Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Traction & Rolling Stock' started by IamTrainsYT, 17 Jan 2020.
Loved driving them.
A very responsive machine that would immediately do what you wanted.
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.
Some European countries still have older railbuses than Pacers. In fact some of the Czech republic Class 810s have been rebodied and reclassified Class 814s.
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.
I'm sure that I read that a Pacer does around 10 MPG per carriage whereas a 150 is about 5.5 MPG.
They did sound good with SCG gearboxes.
A better solution to Pacers and 150s (if BR had the money at the time), would have been a large production run of the Metro Cammell Class 151 adapted to use BREL bogies. http://www.traintesting.com/Class151.htm
Correct. The biggest risk to the Calder Valley was the tunnel fire (1985?) and obviously the line was reinstated and with double track.
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).
They got rid of the Pacers, and now also the 156's, on the CLC. Now all we have are god awful 150's on the stopping services.
I suppose a slight improvement is the introduction of the 195's on the Man Airport services, but not when they use the not fit for purpose 2 carriage 195/0's !!!
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".
Oh, and I have been on 144s a handful of times. My first ride on one was between Sheffield and Lincoln, and it was pretty miserable. 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.
No difference, only the manufacturers of the coach body are different between the two.
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. A lot of Pacer services ran/run doubled up in the SW/Wales, offering better capacity than a single 150.
For a time, you could even catch a 6 carriage Pacer running between Exeter and Paignton for the school train. 6 car Pacer services in passenger must’ve been fairly rare elsewhere.
Northern’s 142s are another kettle of fish, the ex-Merseytravel Pacers are actually awful with that seating. Who needs kneecaps anyway?
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.
In terms of the seats they are about the same, but on 150s I have a decent amount of legroom if I'm sat on a table seat, pacers only have one of those layouts in each carriage (minus the table, yet another reason why I prefer the 150s), so more often than not I feel like I have to saw my legs off.
On a somewhat related note, I used to hate pacers even more as a child than I do now, because when I was a small kid I was too short to see out the window when sitting down, which is a problem I don't recall having on any other kind of train.
As a Londoner, I've only experienced Pacers on a handful of occasions, the last time was couple of years ago travelling between Darlington and Middlesbrough on a cramped bus seated 142. I have to say that the experience wasn't brilliant (and I'm being charitable here) but I will admit that they do have a unique character. Uniquely awful? Possibly
Also, it wasn't their fault that Northern etc seemed to put them on inappropriately long services.
I certainly think they deserve their place in history for helping to keep lines open and I'm glad that a few are getting preserved.
I'll miss the 144's. Good little trains to travel on.
See Rob’s post above
As always though, it’s subjective!
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.
I'm surprised at the fondness 144s are getting. From my admittedly limited experience of them, they're not much different from 143s.
Absolutely, they are much easier on the eye. I would probably say in other areas, such as performance, they are the same as 142s.
Yes, the heating duct is handy for putting things on.
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.
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?
I don't doubt that, and I've never actually been on a first generation DMU.
They should have done really. Although to be fair, Northerns 150's don't have them either.
They move as many people from A-B in the most dense configuration possible. Fine for journeys up to 45 minutes or an hour at a stretch but no longer.
The most common complaint about them is their ride quality. From my experience however they aren't too bad. They "bounce" slightly more than other trains but it's not an issue most of the time. If you get a particularly bad section of track the bounce becomes very apparent though as you watch the rear carriage launch what looks like a few feet into the air.
My biggest complaint about Pacers is the type amd density of the seating. It's not pleasant to sit in one for more than around 45 minutes. Knees constantly pressing against the seat infront of you and no arm rests to stop you sliding around from any lateral movement.
If they had actual seats with acceptable leg room i wouldn't have much of an issue with them. That would of course decrease much needed capacity however. What the Pacers lose in comfort they gain in capacity.
I've heard that Northern's 150s aren't as good as their GWR and TfW counterparts. I can't really say for myself as I have limited experience with Northern's 150s, I somehow keep avoiding them when I'm in the area.
Would you say that Northern's pacers are better or worse than the TfW and GWR ones? Or is the difference negligible?
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.