(Theoretical idea) AdTranz Classic style rebuild for Pacers?

[danielnez1]

Hello,

I was looking at Poterbrook’s Class 143 refurbishment brochure and I remembered that back in 1997, AdTranz produced the “Classic” demonstration coach which appeared to be an Electrostar style body mounted on an Mk1 EMU under frame.
With that in mind, would it be feasible to remove the existing bus body off a Pacer under frame and replace it with a brand new body?

 

[ukrob]

The biggest problem is below the body...

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I would love to see a 12-coach train comprised of Mk1 stock bodies running on Pacer underframes with obviously the pre-existing Pacer bogie system and suspension. Would there be any maximum speed limit applied to such stock and would a restrictive route availability still apply ?

Could we have a theoretical two-part locomotive to haul this train. I am sure there are those on this forum with most creative imaginations as to what locomotive types would give both the different top half and the bottom half of this hybrid locomotive and to give the the most optimum haulage capacity.

 

[aylesbury]

They only fit for the scrap yard and should be sent there as soon as possible.

 

[RochdalePioneers]

The biggest problem is below the body...

Well exactly. Aside from the bouncy bouncy ride you still have a separate body atop a chassis which can come apart in the wrong kind of collision.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[cjmillsnun]

Hello,

I was looking at Poterbrook’s Class 143 refurbishment brochure and I remembered that back in 1997, AdTranz produced the “Classic” demonstration coach which appeared to be an Electrostar style body mounted on an Mk1 EMU under frame.
With that in mind, would it be feasible to remove the existing bus body off a Pacer under frame and replace it with a brand new body?

Why the hell would anyone want to do that?

I could kind of understand with the Mk1 EMUs. They gave a reasonably good ride and were reliable. But it was deemed uneconomic and there were crashworthiness implications.

With a pacer the ride is abysmal because there are no bogies and no secondary suspension of any kind.

Just no.

 

[danielnez1]

Why the hell would anyone want to do that?

I could kind of understand with the Mk1 EMUs. They gave a reasonably good ride and were reliable. But it was deemed uneconomic and there were crashworthiness implications.

With a pacer the ride is abysmal because there are no bogies and no secondary suspension of any kind.

Just no.

I guess you missed the title :roll:

Porterbrook's proposals for the 143/144 easily appear to be clutching at straws at best, so why not go the whole hog? Giving the corrosion issues on the 142s and the doubts regarding the number of Sprinters released following the electrification cascades I can't help wonder if something as drastic as re-bodying a 142 has been considered.

I wouldn't suggest it as solution though.

 

[Monty]

Considering the 'Networker Classic' rebuilds of Mk1 stock never made it past the prototype stage, I doubt you could call a similar pacer rebuild feasable, mounting a new body on to an existing underframe is one thing, making it an affordable and feasable venture is another thing entirely.

 

[Boothby97]

Was this it?
http://wmbusphotos.com/Trains/other/networkerclassic.html
Was cut up only last year, after storage at Derby Litchurch Lane


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks, Sam