"Railway lines saved from closure by the use of Pacers."...Another urban myth?.

[Xenophon PCDGS]

This comment is still often quoted in postings and for the edification of our younger members, can we have some postings that give examples of certain lines upon which this may well have occurred and of the type of replacement services by light rail, buses or coach.

I am aware that the Tyne and Wear Metro and the Manchester Metrolink system takeover of certain of the former heavy-rail lines in their respective areas.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't think it's as simple as just saying that the Pacers in themselves saved individual lines from closure. Certainly, being cheapish to build and presumably run, they may have contributed to lower costs (I'm speaking primarily about the pre-access charge/leasing cost regime as I think the threat of closure had largely receded by this stage).

Certainly some regional lines were able to carry on (along with other reduced costs through track rationalisation and de-staffing etc), but then again, the various other at risk lines which were deemed unsuitable for pacers at times (Cornwall, Marshlink, Whitby etc) seem to have survived as well using other rolling stock.

Perhaps they just helped the Regional Railway to look a little more solvent which in turn led to fewer closures !

 

[Carlisle]

I certainly think significant saving were made on BR in the 1980s/90s by replacing locomotive hauled services on many routes with various DMUs including Pacers but not exclusively because of them

 

[Groningen]

The Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations require that all public passenger trains must be accessible to disabled people by 2020. No Pacers currently meet this requirement and will therefore need to be withdrawn by that date unless they receive an extensive refurbishment. According to Wiki then trains will run (replacing the Pacer), that do not have because the line electrified.

Let me guess; maximum speed is 60 miles/100 kilometers?

 

[northwichcat]

According to Wiki then trains will run (replacing the Pacer), that do not have because the line electrified.

?

Let me guess; maximum speed is 60 miles/100 kilometers?

Pacers run on a variety of routes in the North, South West and South Wales. Some routes are longer and get higher loadings than ones LM use 3 car 172s on but get doubled up Pacers, others are short shuttle services which low loadings. I think what will replace Pacers is a combination of the following:
* Cascaded Sprinters
* Cascaded Turbostars
* New build
* Cascaded EMUs (on lines being electrified)
* Possibly D-Trains as a short term solution for Valley Lines.

D-Trains could also possibly replace single 153s on lines where a single 153 is no longer big enough but not high enough to justify being strengthened over other lines.

 

[coppercapped]

This comment is still often quoted in postings and for the edification of our younger members, can we have some postings that give examples of certain lines upon which this may well have occurred and of the type of replacement services by light rail, buses or coach.

I am aware that the Tyne and Wear Metro and the Manchester Metrolink system takeover of certain of the former heavy-rail lines in their respective areas.

If people have been making this comment, then they are very badly informed.

By the early 70s railway closures had come to a practical stop. The prototype LEV (Leyland Experimental Vehicle) - the precursor to the Pacer fleet - first ran in 1978. The first production batch, the 141s, were built in 1984, more than a decade after the great wave of closures had finished.

Pacers were intended for use on the remaining lightly trafficked routes. They played no part whatsoever in saving any lines from closure.

 

[jimm]

If people have been making this comment, then they are very badly informed.

By the early 70s railway closures had come to a practical stop. The prototype LEV (Leyland Experimental Vehicle) - the precursor to the Pacer fleet - first ran in 1978. The first production batch, the 141s, were built in 1984, more than a decade after the great wave of closures had finished.

Pacers were intended for use on the remaining lightly trafficked routes. They played no part whatsoever in saving any lines from closure.

Oh really? Well I can remember the Huddersfield-Sheffield service having a near-death experience in the early 1980s as South Yorkshire PTE did not want to fund its share of the service and only relented when BR came up with the idea of diverting the trains via Barnsley in 1983 at the same time as the Clayton West branch was closed. The arrival of Pacers soon afterwards and singling of the track most certainly helped keep costs under control and encouraged the PTE to maintain its funding and subsequently to support development of the route.

 

[northwichcat]

Oh really? Well I can remember the Huddersfield-Sheffield service having a near-death experience in the early 1980s as South Yorkshire PTE did not want to fund its share of the service and only relented when BR came up with the idea of diverting the trains via Barnsley in 1983 at the same time as the Clayton West branch was closed. The arrival of Pacers most certainly helped keep costs under control and encouraged the subsequent development of the route.

I've heard the Penistone Line was threatened with being closed before and also the Settle to Carlisle line but certainly never heard a long enough list to allow for around 140 Pacers being produced just to save lines which were threatened with closure.

Is there any evidence that lines would have closed if Pacers had not been procured? The 153 finished up being produced as an alternative solution suitable for low usage lines even though that wasn't the original intention.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I really am pleased to read the comments made so far on this new thread that I caused to open. May I ask if the oft-quoted mantra of how the Pacers saved railway lines from closure is really something of an urban myth that is perpetuated by certain people?

 

[HSTEd]

Pacers contributed to the desperate attempts to slow the haemmorhaging of money from those services which later became Regional Railways.
This significantly reduced BR's overall operating loss and thus reduced the political necessity for further cutbacks.

If BR had continued with loco hauled services or similar then the Serpell Report begins to look far more practical to implement.

 

[NSEFAN]

I really am pleased to read the comments made so far on this new thread that I caused to open. May I ask if the oft-quoted mantra of how the Pacers saved railway lines from closure is really something of an urban myth that is perpetuated by certain people?

But others have just said that it's not as simple as "give us Pacers or we'll close the line!" It was about having a train that was cheap to run to keep costs down and make better use of the little money that was available. If BR had gone for fancier DMUs with higher running costs then there could well have been a reduction in service frequency on some routes. This would effectively be closure by stealth for smaller lines, since we know that if you make a service less convenient you will end up killing demand and entering a spiral of decline.

 

[yorksrob]

Pacers contributed to the desperate attempts to slow the haemmorhaging of money from those services which later became Regional Railways.
This significantly reduced BR's overall operating loss and thus reduced the political necessity for further cutbacks.

If BR had continued with loco hauled services or similar then the Serpell Report begins to look far more practical to implement.

Although I was under the impression that the 155's, 156's and 158's were more effective in the move away from loco hauled, whilst the Pacers replaced 1st gen DMU's.

 

[HSTEd]

Although I was under the impression that the 155's, 156's and 158's were more effective in the move away from loco hauled, whilst the Pacers replaced 1st gen DMU's.

Yes, but AIUI the move away from loco hauled only became practical because Pacers meant that large numbers of units could be replaced for almost nothing.
Otherwise the Sprinters that replaced the loco hauled stock would have been required to replace the first gen DMUs.

Only a certain amount of money was available for new stock.

 

[swt_passenger]

The Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations require that all public passenger trains must be accessible to disabled people by 2020. No Pacers currently meet this requirement...

That is widely known already, (not least because of the existing threads about Pacer replacement) but it's not actually relevant to the separate question posed in this thread - which is clearly about the historic period when Pacers were first introduced...

 

[coppercapped]

The whole story of the Pacers also gets tangled up with the drive to rid the railways of stock containing asbestos. This was a big story in the 70s and 80s.

Part of the reason that Pacers ended up on services for which they were not particularly suited was that this enabled the removal of the asbestos containing 1st generation units earlier than would have been the case if new stock were to be built. The technical press of the period will certainly have more information - these events all pre-date the World Wide Web...!

 

[ChiefPlanner]

The whole story of the Pacers also gets tangled up with the drive to rid the railways of stock containing asbestos. This was a big story in the 70s and 80s.

Part of the reason that Pacers ended up on services for which they were not particularly suited was that this enabled the removal of the asbestos containing 1st generation units earlier than would have been the case if new stock were to be built. The technical press of the period will certainly have more information - these events all pre-date the World Wide Web...!

Certainly - some good old school DMU's were scrapped maybe too early - like the WR class 120 "cross country" sets which were excellent , comfortable trains for the Heart of Wales and West Wales , which had asbestos - ditto a good number of the Glasgow Electrics. Some of the short term replacements like class 119's were a real step back in quality - and the inevitable 14x and 15x stepped into the breach.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Certainly removing the (expensive but much loved) loco hauled trains on say the West Highland went down badly - but there were all sorts of other costs like depot overheads and having to have shunters / secondmen to uncouple at terminals - let alone the hopeless costs of steam heating .

My wife as a regular then user of Bham - Nuneton noted the better overall service when the class 31' and random MK1's went with 156's -a nd much thoguh I loved the class 25's on Cardiff - Crewe in the late 70's , they were infrequent and often very unreliable and late running - though a deep midwinter run on say 25190 + 4 struggling up Llanvihangel at 10 mph max had some attractions if you did not have a connection to make at Cardiff ...

 

[backontrack]

As much as I hate the conditions on board Pacers and how the trains are used, I will say that I would rather have them than not for capacity reasons. And I certainly would prefer them to no train whatsoever. These trains helped save the Penistone and Settle and Carlisle lines, two that would have almost certainly have gone if it wasn't for the strong will of the Yorkshire and Eden people. Pacers have done enough now; the time has come for them to leave the network and be replaced by a mix of cascaded trains and new build. But they have certainly made their mark on British transport; Pacers have become a railway legend, and rightly so. They're very important, and I hope that they make their way into preservation. I'll fondly remember them; I'm sure many others will too.

 

[thenorthern]

I don't think Pacers have saved whole lines from closure as such although they did allow British Rail to run more services more economically by retaining things such as half hourly services that on lines such as the Oldham Loop Line that would otherwise have been cut on the grounds of cost.

Although their were very few line closures between 1970 and 1990 many services were reduced such as the Walsall line which was reduced to hourly in the late 70s (its currently 4 per hour). I expect more reductions would have happened without the Pacer. I think the lowest year for passenger numbers was 1981 which was almost 20 years after the Beeching Axe.

 

[backontrack]

I don't think Pacers have saved whole lines from closure as such although they did allow British Rail to run more services more economically by retaining things such as half hourly services that on lines such as the Oldham Loop Line that would otherwise have been cut on the grounds of cost.

Although their were very few line closures between 1970 and 1990 many services were reduced such as the Walsall line which was reduced to hourly in the late 70s (its currently 4 per hour). I expect more reductions would have happened without the Pacer. I think the lowest year for passenger numbers was 1981 which was almost 20 years after the Beeching Axe.

I don't think that Pacers saved lines either; but they certainly helped it, as you say. And the '80s, although a tough time for the railways (Serpell Report + funding at a minimum (e.g Corby)), were still an important time. I wasn't around then, but I still don't think we can forget it.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Pacers may have saved the lines through Brigg (only just), Penistone, Pontefract and the Humberlinc Line. Had these cheap and cheerful Leyland / Alexandra Dennis design railbuses weren't created then very likely we could have seen a lot more Parly services running with a handful of reasonable units.

Yes, they were built as a stopgap and continue to do so until some more, much needed, units are built.

 

[SeanG]

What about the Bishop Auckland line?

 

[coppercapped]

Once again, the Pacers were not built to save lines - the bulk of the closures had been made before they were built and there was no political will to proceed with a second round. What they certainly did do was to enable a more intensive service to be operated on marginal lines.

What the Pacers were intended to do was to operate lightly trafficked lines at a lower cost than a first generation dmu and for these trains intended replacement - the Class 210. At the time BR's 1st generation replacement dmu plans were centred around a high performance, above floor engined, train using a Mk3 derived body - they were contemporaries of the Class 317. Two prototypes was built, one three and one four coach train. The three coach train could only carry passengers in two and a half coaches. The commercial people then realised it was overkill for services other than those serving big cities and even here it wasn't very space efficient and also expensive. The Class 150 Sprinter programme was started as a result using the same Mk3 derived bodyshell - the 150s were essentially an updated 1st generation dmu.

The lower purchase and operating costs of the Class 15X trains compared to the Class 210 meant that the cost advantage of the Pacers was not so great as had been expected and the programme was terminated in 1987 after the Class 144s had been built.

 

[northwichcat]

The lower purchase and operating costs of the Class 15X trains compared to the Class 210 meant that the cost advantage of the Pacers was not so great as had been expected and the programme was terminated in 1987 after the Class 144s had been built.

One common myth with Pacers is they have low track access charges. Yes an individual Pacer carriage is cheaper than an individual Sprinter carriage but as Pacer carriages are shorter that's like comparing the cost of operating a single decker bus with a double decker bus. If you make a 92m formation using 142s the track access charge would be higher than it would be for a 92m formation using 153s/155s or 156s.

 

[SGS]

The "saving lines" view is often asserted without supporting evidence. At the time Pacers were being introduced, the only passenger lines I can recall being under threat were the S&C, and Marylebone station.

Were Pacers really so much cheaper than 150s that they made the difference between a line staying open and being closed? It would be interesting if someone with the knowledge could quantify the respective purchase costs and running costs. I'd be surprised if they were that much different, especially considering the relative unreliability of the Pacers compared to the 150s, and the fact that they had to have their gearboxes, brakes and engines all replaced fairly early in their lives.

 

[DarloRich]

This comment is still often quoted in postings and for the edification of our younger members, can we have some postings that give examples of certain lines upon which this may well have occurred and of the type of replacement services by light rail, buses or coach.

I am aware that the Tyne and Wear Metro and the Manchester Metrolink system takeover of certain of the former heavy-rail lines in their respective areas.

I think it would be to simplistic to identify a particular line saved by pacer operations but the obvious cost reduction achieved by using these trains will have contributed towards keeping otherwise endangered lines open. They are not the only factor as things like reduced service frequency, less maintenance, downgrading/singling routes, reduced depot/stabling locations etc will all have played a part.

The Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations require that all public passenger trains must be accessible to disabled people by 2020. No Pacers currently meet this requirement and will therefore need to be withdrawn by that date unless they receive an extensive refurbishment.

or a derogation is granted.

What about the Bishop Auckland line?

what about it?

 

[Camden]

I really am pleased to read the comments made so far on this new thread that I caused to open. May I ask if the oft-quoted mantra of how the Pacers saved railway lines from closure is really something of an urban myth that is perpetuated by certain people?

I think the discussion is flawed, as of course there can be no definite answer in the absence of documents suggesting a particular outcome was on the cards.

I think in order to accept that the introduction of low cost rolling stock may have saved services and lines, you'd have to first accept that it's not a straight line calculation as to whether a service runs or doesn't, but fundamentally to do with the value that the government of the day places on it.

I'm sure you'll remember the distinctly anti-rail governments of days gone by. The shrinking network, the addition of stops and slowing of services, the ramping up of prices, and so on.

Given the era the Pacers were introduced and the long march of privatisation culminating not long after (mid 80s trains, privatisation started 94). You don't need to be a stock market whizz to realise that either more expensive rolling stock would never have been produced in the first place (resulting in closures), or the loss making lines and services would have looked very different leading up to privatisation. Cuts. reductions, who knows. But it would be contrary to common sense to think it would just be the same but with better rolling stock.

I doubt it was a case that there was a conscious decision to "save lines by cutting costs", but I would be astounded if there wasn't a tight screw put on rolling stock development in order to keep costs down re what I've said above, indirectly mostly likely saving lines from closure in an era when rail travel was distinctly undervalued politically.

 

[Tetchytyke]

In isolation, I don't think Pacers "saved" any branch lines.

Several people have mentioned the Settle and Carlisle. When the intermediate stations were re-opened it was still operated by loco-hauled stock, and it was only with the 156s that the 47s went. Pacers have never regularly operated the S&C, although they did do it often enough (but ad-hoc) when RRNE and Northern Spirit were having one of their regular stock shortages.

Even though the poor design of the 142s meant that, with all the modifications, they ended up costing more than the far superior 150s, they were about BR showing they were willing to cut costs. They were more a political statement, alongside PayTrain and single track lines, and that political statement probably did help them justify keeping some of the more marginal branch lines open.

 

[yorksrob]

Given the era the Pacers were introduced and the long march of privatisation culminating not long after (mid 80s trains, privatisation started 94). You don't need to be a stock market whizz to realise that either more expensive rolling stock would never have been produced in the first place (resulting in closures), or the loss making lines and services would have looked very different leading up to privatisation. Cuts. reductions, who knows. But it would be contrary to common sense to think it would just be the same but with better rolling stock.

I doubt it was a case that there was a conscious decision to "save lines by cutting costs", but I would be astounded if there wasn't a tight screw put on rolling stock development in order to keep costs down re what I've said above, indirectly mostly likely saving lines from closure in an era when rail travel was distinctly undervalued politically.

I suspect that the Pacers more competitive running costs have been exagerated since privatisation with lower access charges and leasing costs. During the 1980's, the savings would have only really been fuel, so I'm still not convinced that these would have been so great that the use of alternative units would have led to these sort of cutbacks.

That said, there was a definate decision to save lines by cutting costs in some cases. The singling of the Marshlink was a case in point.

 

[jimm]

I suspect that the Pacers more competitive running costs have been exagerated since privatisation with lower access charges and leasing costs. During the 1980's, the savings would have only really been fuel, so I'm still not convinced that these would have been so great that the use of alternative units would have led to these sort of cutbacks.

That said, there was a definate decision to save lines by cutting costs in some cases. The singling of the Marshlink was a case in point.

Only fuel? Do you think it was cheap keeping lots of 1950s-vintage bus engines and transmissions working in first-generation dmus by the 1980s?

 

[30907]

Were Pacers really so much cheaper than 150s that they made the difference between a line staying open and being closed? It would be interesting if someone with the knowledge could quantify the respective purchase costs and running costs. I'd be surprised if they were that much different, especially considering the relative unreliability of the Pacers compared to the 150s, and the fact that they had to have their gearboxes, brakes and engines all replaced fairly early in their lives.

As the Pacers were coming into fleet service at the same time as the 150 prototype, it's not relevant. They were, however, cheaper (or seemed to be!) than life expired DMMUs. The re equipping of Regional Railways in the 80s contributed significantly to its revitalisation, and in that sense you could say Pacers AND Sprinters "saved" lines.