone with more knowledge than me said the "MK3" units have nothing in common with the coaches other than a ribbed roof.

They were constructed in the same jigs and have a certain number of shared features, but apart from that there isn't much in common. There are a number of weaknesses due to the openings for the doors.

Two Cl455 vehicles were modified as trials for plug doors prior to the introduction of Networkers. When the trials were concluded the plans were to revert them back to their original configuration, but it was discovered that the structure of the vehicles had been severely weakened. One vehicle required strengthening to preserve the structure's integrity but the other one was so badly compromised that it had to be scrapped and replaced with a Cl210 vehicle. It really doesn't speak much for the strength and solidity of the design.

O L Leigh

 

[Emblematic]

I think, when drawing a comparison to the incident at Largs, that you remember that not only did the Class 318 plough through the buffers, but on carrying on, demolished two buildings, before finally coming to a halt on the car park at the front of the railway station.

And was repaired afterwards and is currently in service. The station, however, was a write-off. Link

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

And was repaired afterwards and is currently in service. The station, however, was a write-off. Link

The reason that my wife and I remember the incident at Largs is that we had made a visit by rail to the town the previous week to the incident, then on to Great Cumbrae Island on the ferry.

 

[notadriver]

All passenger rail transport in the UK is far safer than road transport. Injuries are far more common on buses and coaches due to hard braking etc

 

[Beveridges]

142's are causing a lot of back injuries with drivers. Poor seats and poor ride quality being mainly to blame.

 

[Emyr]

All passenger rail transport in the UK is far safer than road transport. Injuries are far more common on buses and coaches due to hard braking etc

Or rather due to drivers not adapting their behaviour to surface condition and visibility, driving too closely, and misconstruing haste as speed.

The severity of a road incident caused by mechanical failure or even individual driver mishap would be far lower if the other "stakeholder vehicles" were driven appropriately. Whilst car safety has improved, traffic density and driver complacency have probably more than compensated for that safety.

With the kinetic weight of rail vehicles being greater by an order of magnitude, the limited braking potential of metal wheels on metal rails and the need to decelerate connected units in a manner which does not induce avoidable detailing of trailing units, rail systems have long had a greater focus on prevention.

Whilst the Pacer is relatively safe in a well-run rail system, I would not support operating Leyland National buses on any inherently challenging or heavily loaded road routes.

 

[Gareth]

Are there any Leyland National buses still going? I can't say I've seen one for at least 15 years. Pacers give me a weird nostalgic feeling for that very reason.

 

[starrymarkb]

The railway will insist that these trains are safe right up until we have another Winsford, except this time on a crush loaded commuter train. Then they might decide they're not safe. To do anything before then costs £££, and this Government would rather spend their dough on their pointless destruction of the Chilterns.

It was the same with MkIs. "Of course they're safe" BR chimed for years. And then Clapham Junction and Cannon Street proved that they, er, weren't, just as everybody had been telling them for years.

Pacers have the same design flaws as MkI carriages, namely bodysides that are not part of the chassis and detach when there's a crash. That designed flaw killed people at Clapham Junction and again at Cannon Street, and even then it took another ten years to finally get those death-traps off the railways.

Compare the crashes at Lime Street and Winsford with the crash at Watford in 1996 involving a 321 (the same bodyshell as a 150). The Watford crash was bigger than both, yet the bodyshells survived and only one person died.

I am happy to travel on Pacers because I trust the other technology on the railways enough to believe they won't crash. But if one ever does crash in public service, it will kill a lot of people on board, and will be an entirely preventable disaster.

A pacer is actually a Monocoque bodyshell mounted on an underframe, a similar bodyshell is used in 153s without the underframe

Something I should point out is that in the Winsford crash the passenger saloon was not compromised, The Cab and Door area was severely damaged the but the shell held up fairly well against a very large impact.

How much was left of the 165 that hit the HST at Ladbroke Grove? Just the rear of 3 vehicles IIRC!