|
Lee
|
 |
« Reply #150 on: February 23, 2008, 06:32:57 » |
|
I thought Northern has put some Pacers into store?
They did. We took some and the rest had to go back as they had less 158's coming than they originally thought. All the Class 142's currently with Northern are under contract with Angel Trains, and are officially part of the Northern fleet. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Conner
|
|
« Reply #151 on: February 23, 2008, 08:21:20 » |
|
Blimey, what TOC▸ provided a trolley service on a 143?!?!
This is true about them being unsucessful, but i think the trouble is, they just seem to go on and on and on, without giving up!!
in Wessex days when a 143 was covering a 150 or something. One example would have been when the 143 got put on the Bristol-Penzance service once, that always had a trolley. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
John R
|
|
« Reply #152 on: February 23, 2008, 09:15:23 » |
|
A trolley on a 142!!! Has this ever been seen?!?!
On the subject, why were so many pacers made, if they had such problems?!?!
I've seen them on 143's before, everyone says what a disaster 14x units were, but they can hardly be called unsuccessful, over 20 years in service so far, thats a lot longer than many classes of 1st gen DMU▸ 's and early diesel loco's! Pacers have consistently had the worst mpc though by a country mile, so not that successful. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
smokey
|
|
« Reply #153 on: February 24, 2008, 12:46:38 » |
|
Blimey, what TOC▸ provided a trolley service on a 143?!?!
This is true about them being unsucessful, but i think the trouble is, they just seem to go on and on and on, without giving up!!
In W&W▸ (might have been early Wessex days) days I've seen a Trolley on the St Ives Branch. A trolley on a 142!!! Has this ever been seen?!?!
On the subject, why were so many pacers made, if they had such problems?!?!
I've seen them on 143's before, everyone says what a disaster 14x units were, but they can hardly be called unsuccessful, over 20 years in service so far, thats a lot longer than many classes of 1st gen DMU▸ 's and early diesel loco's! Pacers have consistently had the worst mpc though by a country mile, so not that successful. Seems only the Railbuses have lost there engines whilst in service, I mean literally, not an easy thing to more from the four foot...One Bus Engine. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
r james
|
|
« Reply #154 on: February 24, 2008, 12:52:29 » |
|
It simply defies belief that so many units were manufactured if it had already been identified that they would simply bounce too much on the branch lines which they were intended for!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
smokey
|
|
« Reply #155 on: February 24, 2008, 13:05:01 » |
|
It simply defies belief that so many units were manufactured if it had already been identified that they would simply bounce too much on the branch lines which they were intended for!
IIRC▸ British Leyland PAID for LEV-1 to be built (the prototype railbus). It was SHORTER than production units, BR▸ being Cash Strapped found use in some area for Railbuses, but they are by nature of twin axles bouncey and unsuitable for sharpish curves. As I've posted before the Rail Bus twin cars should have had a common centre bogie (like trams have). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mada
Guest
|
|
« Reply #156 on: February 24, 2008, 17:34:48 » |
|
So have the two 150's turned up?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Shazz
|
|
« Reply #157 on: February 24, 2008, 17:39:33 » |
|
nothings left he (from the obvious stockpile of new 150's that would go)
from what i can see from my window
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
r james
|
|
« Reply #158 on: February 24, 2008, 17:44:35 » |
|
Hopefully things will stay this way!! Surely in a worst case scenario, ATW▸ could spare say 2 of the 150 units?
But will be really disappointing to see more than that go.
Get ride of some 143s or 142s ATW! Im sure FGW▸ would be grateful of even those?!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
devon_metro
|
|
« Reply #159 on: February 24, 2008, 18:11:16 » |
|
Didn't we already establish that the Valleys has always been a pacer friendly area whilst journeys are longer on FGW▸ ??
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
r james
|
|
« Reply #160 on: February 24, 2008, 18:24:05 » |
|
I would disagree when doing Bridgend to Aberdare which gets a pacer.
How is it friendly to pacers?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Shazz
|
|
« Reply #161 on: February 24, 2008, 18:25:52 » |
|
Didn't we already establish that the Valleys has always been a pacer friendly area whilst journeys are longer on FGW▸ ??
You thought they were. The people who use them do not. Thats were we go to. And for the record, the majority of journeys the pacers do here, are longer than the ones the fgw ones do. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 24, 2008, 18:29:36 by Shazz »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
devon_metro
|
|
« Reply #162 on: February 24, 2008, 18:35:15 » |
|
I would disagree when doing Bridgend to Aberdare which gets a pacer.
How is it friendly to pacers?
In fact I did Queens Street - Aberdare - Barry Island on a 142. Not nice but still it wouldn't be great on a 150 either. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Shazz
|
|
« Reply #163 on: February 24, 2008, 18:45:46 » |
|
I would disagree when doing Bridgend to Aberdare which gets a pacer.
How is it friendly to pacers?
In fact I did Queens Street - Aberdare - Barry Island on a 142. Not nice but still it wouldn't be great on a 150 either. oh it is, you cant feel a thing on a 150. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
mada
Guest
|
|
« Reply #164 on: February 24, 2008, 21:20:48 » |
|
Hopefully things will stay this way!! Surely in a worst case scenario, ATW▸ could spare say 2 of the 150 units?
I don't imagine your view is particularly popular on here seeing as this is a forum for victims passengers of First Great Western! Your loosing 5 units? Let me get the world's smallest violin!!! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Click on the map to explore geographics
