Great Western Coffee Shop

Merseytravel say that Pacers have exceeded their shelf life and need to be replaced fro safety reasons following a derailment on a Liverpool-Blackpool service:

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2009/10/05/safety-fears-over-city-line-trains-in-liverpool-warrington-st-helens-and-manchester-92534-24852745/

From reading the RAIB bulletin regarding that incident it would appears that there is some basic maintenance required to make sure that engines don't fall off in service. The fact that a fairly major fault on one unit was not spotted for some time doesn't make the whole fleet inherently unsafe!

In this instance it was the second 142 derailment in a few months, both being in the ex-First North Western area.  So when passenger safety is risked twice in close succession on Pacers, but not on Sprinters, PTEs wouldn't be doing their job if they ignored them.  While technical problems have occured recently in the last few months with a TP Express 185, a ATW 175 and an EMT 158 these appear to have been isolated incidents and I don't think any passengers required hospital treatment as a result of them.

This should also take into account the possiblity of poor maintenance as I have yet to hear of Pacers causing major problem for fgw or atw. If these problems keep occuring in the north only thenI wouldn't solely blame the pacers.

I don't think that is a fair comparison.  Northern have a lot more 142s and as far as I'm aware are the only operator reguarly using them on 2 to 3 hour services.  Northern don't seem to have enough Sprinters in the North West to not do this, so it might be that if they are safe to use for shorter journeys then more need to go to other operators.

Hull Trains have got better, although not perfect, reliability from the 180s with Hull-Kings Cross route has a lot less stops on it than the FGW routes they were used on.  I'm not sure if that is just down to better maintainence or down to being used on a better route.

Apart from the one that caught fire and was burned out at Nailsea a few years ago? I also can't understand how all Mk 1 stock was withdrawn from the main lines a few years ago, yet Pacers have survived, despite proof that they collapse when in collision with something reasonably heavy.   

That would be why their service melted down earlier in the summer and the md got the bullet, would it? And why they have five 180s to cover a service that needs three sets in traffic plus one maintenance spare?

Thus far, none of the firms now using 180s has got to grips with the things that used to go wrong while FGW were operating them. They just stuck them straight into service.

While Grand Central has one in a nice new livery, it hasn't had any reliability modifications yet. They are only going to start this work with the next set that they put into service. And Northern won't be doing anything, since they only have their borrowed trio for another year.

I said better reliability than FGW not an excellent level of reliability.  They had 7 222s replaced by 5 180s.  180113 has been refurbished and Hull Trains claim they are looking at increasing the frequency of their service once all units have been refurbished.

The big difference between the two is the lack of central door locking on the mark I stock. It's certainly true that the Pacers are not hugely crashworthy, as the Winsford accident demonstrated. How robust they are compared to a mark I, and whether or not anyone's ever done a direct comparison, I don't know. But what is certainly true is that there used to be several incidents a year on the former Southern region where people were hurt or killed falling out of open doors on mark I trains. There were also relatively frequent occasions where doors flapping open on trains would strike other trains.

Given the very low frequency of train collisions relative to the "open door" incidents, I think it's fair to say that Pacers are actually much lower risk purely on the basis of their central door control.

Thanks for that response inspector.

All makes perfect sense to me, though I've obviously been labouring under a misapprehension for the last 15 years that the motivation for withdrawing Mk 1 stock was crashworthyness following Clapham. (And hence why Mk 1's in service today are only allowed on 3 stretches of track that don't interface with any other running lines).

Crashworthiness was definitely a factor in their withdrawal (and certainly the one that made the most headlines) but pragmatically the issue of slam doors without central door locking was one of more day-to-day operational concern, because this did cause relatively frequent accidents and injuries.

You are absolutely right though about there being inconsistencies in the approach to Pacers compared to mark Is. My hunch (and it is nothing more than that) is that if you ran a mark I into a Pacer, the Pacer would lose.

Just as a small point, but mark Is are still in pretty regular use on charter trains around the system, albeit with additional safety measures. There is now secondary door locking of a sort (it's not hugely high-tech, just a bolt on the inside of the door) and all vehicles have to have a steward in them (to look after the door bolts, as much as anything else). Further, there cannot be a mark I carrying passengers at the very front or the very back of the train. On many charters, the locomotive support coach, for staff use only, satisfies this requirement at the front, and a mark II vehicle/s carrying passengers is coupled at the rear to avoid dragging round an empty mark I.

Another nail in the SR Mk 1 stock's coffin was the ability for a carriage's framework to ride over the next if the coupling failed in a collision. Fitting the whole fleet with an effective overide protection and new inter-unit couplings was going to be a major expense IIRC, and I suspect like many improvement proposals fell flat due to the short remaining life of the stock  I don't know the details but a device known as 'cup and cone' was the next great idea, but it never happened.  Do 142s have a problem with overiding in accidents?

The SR was building new Mk1 stock when the long distance operators were just about finished with Mk2s - and the newest SR MK1s, such as the Lymington CIGs, are about 15 years older than the typical 142/3. On retirement next year the CIGs will be 39 years old, with their early 60s traction technology. 

So if there hadn't been a major replacement programme, I guess we'd now be saying 'why can't the SR have some new stock like they've got up north...

Paul

i think all old stock has a problem with overriding in the event of an accident,it is only on newer stock that this was addressed by way of interlocking teeth type set up on the ends of vehicles.

personally i would not want to be in a pacer during a crash even with the crash worthiness protection that has recently been fitted,i would say the pacer will lose every time no matter what it crashed in to.

There are some interesting pictures of the damaged 142s involved in the Winsford crash (June 1999) on Mark Barber's site (http://mark5811.fotopic.net/c391880.html).

... and, just for completeness, pictures of the 143 that scrapped itself near Nailsea in October 2004 are in the BBC news item (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bristol/3754902.stm) on the incident.  ::)

But it wasn't better - it was just as bad, or worse. I don't call days when you basically fail to operate much of your service - which was what happened a great deal of the time in early July - better than FGW, which always had a tatty turbo up its sleeve in such cases. Remember, HT borrowed an FGW HST at weekends, so bad was 180 availability at this time.

Just like the first Grand Central set out there, HT's 180113 had a basic internal refurbishment and coat of paint, it did not get the rewiring, engine and transmission overhaul, improved buffet, first class moved to one of the driving cars or any of the other things they have planned longer term.

And HT had only four 222/1s, hence the problems they had after one of the four fell off jacks in the depot and took an eternity to rebuild - it never ran for them again and went straight to EMT from Crewe.

Yes you're right I mixed up there number of services and number of trains