According to Twitter handle @PacerPreacher the first pacer has been officially retired 142025 due to engine failure. It was due to retire in 6 days anyway. A few others go this week.
Lol. And the 139 a much rougher ride. The 139 makes the 142 seem like a riding along a billiard table.To be fair, Class 139s are quite good for that, too!
We all have differing opinions and I can quite see how "Pacers" are the subject of so much derision. However, from my perspective, there are far bigger issues at play than the number of wheels/axles (nowadays, as most track is CWR and rides well enough). The interior ambience of 150s (and the various EMUs made to the same basic body pattern) is the worst out there. And the utterly ludicrous noise levels on 150, 153, 155, 156 probably exceed industrial safety rules i.e. would be illegal in a working environment - especially if it's hot and the windows are open. I would far rather ride on a Pacer train - as long as the seats are suitably spaced (which they mostly aren't) than on a 150 with them crammed in (which they are).
It’s a widely accepted view on this forum that they saved precisely nothing.
They weren’t even particularly cheap to build when you take into account the new engines and gearboxes they received.
I prefer a 150 to a 156. I've never been able to take to the 156s. They take ages to load and unload, which isnt too bad on faster services, but no good on suburban trains. I suppose itll be a mix of 150s and 156s to replace the Pacers.Spot on. The claustrophobic nature of the 150s and the engine noise levels has always caused me a lot of stress and anxiety when travelling on them, especially on a hot day. The 156s are the best of the bunch that you mentioned, although the narrow doors extend boarding times.
As 150/1s will be mostly taking over Pacer duties in my locality, I think that I will only be travelling by train when absolutely essential once the 142s have gone.
The Merseyrail ones are really dreadful to travel on. The seat backs seem to be at right angles to the seat cushion. Why ever would someone choose such a seat. I prefer the bus type seats.
Spot on. The claustrophobic nature of the 150s and the engine noise levels has always caused me a lot of stress and anxiety when travelling on them, especially on a hot day. The 156s are the best of the bunch that you mentioned, although the narrow doors extend boarding times.
As 150/1s will be mostly taking over Pacer duties in my locality, I think that I will only be travelling by train when absolutely essential once the 142s have gone.
It would not surprise me if, when "they" finally announce the departure of the last Pacer, customers start writing to the press or the TOC or commenting on forums, not understanding why we still have these awful "old" trains (with new seats, maybe). "I thought they had all gone..........."
To be fair, I think the pacers are so iconic that the majority of the travelling public will be able to tell them apart!
Especially commuters who will notice the different trains on their day to day commute.
This. Not keen on Desiro City stock at allGive me a pacer over an 700 any day of the week!
Sheffield or Manchester should do you.How far up from the West Midlands do I need to go to ride one of these? Now the 2 ex-Coventry local 153s are doing my Solihull commute they've lost their novelty value so I need something new. Do they smell as foul inside as the dog boxes? What about noise? 153's have excellent heating so that will be something to look forward to on a pacer (is it as bad as most buses???).
This is often said, but I'm not sure how true it is. Closures would have been politically unacceptable even in the 1980s, with the alternative to Pacers being life-extention work on the 1950s DMUs they replaced.
They brought costs down, so may have helped with service improvements and reopenings in PTE areas, but I'm not convinced they actually saved any routes from closure.
Those of us who experienced the introduction of 143s in the North East would take a different view. They were rubbish from Day 1, failing for all sorts of reasons. Not only did we get to enjoy loco hauled Mark 1s but a random selection of first generation DMUs had to be drafted in to make up for the lack of working bendy-buses.The DMUs which survived to be replaced by Pacers had already been refurbished / life-extended, those that weren't were mainly condemned due to asbestots. Its doubtful whether another life-extension would have been feasible.
But, there's a lot of forgetfulness in this thread. The reality is that by the time the Pacers were introduced the remaining classic DMU fleet were on their last legs. Clapped out suspension, engines which regularly failed and spares that were hard to come by. It wasn't unusual to ride on a set which had a banging engine due to unrepaired head gasket or exhaust manifold leaks. Even more common for some of the engines simply not to run........The upholstery was collapsed - horsehair cushions have a finite life expectation, while the combined efforts of years of cleaners failing to clean had rendered them internally filthy.
The Pacers when introduced were clean, had engines which worked, lights which worked, seats which didn't collapse or leave you covered in diesel fumes, powered doors, were better riding than the classic DMUs, and didn't break down - or at least not until the problems with the SC gearboxes emerged.
In short they were a heck of an improvement on what had gone before.
The problems with the Pacers now boil down to the same problem as with the DMU fleet they replaced: they were kept in service for far too long after they became life expired, in both cases by around 50% longer than the intended service life
The DMUs which survived to be replaced by Pacers had already been refurbished / life-extended, those that weren't were mainly condemned due to asbestots. Its doubtful whether another life-extension would have been feasible.
But, there's a lot of forgetfulness in this thread. The reality is that by the time the Pacers were introduced the remaining classic DMU fleet were on their last legs. Clapped out suspension, engines which regularly failed and spares that were hard to come by. It wasn't unusual to ride on a set which had a banging engine due to unrepaired head gasket or exhaust manifold leaks. Even more common for some of the engines simply not to run........The upholstery was collapsed - horsehair cushions have a finite life expectation, while the combined efforts of years of cleaners failing to clean had rendered them internally filthy.
The Pacers when introduced were clean, had engines which worked, lights which worked, seats which didn't collapse or leave you covered in diesel fumes, powered doors, were better riding than the classic DMUs, and didn't break down - or at least not until the problems with the SC gearboxes emerged.
In short they were a heck of an improvement on what had gone before.
The problems with the Pacers now boil down to the same problem as with the DMU fleet they replaced: they were kept in service for far too long after they became life expired, in both cases by around 50% longer than the intended service life