Class 141s - Why Such A Premature Ejection From Service?

[NoOnesFool]

The Class 141s were removed from service in 1996/7 after less than 15 years. It has made me wonder, was there an isolated 141 problem that the 141s suffered that other pacers didn't? Obviously these units weren't subject to the engine/door modifications in the mid 90s that the rest of the pacers were, so could it have been known then that they had no future on UK rail? Was a lucritive bid from Iran already looming?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Class 141s were removed from service in 1996/7 after less than 15 years. It has made me wonder, was there an isolated 141 problem that the 141s suffered that other pacers didn't? Obviously these units weren't subject to the engine/door modifications in the mid 90s that the rest of the pacers were, so could it have been known then that they had no future on UK rail? Was a lucritive bid from Iran already looming?

One difference from other Pacers is that they were narrow and so had much lower capacity?

 

[Monty]

Well the pacers were never meant to last all that long, so it could be a case that the 141 were withdrawn at the right time opposed to the rest of the pacer family.

 

[AM9]

One difference from other Pacers is that they were narrow and so had much lower capacity?

Didn't the extra large gap between the steps on the narrower body and the platform edge represent a safety issue, even in the '90s?

 

[Highlandspring]

I had to reread the title of this thread about four times before I understood what it was actually about.

 

[NoMorePacers]

Well if you count the Iranian ones they lasted to about 2005 so they’ve lived a reasonably long life.

 

[Rikki Lamb]

They were non standard in the grand scheme and narrow with a limited capacity. I suspect their mechanical played a part in their demise.

They were great little things to me as a young enthusiast and I must be one of the few people who miss them

 

[Welly]

They were laughing stock rather than rolling stock!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

They were non standard in the grand scheme and narrow with a limited capacity. I suspect their mechanical played a part in their demise.

They were great little things to me as a young enthusiast and I must be one of the few people who miss them

Nope, I remember them fondly too... they were a big part of my childhood. Many a trip out involved a 141, and the bounces and wobbles were quite entertaining. They also screeched far less than the later Pacers around the curve at Wakefield due to having a shorter wheelbase.

Though they weren't great in reality. The noise as the puny engines struggled through Morley tunnel was quite something... and the doors rattling so much when another train passed that you would fear they'd burst open!

 

[Moodster020]

Certainly was a 'rolling' stock. I have vivid recollections of one in 1993 on the aire valley line at 70mph as a stood up vestibule passenger!

 

[Rikki Lamb]

Nope, I remember them fondly too... they were a big part of my childhood. Many a trip out involved a 141, and the bounces and wobbles were quite entertaining. They also screeched far less than the later Pacers around the curve at Wakefield due to having a shorter wheelbase.

Though they weren't great in reality. The noise as the puny engines struggled through Morley tunnel was quite something... and the doors rattling so much when another train passed that you would fear they'd burst open!

We always used to get them from huddersfield to Leeds and the doors actually did blow open on Morley tunnel on a couple of occasions when an express flew past!

One broke down outside Leeds station too once when we on it and it was hauled back into the station by a class 08...pretty exciting to a 9 year old.

Full of character though even if they were not great in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Ianigsy]

By the end of the 1990s I think they'd done their job in terms of increasing ridership in West Yorkshire, and there were a limited number of routes where they were suitable due to their small capacity and longitudinal seating- you certainly wouldn't get away today with running a single unit on the Harrogate line in the evening peak, which was my last run with one of them.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

By the end of the 1990s I think they'd done their job in terms of increasing ridership in West Yorkshire, and there were a limited number of routes where they were suitable due to their small capacity and longitudinal seating- you certainly wouldn't get away today with running a single unit on the Harrogate line in the evening peak, which was my last run with one of them.

Agreed. Their capacity was similar to a 153 or to 144012, and there aren't many services round West Yorkshire where that's adequate on it's own. Once the Airedale and Wharfedale lines got their 308s, the later Pacers cascaded down and the 141s dropped off the end.

One thing in their favour compared to later Pacers was the longitudinal seating area behind each cab, far better for standing than squeezing between the 3+2 bus benches on the 142s and 144s!

 

[tbtc]

Interesting question - there were almost as many 141s as there were 143/144s, so I'm not sure that the "non-standard" situation was the whole reason for scrapping - BR did like ordering tiny non-standard fleets of awkward trains (a tradition that FirstGroup deserve "credit" for maintaining )

Maybe the scrapping was more to do with removing the class in a hurry before Privatisation (and, if BR had continued then the 141s would have operated into the 21st century)?

Although, as ever, the "truth" with BR is always muddy - they had plenty of money to do some things but scrimped and save with other things!

By the end of the 1990s I think they'd done their job in terms of increasing ridership in West Yorkshire, and there were a limited number of routes where they were suitable due to their small capacity and longitudinal seating- you certainly wouldn't get away today with running a single unit on the Harrogate line in the evening peak, which was my last run with one of them.

There are certainly not suited to most services today, even at 1997 passenger volumes, but there are a number of routes in 2019 where a single 153 copes (not in West Yorkshire, other than maybe Huddersfield - Wakefield, every other diesel services runs into Leeds nowadays, but we have had single 153s in Sheffield - routes like Doncaster- Scunthorpe or the Barton branch can cope with a single coach unit).

So, in a way, with 2020 hindsight regarding the increasing passenger numbers, it's a shame that thirty five 155s were chopped into single coach units (153s) only five years before the 141s were scrapped - I could make an argument that we should have kept the 141s in service and therefore "saved" more 155s to remain as two coach units?

 

[ajrm]

The 141s were very unreliable from the outset, and they suffered from being based on the standard Leyland National bodyshell which was much narrower than a regular DMU. This meant 2+2 seating and a large gap between the train and the platform. (The 142s were built using a wider version of the bodyshell.) They retained the original Leyland/ SCG driveline which was not up to intensive railway use, and although they all went through Hunslet Barclay for reliability mods in the late 1980s (when they were reclassified and repainted into WYPTE red and cream) I suspect by that stage they were seen as beyond redemption and withdrawn at the earliest opportunity.

 

[rich-leeds]

They were non-standard in body and layout as others have said, but also mechanically non-standard to the rest of the pacer fleet. Classes 142/3/4 were all fitted with standard new transmission and Cummins engines in the early 90s, but the 141s kept the original unreliable Leyland set up (except 141113, which did get the new set up, and is one of only two still active in UK preservation).

They made it into the privatised railway, and were transferred to a Rosco (can't recall which), but as 61653 said they fell out of the bottom of the cascade in a static initial RRNE franchise, and at a time when any concept of coherent rolling stock plans didn't register.

 

[rich-leeds]

Looks like we basically just said the same thing at the same time!

 

[NoOnesFool]

Those reasons make sense. I hadn't realised they were displaced by the Airdale electrification. Come to think of it now, the narrow bodies must have caused some real issues on more curved platforms, such as Meadowhall's platforms 3 and 4.

 

[Bayum]

It's a shame. I loved the shape of the front of these.

 

[Helvellyn]

As ajrm and rich-leeds said it was the fact that apart from 141113 the fleet retained their original engines and mechanical gearboxes that did for them. If they had been upgraded mechanically they might have been suitable for an internal transfer within RRNE to Heaton to replace the 153s and allow those to either go off lease or be used to strengthen 156 operated services.

 

[randyrippley]

I read somewhere years ago a comment that the replacement Voith hydraulic gearboxes couldn't be made to physically fit, so they were stuck with the substandard SCG mechanical ones

 

[MatthewRead]

I read somewhere years ago a comment that the replacement Voith hydraulic gearboxes couldn't be made to physically fit, so they were stuck with the substandard SCG mechanical ones

How come may I ask?

 

[Journeyman]

I've often wondered whether the Class 141s were a significant contributory factor to anti-Western sentiment in Iran!

In all seriousness, the main factor, I think, was the very cramped interior. I'm sure the ride was even worse than the 142s as well, although I only got to ride on them once or twice before they were withdrawn.

 

[randyrippley]

How come may I ask?

As best I can remember, there simply wasn't room to fit it.
But it was a long time ago

 

[DPWH]

I had to reread the title of this thread about four times before I understood what it was actually about.

You need to look up "premature ejection" in Urban Dictionary.

 

[EvanDMU]

As best I can remember, there simply wasn't room to fit it.
But it was a long time ago

Totally wrong - 141113 was (and is) fitted with Voith transmission on both cars as well as Cummins engines. The frames (chassis) is more or less identical to the later 142s so there was no physical reason why the 141s could not have been upgraded. They were disposed of at a very low time in railway history when demand was thought to be declining, and I have been told by a couple of ex-senior railway managers that if they had hung on a little while longer they would have been rebuilt and work found for them (the Cardiff shuttle being one duty that would have been suitable).

 

[alexl92]

Unit 141108 at th Colne Valley railway is up for sale and apparently has a defective gearbox which I thought I’d heard couldn’t be repaired.

Would a lack of spares have contributed to withdrawal too?

 

[randyrippley]

It looks like SCG was spun out of Leyland in 1993, but the business may not have been trading by then. Last financials were filed 2002 and the company later dissolved. Unless someone else purchased the engineering rights, spares may well be a problem

 

[GusB]

It looks like SCG was spun out of Leyland in 1993, but the business may not have been trading by then. Last financials were filed 2002 and the company later dissolved. Unless someone else purchased the engineering rights, spares may well be a problem

I don't have the source to hand, but I recall reading that SCG was acquired by Cummins.

 

[ajrm]

I don't have the source to hand, but I recall reading that SCG was acquired by Cummins.

That would make sense as Leyland was winding down its engine production during the 1980s and going into a joint venture with Cummins (when the Cummins B series was launched in the UK Leyland rebadged it as the Leyland 300 Series for a short while). Leyland buses had moved completely to Voith or ZF gearboxes by the late 1980s and I'm not sure what other business SCG had by then: probably not much.