• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

What to do with an old Pacer

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

GrimsbyPacer

Established Member
Joined
13 Oct 2014
Messages
2,256
Location
Grimsby
How short is short length-wise?
I don't know what length he meant.
But I'd think they're more suited to Cleethorpes to Barton, Grimsby to Newark, Morecambe to Lancaster, Matlock/Exmouth/Henley/Cromer branch lines than commuter lines around big cities.

I would say around an hour should be the max jouney time on a Pacer.
All shuttle services and lines with overcrowded 153s would be a good line for them.
 

SpacePhoenix

Established Member
Joined
18 Mar 2014
Messages
5,492
Is there any suitable articulated diesel unit on the market anywhere that would fit within the UK loading gauge and not fall foul of the emissions regs? If there is hopefully some could be ordered then all the pacers could be turn into baked bean cans
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Is there any suitable articulated diesel unit on the market anywhere that would fit within the UK loading gauge and not fall foul of the emissions regs? If there is hopefully some could be ordered then all the pacers could be turn into baked bean cans

Stadler tend to produce bespoke units in small quantities for the various minor Swiss railways, so might be able to do something based on the GTW or one of their other product lines. However these are probably 30% more expensive than they were last week!
 

Murph

Member
Joined
16 Feb 2010
Messages
728
Is there any suitable articulated diesel unit on the market anywhere that would fit within the UK loading gauge and not fall foul of the emissions regs? If there is hopefully some could be ordered then all the pacers could be turn into baked bean cans

Finding some sort of diesel engine shouldn't be a problem, despite claims that it's impossible to build a compliant engine, etc. Cummins have a compliant QSK19-R, for example, Vivarail are trying out Ford Transit engines, Perkins have a 6 cylinder 400hp-ish product which might be convertible to horizontal use (if someone was willing to pay, and they could adapt their horizontal tech from the 6.354/2006 ranges), Hitachi have a MTU module, etc.

The major issue is convincing someone that there will be a return on their investment, to get them to commit to the huge amount of cash needed to order a bunch of new DMMU/DHMU/DEMU units. ROSCOs won't do a thing unless a TOC or DfT is prepared to basically guarantee that return.

Personally, I think it's looking more likely that cascaded non-Pacer DxMU units, including HSTs, will be how the Pacer fleets are gradually withdrawn. There's a lot of electrification going around, and that should free up a lot of diesel units. DEMU-ified D78s might well feature in that, if the product turns out well.

I wouldn't rule out a small DMU purchase somewhere, but it may well be a high end high speed express product, displacing older and slower DMUs downwards, rather than a Pacer replacement. That's probably a better long term prospect, I reckon. A cousin to the 700, 800, or new ScotRail EMUs could be the answer if there's enough demand once you shuffle everything else downwards.
 

SWTH

Member
Joined
12 Mar 2013
Messages
418
Location
Shrewsbury/Porthmadog/Exeter
How short is short length-wise?

Maximum journey length of 45mins.

As for new DMUs, sooner or later someone will need to order some new suburban stock. I always thought it a missed opportunity that when the 150s were built they didn't order a batch of MSOs (as per the prototype 150/0 units). 3 or even 4-car 150s would be a very useful thing to have now.
 

Emyr

Member
Joined
8 Apr 2014
Messages
656
Finding some sort of diesel engine shouldn't be a problem, despite claims that it's impossible to build a compliant engine, etc. Cummins have a compliant QSK19-R, for example, Vivarail are trying out Ford Transit engines...

The major issue is convincing someone that there will be a return on their investment, to get them to commit to the huge amount of cash needed to order a bunch of new DMMU/DHMU/DEMU units. ROSCOs won't do a thing unless a TOC or DfT is prepared to basically guarantee that return.

If the Ford engine proposed for the D78 can also be packaged for the Pacers, the investment becomes safer as when the Pacers eventually retire the engines can continue providing return on investment as replacements for D78 engines.

This would also ensure the variety of engines in the fleet does not increase.
 

SWTH

Member
Joined
12 Mar 2013
Messages
418
Location
Shrewsbury/Porthmadog/Exeter
The Transit engine isn't going to be capable of replacing the Cummins L10. You're talking about a 3.2 litre unit that makes 200bhp and 350lb. ft of torque replacing a 10 litre engine that produces 205bhp and 850lb. ft of torque, whilst being under considerably less stress than the 3.2 engine. The torque is the key factor - horsepower is the measure of how much power an engine can produce, but torque is what actually matters.
 

SWTH

Member
Joined
12 Mar 2013
Messages
418
Location
Shrewsbury/Porthmadog/Exeter
Two of them? :D

You're still 150lb. ft short of what the L10 produces, and you'd need to re-engineer the pacers to have each axle driven. In doing so you increase the drivetrain losses (2x sets of everything to turn), twice the number of engines and gearboxes to maintain, and probably end up with less fuel efficiency at the end of it.

The L10 is a good engine - simple, rugged and reliable. As existing trains do not have to meet the latest emissions regulations, why overcomplicate the issue by throwing money into a re-power scheme for no benefit?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Finding some sort of diesel engine shouldn't be a problem, despite claims that it's impossible to build a compliant engine, etc. Cummins have a compliant QSK19-R, for example, Vivarail are trying out Ford Transit engines, Perkins have a 6 cylinder 400hp-ish product which might be convertible to horizontal use (if someone was willing to pay, and they could adapt their horizontal tech from the 6.354/2006 ranges), Hitachi have a MTU module, etc.

Are the compliant versions the same size as the older versions? I believe part of the problem is (or was) around finding space for the extra exhaust treatment equipment that is needed to make the engine compliant.
 

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
3,074
Is there any suitable articulated diesel unit on the market anywhere that would fit within the UK loading gauge and not fall foul of the emissions regs? If there is hopefully some could be ordered then all the pacers could be turn into baked bean cans

If manufacturers could easily adapt foreign designs for this country they'd have already done so, alas the combination of loading gauge and platform height does not make this possible irrespective of engine standards.

The major issue is convincing someone that there will be a return on their investment, to get them to commit to the huge amount of cash needed to order a bunch of new DMMU/DHMU/DEMU units. ROSCOs won't do a thing unless a TOC or DfT is prepared to basically guarantee that return.

Manufacturers also need convincing, as was made clear in a recent Transport Select Committee hearing; I imagine justifying the costs and risks of a new DMU design is not easy for what could well be a relatively small, one-off order.
 
Last edited:

cjmillsnun

Established Member
Joined
13 Feb 2011
Messages
3,254
That's similar to mine...

razor-blades-470b-0908.jpg
 

GatwickDepress

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2013
Messages
2,284
Location
Leeds
I genuinely wouldn't mind having them on the Bedford - Bletchley line. When I was up north during a period of temporary insanity a while back, even the dirtiest Pacer was cleaner than the 150 I was on the other day!

Failing that, my partner wants to keep chickens, so they'd make an ideal coop...
 

richw

Veteran Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
11,213
Location
Liskeard
FGW 143s are surprisingly pleasant. They've had a good refurb which makes all the difference. Other than the bouncing.
Have Fgw arrange refurbs for all of them and make passengers think they have brand new trains.

interior of fgw class 143 by relex109.com, on Flickr
 
Last edited:

muddythefish

On Moderation
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
1,575
What to do with an old Pacer ?

Send it down to Bedford and let them use it on Thameslink.
 

ed1971

Member
Joined
14 Jan 2009
Messages
589
Location
Wigan
The 2020 withdrawal deadline is fast approaching. If no one can come up with a suitable Pacer replacement before then, I wouldn't be surprised if Alexander Dennis were contracted to rebody a lot of the 142s, with bodies similar to the 144s that meet DDA requirements!
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
Are you suggesting using the VAL technology type wheels found on the Paris Metro on Pacers or have I mis-understood?

I feel my attempt at yet another "humourous" jibe at the Pacer fleet and running them as "bendy-buses" on the road appears to have had an unintended side-effect of being the basis for a serious discussion, with a similarity expressed in your posting....:roll::oops:
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
The 2020 withdrawal deadline is fast approaching. If no one can come up with a suitable Pacer replacement before then, I wouldn't be surprised if Alexander Dennis were contracted to rebody a lot of the 142s, with bodies similar to the 144s that meet DDA requirements!

Neither the 142s nor the 143/144s meet the 2020 accessibility legislation as they are. The difference being that whilst Porterbrook have costed the work that would be required for the 143/144 fleet, Angel have not done so for the 142s. The work that would be required would be broadly similar for both fleets. The condition of the 142s compared to the slightly less terrible pacers is the likely reason for this work being done, or not.
 

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,499
Location
Ripon
Last edited:

Rapidash

Member
Joined
3 Sep 2013
Messages
669
Location
Torbaydos, Devon
Could always cut them down the middle and convert them into platform shelters, they'd be no noticable difference in the amount of rain that gets in:p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top