Great Western Coffee Shop

following the derailment earlyer in the month of a class 142 in the north west of england further questions have been asked about there safty has anyone got a copy of the report that recomended that these units should be withdrawn?

(http://www.flickr.com/photos/relex109/3589783821/)

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3567/3589783821_474b94dd49.jpg?v=0)

rumour has it, that we will be waving a 'fond' farewell to the pacers in the not too distant future.

What is the not too distant future?

What will replace them? There still won't be enough units to go round even with some new 172s arrivng in the not too distant future.

I heard that to but it doesn't add up as until London Midland release there 150s we won't have anything to replace them, and the release of the 150s won't happen in time for the proposed withdrawal of them down here.

Neither the original rolling stock plan or its later update mention early scrapping of Pacers, even if they move on from the FGW area. That is planned for a future build of new generation DMUs or even tram trains.  All the currently planned new trains (sorry 202 DMU vehicles - yuk), and the resulting reallocation of 150s etc are to increase capacity.

Paul

I meant the withdrawal down here, they will be put to use up north again afterwards. The LM 150s are to replace them down here.

you know i cant help but think that if there were only 10 in service in the whole country they would have been withdrawn, the reason i would like to see the report is that the rumour going round is that the unit in question derailed because the engine dropped off... i know the report recomended withdrawl and replacing with sprinters but if they were withdrawn fgw and northen would be screwed!! there are already questions about there crashworthyness what would happen if they were withdrawn and realistically is the only reason they have not been withdrawn the fact that there is nothing to fill in?

just to clarify i wasnt just talking about fgw land please find below links to two incidents and a letter dating back to febuary from the mp john pugh


this months derailment http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2009/06/11/passengers-safe-after-blackpool-to-liverpool-train-derails-at-broadgreen-station-100252-23851950/


mullered pacer http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/375946.stm
l

etter from john pugh http://www.lep.co.uk/news/MP-says-trains-in-area.4987178.jp

It's surprisng there wasn't a reccomendation to withdraw them  after South Winsford crash 1999.
 
87 versus a 14X,  the 87 shoved the both bodies clean off their  unframes.

Lovley quote from report "Bodies are secured to the underframe by "wire straps""

Also "it was fortunate there were no passengers aboard" the 142.

Atkins did a crash worhtiness report will see if I can find it, still looking on HMRI site.

hehe just read this made me smile... dont you love the media

Pacers aren't really suited for jointed track, as you get on most branch lines in the south west, unless you like sitting on a moving seesaw. Unfortunately they aren't that well suited for mainline work either from a safety point of view as if they were involved in a collision with a mainline service, they're not terribly robust... However, on the plus side they are cheap and that's the key factor for the DFT/ATOCs. ::)

Can someone confirm that the reopening of Falmouth Docks station was in part related to Pacers. A story I heard was that the Pacer Unit couldn't turn around at Falmouth Town due to some engineering issue and had to go down to the Docks to do the turnaround. As a result BR decided to re-open Falmouth Docks, only to withdraw them a few weeks later because of other issues operating them on the western branch lines.

No, it was heritage DMU's that weren't allowed to turn around at Falmouth town, the docks was re-opened in the late 70's, around 8 years before the first pacer was built, even when the Docks (previously "Falmouth") was closed the trains still had to go down there for the crew to change ends.

Thanks for the clarification.....

Now on with the Pacer debate ....

Derailment of 142042 at Olive Mount (11-02-2009) confirmed as rear engine detaching and being run over by the rear wheelset precipitating the derailment. Engine apparently suffered a broken crankshaft and locked up with enough of a jolt to dislodge it from the mounting. Some sort of lubrication issue apparently.

May 2010 at the earliest. And thats assuming that Bombardier actually manage to produce some 172's for LOROL / London Midland to allow 150/1 to be released for use elsewhere.

If you do find that report, please post a link, I haven't found it after some considerable time.

The bodies were originally attached to the underframe by 4 Clouth metalastic mountings, just behind the door openings, roughly where the suspension would have been on the National Bus. These mountings has been supplemented by the so called 'Winsford' modification, which consists of additional longitudenal tie bars between the underframe and the body at the cab end of each car. Thus resisting the tendancy for the mountings to fail in sheer during a collision. On a 142 this can be identified by a prominent double row of rivets / fasteners on the door step between the door footwell and the saloon floor on the end doors behind the cab. All FGW 142's have had this modification done as part of the work done to them at Railcare Glasgow. The 143's have also had a simalar modification done as part of the refresh project at Eastleigh.

The report is here:

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/HSE_Winsford1999.pdf (http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/HSE_Winsford1999.pdf)

Surprisingly brief at only seven pages. The comments about pacers being bus bodies secured to their underframes by wire straps are towards the end in paragraph 20.

Its the report (HSL / WS Atkins / Halcrow) mentioned in paragraph 21 of that report that I'm interested in finding. Although the modification to improve crashworthiness are the one I have already mentioned. The wire straps mentioned were merely the original secondary means of body retention rather than the actual body support / attachment method.

A modified 142 fitted with the 'Winsford Mod' will be found here (http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s81/chris64ex4/Rusty%20trains/Class142sWinsfordmodifiedunitindent.jpg).

An unmodified 142 will be found here (http://i150.photobucket.com/albums/s81/chris64ex4/Rusty%20trains/Class142snonWinsfordmodifiedunit.jpg).

They are about the worst trains on the network, but are cheap and better than nothing.
I would rather sit on one of those, than stand on a new shorter train with high density deating.

Ideally something more suitable should be provided, but even then I would not want to see them scrapped, best kept in reserve for peak flows and breakdowns.
The lack of spare trains for breakdowns or exceptional peak flows is a huge problem and could be partialy alleviated by keeping a reserve of older stock, as used to be done.

they were built for short distance branch lines, exmouth, seven beach so on they were not designed for medium to long distance, to be fair with the exception of when they put one exmouth -barns fgw do not put these on really long routes however northern put them on some stupidly long stints

Is there anything different about the engine mountings on a Pacer that would make the result of a rapid engine seizure different from what would occur with any other kind of DMU?

Taunton - Cardiff is a fairly long stint that's regularly operated by them.

the 142's or 143's

It is 143s, which are much nicer and even so there are far less pacers in the Bristol area now.

what s the diff between a 143 and a 142?  thought they both had bus seats

For the most part the 142 and 143 are the same main difference is looks and interior I don't know if they have the same build quality

Although both pacers they were built by completely different companies they look similar. In fgw land the 142s retain the original bus seats but the 143s have chapman high back train seats.
I was on a refurb 143 today..and i must say they are a lot nicer now

142 is a Leyland body mounted on a BREL underframe.

143 is a Walter Alexander body mounted on a Barclay underframe.

144 is the Walter Alexander body on the BREL underframe.

All re-engineered with Cummins L10 engines (vice Leyland TL11), Voith T211r transmissions (vice SCG four speed epicyclic) stronger suspension / axlebox components on the BREL underframes, replacement doors and Brakes that actually worked (SAB-Wabco) by BR in the early 90's.

like i said..was recently on a refurb 143 but have also been on an ATW version...i am not the only one but the refurb version  seems less noisy at tick over and at speed ....any ideas??

FGW did say they were going to improve the mechanical side of things at the refurb as well as the interiors.

end of the day if you drop a brick onto a cardboard box what happens? two bricks would be better!

A lot of users of this forum may not understand why the Southport MP has recently spoken out against Pacers when they have been in the north of England since the early 1980s.

One of the reasons for this is as of December 2008 Northern were required to run an additional  Manchester to Preston and Manchester to Manchester Airport service every hour, as well as extending their Manchester to Macclesfield service to Stoke-on-Trent.  In order to run these services Northern got back 5 142s which they had sub-leased to First Great Western and sub-leased 3 180s from National Express East Coast, which NXEC planned to bring in to operation for the December 2010 timetable.

Prior to December 2008 Manchester Airport to Southport services were mainly 150 operated and Manchester Victoria to Southport services were mainly 142 operated.  (Manchester Airport to Southport being the fast service between Manchester and Southport.)  However, the 150s from Manchester Airport to Southport were cascaded to provide the extra Preston service, leaving 142s to run both Southport services.

Recent derailments of Northern Rail services (the most notable being when a Land Rover was parked without the hand brake applied and roll down a hill to a train line seriously damaging a 323 running a Manchester to Stoke-on-Trent service), together with the unreliability of the 180s has usually meant all 68 of Northern's 142s are in operation at peak times, which is more than two years ago when 142s were sitting around spare.

At the start of the Northern franchise there was talk of Northern ordering 100 new trains built by a Chinese company, as 142 and 144 replacements.  DfT said they wouldn't allow that as the Chinese engineers won't have experience of building for the British network and that the work mustn't go outside the EU.  Northern abandoned that idea based on EU costs being more and said they aimed to get all Pacers replaced by cascaded Sprinter units by 2011.  It now looks unlikely that they will all be replaced before the end of the Northern franchise in 2014.

It all goes to show what a horlicks DaFT have made of rolling stock procurement and lack of electrification.

Manchester to Liverpool (L&M line) Southport (L&Y) and Preston/Blackpool (L&Y) are prime candidates for electrifcation.

Another MP has now said Pacers should be scrapped:

http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/news/4474050.Trains____should_be_scrapped____says_MP/

Although he could be referring to 150s as well in that statement as he said 'some of the overcrowded trains serving Bolton should be scrapped'

Why scrap overcrowded trains as this would not solve the problem of overcrowding? Lets face it, despite not liking Pacers, they are needed regardless as scrapping them reduces capacity. I would much rather additional stock to be in addition to pacers to help eliminate overcrowding. Also, Pacers can be fantastic units if used on the right services so maybe it would be better for Northern to use them on more suitable services.

The issue is Northern have about 90 Pacers and very few routes that don't get crowded by commuters and/or school/college kids.  They need to have some swapped with other operators' non-Pacer units to only use Pacers on suitable journeys.

Also as Pacers and 150/1s have to be joined together without corridor connectors it means that either two conductors are needed when trains are joined together or people in the front unit can escape paying fares.  Not to mention everytime Northern join two 142s together the doors only open on one unit and the conductor has to spend two or three minutes trying to get the doors on both trains open.

Why?

Exeter TMD cope fine with them!

DM ..think it called lack of maintainence.....i have noticed now that the refurb 143s are now a lot quieter and the doors shut with a little tap instead of the usual thud

think its fair to say that fgw now has the best examples of these units anyone got i list of recent fails?

they are the ideal unit for the severn beach line...long will they continue

your rite! me thinks it should have the 142's tho hehe so we can have the 143

Had the pleasure of 143613 (I think) this morning, unusal now since the stock swap, but it was very well turned out. Has this just finished a refurb?

All seats clean, doors smooth and quiet engines. Also floors had been recently washed and paintwork was shiny. Nothing wrong at all.