If pacers trains were around in 1960?

Status
Not open for further replies.

overthewater

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2012
Messages
7,386
If pacers trains were around in 1960 could that have been enough to save alot of the closed lines? Especial if there had conductors or as one picture had it driver giving out fares and changes? ( I cant find the pic )

You could have save alot of money with unfortunately the loss of many station staff but the train would still have run.

Not sure about the signal box staff.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Harbornite

Established Member
Joined
7 May 2016
Messages
3,634
If pacers trains were around in 1960 could that have been enough to save alot of the closed lines? Especial if there had conductors or as one picture had it driver giving out fares and changes? ( I cant find the pic )

You could have save alot of money with unfortunately the loss of many station staff but the train would still have run.

Not sure about the signal box staff.

Probably not, there were already railbuses in use in 1960 but they didn't prevent closures.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
12,468
Location
Another planet...
Probably not. DMUs were being introduced around then and were no more expensive to run than pacers. The pacers that were introduced widely did not have the setup of the early LEV vehicles which would allow a bus-style operation. Besides government of the time had already decided the network needed to shrink, nothing would have changed their mind at that point.
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
2,591
Location
Reading
This thread has a certain amount of relevant information:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=120961

On a point of order...! Pacers as such would not have been possible in 1960 because the theoretical studies which led to stable running of a 4-wheeled vehicle at 75mph had not been done by then. The maths behind the Pacers came out of the studies for the APT by Wickens and others at BR Research in Derby.
 

Oxfordblues

Member
Joined
22 Dec 2013
Messages
323
I have photo albums of branch line trains at stations featuring a driver, fireman, guard, signalman, booking office clerk, porter and stationmaster, all on full salaries. And about 3 passengers! ASLEF wouldn't let drivers issue tickets so the only saving provided by a nodding donkey would be the fireman.
 
Joined
6 Sep 2011
Messages
936
Location
Blackpool south Shore
Cornwall branch lines they were a load of poo. - intolerable screeching, lack of traction, they refused to change them, then BR noticed the extreme tyre wear, and track damage - Hello Sprinters!
Imo their present use is not suitable as their crash worthiness concerns on busy railways. They should be phased out over the next 10 years.
 

NoMorePacers

Established Member
Joined
18 Feb 2016
Messages
1,263
Location
Humberside
Northern will get rid of them by 2019 - they have to.
Not sure about ATW's 142s though. 143s and 144s will be heavily refurbished to make them DDA compliant.
 

Welshman

Established Member
Joined
11 Mar 2010
Messages
2,836
If pacers trains were around in 1960 could that have been enough to save alot of the closed lines?

The late 1950s-early 60's equivalent of pacers was the first-generation dmu. These were heralded as the "saviour of the branch lines" as they reduced numbers of locos and footplate /steam shed staff required.

But this economy was not sufficient in isolation - there were still fully-staffed stations, signalboxes etc. IIRC, the concept of "pay-trains" [ie. where the guard issued tickets on the train] was not introduced until the 1970s, by which time, many of the closures had already occurred.

Witness the numbers of "low density" Cravens dmus [later Cl.105], introduced on the branch-lines of Norfolk and Suffolk with the intention of keeping them open, which then found themselves unsuitably re-deployed on the GN inner and outer suburban services off Kings Cross when those branch lines still fell victim of the axe.
 
Last edited:

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
3,616
IIRC, the concept of "pay-trains" [ie. where the guard issued tickets on the train] was not introduced until the 1970s, by which time, many of the closures had already occurred.

unmanned halts had existed for years - e.g. several between Yeovil and Weymouth, but must have been a pain to work when using non-corridor stock. What in retrospect seems a mistake was in not converting more to halts - but I presume the need to carry parcels traffic prevented that.
 

30907

Established Member
Joined
30 Sep 2012
Messages
10,879
Location
Airedale
The late 1950s-early 60's equivalent of pacers was the first-generation dmu. These were heralded as the "saviour of the branch lines" as they reduced numbers of locos and footplate /steam shed staff required.

But this economy was not sufficient in isolation - there were still fully-staffed stations, signalboxes etc. IIRC, the concept of "pay-trains" [ie. where the guard issued tickets on the train] was not introduced until the 1970s, by which time, many of the closures had already occurred.

Witness the numbers of "low density" Cravens dmus [later Cl.105], introduced on the branch-lines of Norfolk and Suffolk with the intention of keeping them open, which then found themselves unsuitably re-deployed on the GN inner and outer suburban services off Kings Cross when those branch lines still fell victim of the axe.

ISTR the East Suffolk line was the first serious rationalisation, as an alternative to closure.
 

cjmillsnun

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2011
Messages
3,050
Northern will get rid of them by 2019 - they have to.
Not sure about ATW's 142s though. 143s and 144s will be heavily refurbished to make them DDA compliant.

142s will have to go before 2020. They are not PRM-TSI compliant and Angel have no intention of doing anything to them.
 
Joined
7 Feb 2008
Messages
236
DMU operation came too late for many lines. They were 75% cheaper to run than steam but as Oxfordblues says the large costs came from the staffing at stations and elsewhere. The whole railway was not modernised due to a complex set of factors around labour and politics. Steam engines were still being built until 1959 and the industry was for the most part stuck in the late 1930s. DMU operation was a start but not enough. I won't begin to mention timetabling.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
12,468
Location
Another planet...
142s will have to go before 2020. They are not PRM-TSI compliant and Angel have no intention of doing anything to them.

ATW have only 15 142s though, so with the 143s from GWR and all of Northern's 144s that represents a modest increase in capacity, especially with the 10 centre cars.
 

Western Lord

Member
Joined
17 Mar 2014
Messages
572
This thread has a certain amount of relevant information:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=120961

On a point of order...! Pacers as such would not have been possible in 1960 because the theoretical studies which led to stable running of a 4-wheeled vehicle at 75mph had not been done by then. The maths behind the Pacers came out of the studies for the APT by Wickens and others at BR Research in Derby.

However, the twenty odd BR railbuses built in the fifties were four wheelers. No need for 75mph on most branch lines.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
27,308
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
ATW have only 15 142s though, so with the 143s from GWR and all of Northern's 144s that represents a modest increase in capacity, especially with the 10 centre cars.

Have not Angel Trains said definitely that their Class 142 units will not be made subject to any further upgrading work and will all be withdrawn by their due date.

Some time ago, on a different thread, someone said that if Governmental pressure was put on Angel Trains, a change of mind would take place. I queried that at the time and since then, no such pressure has been put upon Angel Trains that has appeared in the public domain.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
28,297
Location
Yorks
In answer to the original post no.

As others had said Government had already decided to shrink the network and Beechimg had infected management ideology to the effect that route closures became the first, rather than the last resort.
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
12,468
Location
Another planet...
Have not Angel Trains said definitely that their Class 142 units will not be made subject to any further upgrading work and will all be withdrawn by their due date.

Some time ago, on a different thread, someone said that if Governmental pressure was put on Angel Trains, a change of mind would take place. I queried that at the time and since then, no such pressure has been put upon Angel Trains that has appeared in the public domain.

My point was that even if the policy of both Angel and Porterbrook comes to pass, the loss of the 142s from Wales needn't cause a shortage of units. Of course whilst the logical thing to do would be to send all surviving pacers to Cardiff, commercial considerations of both Porterbrook and Arriva, plus funding issues with the Welsh Assembly Government, could muddy the waters somewhat.
 

coppercapped

Established Member
Joined
13 Sep 2015
Messages
2,591
Location
Reading
However, the twenty odd BR railbuses built in the fifties were four wheelers. No need for 75mph on most branch lines.

Quite. But the OP wrote

If pacers trains were around in 1960...

and I was simply pointing out that Pacers weren't possible then. Other 4-wheeled vehicles certainly were possible, but they would not have been Pacers.
 

PHILIPE

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Nov 2011
Messages
12,905
Location
Caerphilly
My point was that even if the policy of both Angel and Porterbrook comes to pass, the loss of the 142s from Wales needn't cause a shortage of units. Of course whilst the logical thing to do would be to send all surviving pacers to Cardiff, commercial considerations of both Porterbrook and Arriva, plus funding issues with the Welsh Assembly Government, could muddy the waters somewhat.

What would replace them with ATW in view of the fact that we can't depend on the Electrification timescales ?.
 

2HAP

Member
Joined
12 Apr 2016
Messages
424
Location
Hadlow
IMHO, Beeching was not the only villain. The unions were as much to blame for the closure by insisting that some jobs weren't lost by preventing the modernisation of work practices etc. Something that they totally failed to achieve when lines were closed and then all the jobs went with them.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
28,297
Location
Yorks
IMHO, Beeching was not the only villain. The unions were as much to blame for the closure by insisting that some jobs weren't lost by preventing the modernisation of work practices etc. Something that they totally failed to achieve when lines were closed and then all the jobs went with them.

That's probably truer of the mid sixties than later years. Certainly by the time you get to the 1970 closures, routes such as Lowestoft - Yarmouth and Alton - Winchester were quite frugally run, with unstaffed stations and minimal signalling, yet they were still closed.
 

gimmea50anyday

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2013
Messages
3,100
Location
Back Cab
Probably more to do with the will to see more motorways built than anything else. After all, the M3 parallels most of that route as does the M40 parallel Chiltern which was under threat as recently as early NSE days.

Even then the motorways didn't get all of the build that was planned when you look at schemes such as the A50, M67, M23, M25, A1 etc. Have a gander over to the pathetic motorways website which is as fascinating as it's surprising!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top