Am I the only passenger who prefers / preferred Pacers to Sprinters ?

[150249]

Good to see a Pacer 143617 donated by GWR is being used to restore a very limited service on the almost 300m of track at the Tarka Valley line at the Great Torrington Station Devon.

Train leaves disused Devon station for first time in decades

The driver and guard from the train's last journey in 1982 were invited to the reopening.

www.bbc.com

Line too short to notice a bad ride, but the large windows will be a benefit. Hope they get to extend the line with perhaps some steam locos in future.

I was very happy that this happened. 143617 was the one pacer I actually liked!

I actually really like GWR 150s. So much so that I named myself after one

I think they are much better than Northern units for seat layout and the windows issue. Admittedly TfW 150s look a bit worse for ware at the moment but they are still better than the Northern ones.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

"Am I the only passenger who prefers / preferred Pacers to Sprinters ?"

Not at all; I would always take a 142 over a 150 any day. My reasons being the much better view out from the 142 - and I admit I like the way they bounced around as well...

 

[Fisherman80]

During the 90s there used to be some diagrams which were 156+14x combos over the Settle to Carlisle.
I would always sit in the pacer for 2 reasons.
The first reason was because the 156 unit would be jam packed and the second reason was the views from a pacer (especially the 144s) were much better.

 

[Justin Smith]

During the 90s there used to be some diagrams which were 156+14x combos over the Settle to Carlisle.
I would always sit in the pacer for 2 reasons.
The first reason was because the 156 unit would be jam packed and the second reason was the views from a pacer (especially the 144s) were much better.

I think I would too, and that's against a Class 156, the view out of a Class 150 is significantly worse. If it was a choice between a 150 and a Pacer there'd be no choice at all.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

There were definitely some positives about Pacers, particularly in comparison to 150s. The views out were better, and even if you ended up in a seat next to a window pillar those were quite narrow- so there were no seats with no view out at all- unlike the allegedly superior 150s. The low backed bus benches originally fitted also meant an open and spacious feel compared to the seats in the Sprinters or the very claustrophobic feel of the newer seats fitted to the 144s in later years. At times the ride quality was poor but was only a major problem on jointed track- which was an increasingly rare problem as time went on.

There is however a special place in hell for whoever thought that the seats fitted to the Merseytravel-sponsored units were an "improvement". I once took a trip from Huddersfield to Blackpool South which was, in an unfortunate coincidence, served entirely by 142s of this type. Whilst the 75mph stretches were perfectly smooth thanks to the CWR, my backside and knees were really suffering after three hours of being squeezed into a space that wouldn't be suitable for livestock being taken for slaughter... and I'm only 5'8" so I shouldn't have been "too big" for the seats on any train. The brief respite at Manchester Victoria and Preston was far too short!

 

[bramling]

There were definitely some positives about Pacers, particularly in comparison to 150s. The views out were better, and even if you ended up in a seat next to a window pillar those were quite narrow- so there were no seats with no view out at all- unlike the allegedly superior 150s. The low backed bus benches originally fitted also meant an open and spacious feel compared to the seats in the Sprinters or the very claustrophobic feel of the newer seats fitted to the 144s in later years. At times the ride quality was poor but was only a major problem on jointed track- which was an increasingly rare problem as time went on.

There is however a special place in hell for whoever thought that the seats fitted to the Merseytravel-sponsored units were an "improvement". I once took a trip from Huddersfield to Blackpool South which was, in an unfortunate coincidence, served entirely by 142s of this type. Whilst the 75mph stretches were perfectly smooth thanks to the CWR, my backside and knees were really suffering after three hours of being squeezed into a space that wouldn't be suitable for livestock being taken for slaughter... and I'm only 5'8" so I shouldn't have been "too big" for the seats on any train. The brief respite at Manchester Victoria and Preston was far too short!

I don’t think I’ll ever understand what the person who designed the Merseytravel refurbishment was thinking when they specified those seats. They were utterly horrific for sure.

Were they the only way a 3+2 interior could be maintained?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I don’t think I’ll ever understand what the person who designed the Merseytravel refurbishment was thinking when they specified those seats. They were utterly horrific for sure.

Were they the only way a 3+2 interior could be maintained?

There was another option... simply leave it well alone with the bus benches, like the vast majority of Pacers had for several years longer. I can only assume that they'd seen newer buses of the time with the horrible Urban90 seats and thought "well, this train is basically a bus, let's make it like a new bus".

 

[JD2168]

The best part about the Pacer’s was the view through the windows which made for a light & airy journey which was better than the Class 150. One other plus point over a Class 150 was no door swinging & slamming shut between carriages during the journey. The later Class 144 with the high backed seats were not bad to sit on but towards the end they did feel very dated.

 

[Jozhua]

As someone who grew up and for some time commuted to college on the Matlock line, I developed a reasonable hatred for the 156.

Thank god we have 170s now - they have their problems, but they are a pretty drastic improvement imo.

Pacers also much quieter to travel in that a 150, 153, 155 or 156. Some of them are horrendously noisy.

This ^ not enough is talked about how horrifically noisy a lot of 15X units are. Even the 158 has it's moments, but is a drastic improvement.

On the Manchester to Bolton line, which was my local for a while at uni, the improvement after moving to the, very similar (but crucially electrified), 319 was notable.

Ever since they were first introduced I have always had a profound dislike for the class 150. Everything about it was and still is terrible.

when introduced the pacers were really not much better (apart form the Class 141, I liked those). But the refurbishments to the class 144 made them quite a pleasant train to travel on, obviously the class 142 was still terrible at the end of their life, especially those that still had the bus seats.

I have always found the classes 153, 155, 156 and 158 to be very decent trains though the 153 & 155’s are definitely showing their age now.

I love the name XC victim!

Pacers and Sprinters are very much a product of their time, trains produced on the cheap (in the case of the Pacers, far too cheaply), using existing tech and designs. BR at the time was too cash strapped to do anything else it seems. Of all of the trains produced in that era, I dislike the 156 the most, for a long distance unit, they really should have had better sound insulation and air conditioning.

You can't really fault the overall performance of the Sprinters, but they are now past their design life and we should expect better than what they provide.

It does always confuse me how Gen 2 DMUs are somehow worse in almost every way versus Gen 1 units!

158s feel 10-15 years newer with the EMR refurb units (which are fantastic).

 

[trebor79]

158s feel 10-15 years newer with the EMR refurb units (which are fantastic).

The nicest is the one that's still floating around with original seats and declassified first class. Very comfy indeed and better views with shorter seat backs!

 

[NewClee153]

I’m of the opinion that the class 150s are largely overhated. I agree, the northern examples are terrible, but the GWR and TfW examples are pretty good for what they are

The pacers were bumpy and uncomfortable, and I’m extremely happy that they’re not around anymore

 

[bramling]

I’m of the opinion that the class 150s are largely overhated. I agree, the northern examples are terrible, but the GWR and TfW examples are pretty good for what they are

This is the thing, whilst the GWR and TFW units are rather nice *now*, in the past the typical class 150 experience was a very negative one. My biggest issue was the way with the 2+3 airline layout very few seats offered a decent window view facing forwards, especially if the toilet car was leading.

Now this has been addressed in many cases, except the remaining Northern examples, the experience is quite decent. The noise doesn’t bother me.

 

[Jozhua]

There are other counties where we see old trains, also built on a low budget, looking in much better nick.

Imo, most issues with 150/156 could have been resolved in the 2000/2010s with a proper mid life overhaul, including addition of AC, new seating, PRM accessible bathrooms, etc.

However, the UK system disincentivizes TOCs from investing in rolling stock improvements, therefore the fleets just seem to have been left to slowly languish over the past 20 yrs. To be fair, similar is happening with 170s and 22X.

The nicest is the one that's still floating around with original seats and declassified first class. Very comfy indeed and better views with shorter seat backs!

Ahhh, you see I'm quite tall and those pose a challenge because the seats are thicker, reducing the effective legroom and obviously nowhere to rest your head.

The padding is rather good on them, although I believe you can design a thinner seat that still has good padding - some of Ryanair's newer seats stand out as actually remarkably good at both being thinner, giving you a bit more legroom, while also being reasonably soft.

 

[Bornin1980s]

There are other counties where we see old trains, also built on a low budget, looking in much better nick.

Imo, most issues with 150/156 could have been resolved in the 2000/2010s with a proper mid life overhaul, including addition of AC, new seating, PRM accessible bathrooms, etc.

However, the UK system disincentivizes TOCs from investing in rolling stock improvements, therefore the fleets just seem to have been left to slowly languish over the past 20 yrs. To be fair, similar is happening with 170s and 22X.

Ahhh, you see I'm quite tall and those pose a challenge because the seats are thicker, reducing the effective legroom and obviously nowhere to rest your head.

The padding is rather good on them, although I believe you can design a thinner seat that still has good padding - some of Ryanair's newer seats stand out as actually remarkably good at both being thinner, giving you a bit more legroom, while also being reasonably soft.

Well, they all now have accessible bathrooms, it's the law, unless some now have no bathrooms! Many have new seats, but, the newer the harder! As for AC, would that even be possible with 285hp per car (less than most first gen power cars)?

 

[Jozhua]

Well, they all now have accessible bathrooms, it's the law, unless some now have no bathrooms! Many have new seats, but, the newer the harder! As for AC, would that even be possible with 285hp per car (less than most first gen power cars)?

Well, I'd argue replacing the power packs wouldn't have been a bad idea either circa ~2010. Probably also gone some of the way to making them a bit quieter, or at least accelerate faster!

If we're going to run DMUs for 35-40 years, then a comprehensive mid life refurb seems good.

New seats and especially bathrooms are good news. I do think the new bathroom units are an improvement, although they are a bit darker and dingier than necessary it seems.

 

[Justin Smith]

Used another Class 150 to get to my walk (from Kirton Lindsey to Brigg, to "cop" two rare stations ! ), I really do not like Class 150s, mainly because the view out is so bad, and was jotting down all the reasons whenever we were in a "green tunnel" and couldn't see anything anyway !

1 - The wide window pillars
2 - The high back chairs
3 - Two sets of doors at 1/3 and 2/3
4 - Solid door recesses
5 - A solid partition by one door (housing eqpt ? )
6 - My first seat must have had a viewable angle of only about 45 degrees !
7 - I tried to move seats but many have eqpt boxes (under the seat in front) thus restricting the leg room for those of us with long legs, so I could not use them.
8 - None of the seats have particularly good legroom but one of the rows I tried was truly appalling. I measured it as only 8.5" from the front of the seat to the back of the seat in front !

Give me a Pacer (pref without high backed seats) every time !

 

[co-tr-paul]

In the days of Wales and West and Wessex, the Pacer was far better. Good views, ventilation, sound and still comfy seats with legroom. Come First GWR and the refurbished 150s became far better in all respects and the Ex Silverlink and Scotrail units had more comfy seating even if a little rough !
Didn't like the refurbished 153s at all , no legroom and hard, upright seats. The current 150s of GWR are now one of my favourite trains to be on you can still open the windows, get the right seats and you are well away ! Even the sound is nice...
Still not a first class compartment mk1 though ......

 

[MP393]

When I lived in Manchester, on the Atherton line I regularly had them turn up on the commute, if it was paired with a 150, I much preferred sitting in the 142. Far less claustrophobic, even better if it was a “Heaton” unit with the 2x2 seats. Bench seats weren’t bad either for the short commute, still far better and less tightly packed than the dense 3/2 150 layout I found, and I hated the 150 layouts with the seats only in bays rather than “airline”. Personal preference of course, though if a Mersey unit produced I would be straight in the 150!

Obviously GWR & TFW 150/2s have much better layouts than the Northern counterparts, so I can definitely see the preference to those over their 14x’s.

 

[Mat17]

I was a very young child when the 101/108/114s started being displaced by 150s, the former had great views and low windows, all I could see on a 150 was the plastic walls with the window ledge far above my head. So I hated Sprinters from the off. The Pacers were better for me as a child, but still nowhere near as good as a 114.

 

[Justin Smith]

I was a very young child when the 101/108/114s started being displaced by 150s, the former had great views and low windows, all I could see on a 150 was the plastic walls with the window ledge far above my head. So I hated Sprinters from the off. The Pacers were better for me as a child, but still nowhere near as good as a 114.

I also noticed that when taking my lad on the train.
We truly did not know what we had when we had it did we ? ! ?

 

[Mat17]

I also noticed that when taking my lad on the train.
We truly did not know what we had when we had it did we ? ! ?

No we really didn't!

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I was a very young child when the 101/108/114s started being displaced by 150s, the former had great views and low windows, all I could see on a 150 was the plastic walls with the window ledge far above my head. So I hated Sprinters from the off. The Pacers were better for me as a child, but still nowhere near as good as a 114.

I too recall being a bit miffed as a child by the high windows on the "new" trains. The old DMUs were far more child-friendly with their forward view, low-slung windows, and bouncy seats! Though the Met-Camm 101s, the most numerous and longest-lasting class, had higher windows than the Derby and BRCW units.

 

[Spekejunction]

First encountered Pacer on the Barnstable to Exeter run ..horrendous
Couple of years ago had one round the Cumbrian Coast …turned a good day into a bad one..

 

[SolomonSouth]

Yes, I preferred a 14x to a 150 in either as-built layout. The person who designed a unit (see also the PEPs) where not one seat has a decent window view, or in the case of the /2s where the legroom is so poor that it's barely suitable for children, had an utter contempt for the passenger.

On the other hand, the TfW and GWR 150s have a nice low-density layout with a good window view, so I'd take one of those over a Pacer. It's a shame the Marston Vale is getting 3+2 seated units, though at least they're /1s with the facing layout, which as it's a quiet line means we can enjoy a bit of legroom even if the view is bad.

But didn't the 14x have awful ride quality compared to a 150? I thought Pacers rode worse at speed than pretty much anything.

 

[Justin Smith]

But didn't the 14x have awful ride quality compared to a 150? I thought Pacers rode worse at speed than pretty much anything.

Personally I did not find them that bad, but in any case I'd accept the slightly less smooth ride for an airy easy to see out of coach !

 

[nanstallon]

In my career as a railway enthusiast, I have experienced all the Pacer and Sprinter varieties. My preference is class 158, then 156, and then the various Pacers with 142 marginally better than the other two. But the 150s are the pits, and the 153s slightly better. Factors are window position, ride quality, general ambience and how photogenic they are. On the latter, the Pacers score highest because of the lack of corridor connections, and the 150/1s do redeem themselves to a degree for that reason.

 

[Danfilm007]

I must admit I don't really recall too much on the Pacers. Travelled a few times, they were extremely unrefined compared to a 150. My line, the Mid-Cheshire, was an ex-Pacer line and to be honest I doubt a double pair of 14xs could cope with the traffic levels now!

 

[Tynwald]

they were horrible

 

[61653 HTAFC]

But didn't the 14x have awful ride quality compared to a 150? I thought Pacers rode worse at speed than pretty much anything.

Depended more on the quality of the track. On decent, straight long welded rail the Pacers were fine even going at full whack. On sharp curves and/or jointed track that was due for renewal, less so.

 

[northwichcat]

even if the view is bad.

I do remember catching a Pacer a couple of times in what was supposed to be their last week in service. Remember this was December. My memory of them is the windows were covered in dripping condensation each morning, effectively making the windows translucent. I also recall having to change where I sat a few times due to condensation raining off the roof. And by the time they were being withdrawn most of the door controls didn't illuminate, some toilet doors wouldn't lock and there were many broken seats removed but not replaced. They looked like Northern had rescued them from the scrap heap and not bothered to do any fixes prior to sending them out in service.

They were also Northern's smallest train, so I don't think the people crammed on peak services like sardines in the area near toilet thought they had a good view!

the second life is with the heritage railways who will celebrate the low running costs of their free-gift Pacers.

I do wonder whether they will attract family groups. Parents like taking along children to see steam trains. Pacers don't have the same appeal - it'd be like a poor family's apology for not offering their kids a donkey ride on the beach.