IamTrainsYT
Member
World war 3 seems to have broken out in the pacer withdrawals thread so here is a thread for opinions.
World war 3 seems to have broken out in the pacer withdrawals thread so here is a thread for opinions.
Same here, I love bouncing along the hope valley knowing my train isn’t going to slip and will arrive at its destination on time and not leaving me and other people stranded in the cold waiting for a late 150Pacers definitely preferred to a 150 for me!
Pacers definitely preferred to a 150 for me!
Same here, I love bouncing along the hope valley knowing my train isn’t going to slip and will arrive at its destination on time and not leaving me and other people stranded in the cold waiting for a late 150
Given that there were both prototypes (LEV and Class 140) and a pre-production fleet (Class 141), it's surprising that the Class 142/143/144s turned out to be so rubbish in the end. Didn't they all end up needing replacement engines, gearboxes and braking systems after only a few years in service? Maybe BR didn't do enough testing and evaluation before placing big orders. Surely passenger and staff feedback must have been terrible. Or maybe they were so short of cash that they just didn't care!
No problem@IamTrains YT
Thanks for starting this thread btw.
Don't talk too soon, there are plenty of 195s and 331s that have been leaking.Okay the 195s may have some issues such as rattles but passengers won't have to endure getting soaked on inside, have a smoother ride and won't have rainwater coming through the windows.
A key point that you make regarding Windows. Pacers give a far better view than not just the 150s but 156s and 158s, especially if you get a seat towards the middle of the train.It depends I guess on what you want if you travel but for me looking out and taking in the scenery, rural or industrial is what counts on a journey.I’d take a Pacer over some variants of 150, simply because they offer a better view out of the window. 150s are poor in that respect.
It wouldn't have happened though.Should have gone years ago, they were meant to be a temporary stop gap but yet here we are 35 years later.
They should have been replaced by 158’s which are superior in every way and thus far more 158’s should have been ordered which in turn should be replaced within the next 5-10 years or so.
Should have gone years ago, they were meant to be a temporary stop gap but yet here we are 35 years later.
They should have been replaced by 158’s which are superior in every way and thus far more 158’s should have been ordered which in turn should be replaced within the next 5-10 years or so.
You could do the same with a 150, the only issue you might have with a Sprinter that you wouldn't have with a Pacer would be to do with the air suspension which can be sorted pretty easily by isolating the air feed to it and draining the surge tanks. There are certain faults on 14x & 15x units caused by miniature circuit breakers tripping. These MCBs protect control systems, e.g. 'local control' MCB tripping in the leading cab of a 142 is immediately game over (assisting train required) whereas those same faults on some Sprinter units (150/2, 153, 155, 156, 158) wouldn't result in a failure.I remember being told by a member of TfW staff that drivers prefer Pacers than 150's and that if something goes wrong with a Pacer, you can basically give it a nudge to the next station - in other words, if it breaks down between stations then you can find a way to limp to the next available station.
1. The 158's were a tad more expensive than the pacers.
2. I'm not sure the aircon on 158's (which appeared to only work in winter and had only 2 emergency openers during summer) was necessarily better than pacers with windows open.
I’m assuming that is ironic.The most important trains in the history of our railway
Pacers definitely preferred to a 150 for me!