Atomic Systems

jackandyclare1 wrote:And I disagree with anyone who doesn't like them because of their characteristics, wants to ban them or wants to scrap them.

You get extremists everywhere, but its not these people running the trains. Frankly, without Pacers we wouldnt have enough trains to run the entire network. Of course some people dont like them because they are uncomfy, or because its just a frieght bogie with an engine and shell, but its better than walking 20 miles for me, and TBHO they are quite roomey inside compared to other trains...

You are fully entitled to your opinion about Pacers, its just there are many people here to prefer to use, as they refer to them, "Real Trains", which consist of anything but Pacers and everything from EMUs, DMUs to Diesel and Steam locos. But last time I checked a Pacer was a "Real Train" and it even runs scheduled services, so that consists of real to me.

jackandyclare1 wrote:The Pacer is a good train. I dont think I need to "grow out" of liking it, there's nothing wrong with them. All my mates like them, loads of other people like them and I like them aswell. Pacers shouldn't be taken the mick out of this much when they're just trains. And I disagree with anyone who doesn't like them because of their characteristics, wants to ban them or wants to scrap them. And it's not like the pacers are old because early sprinters, 150/1's and 150/2's were introduced before the pacers. You might say that 158's have evolved from 150's but they still have the same basic engine, size, shape and seating arrangement as each other.

158's and 150's don't share that much really.
150's are of steel construction, have 285 bhp engines, 20m carriage length with square sides derived from the mk 3 coaches they were based on and direct action shoe brakes.

158's are of monocoque aluminium construction, have 350 - 400 bhp engines, 23m carriage length with tapered sides, and inboard disc brakes.

Just about the only thing that 150s and 158s have in common is that both are DMUs build during the BR era...

The pacers may bounce about alot but I think that the seats are alot more comfortable than a lot of the new stuff.

Glenn

arabiandisco wrote:Just about the only thing that 150s and 158s have in common is that both are DMUs build during the BR era...

And they are both part of the "Sprinter" family

But they were even built by different companies, 150s by Metro-Cammell and 158s by BREL.

Sitting in a 156 coming back from Manchester Victoria to Werneth last saturday was like sitting on a big piece of coal for 15 minutes. Sitting on a 142 on the way down to Manchester Victoria to Werneth last saturday was like sitting on a seat with a cushion. 142's have had a massive refurbishment and you can't say they don't look the part now

jackandyclare1 wrote:142's have had a massive refurbishment and you can't say they don't look the part now

You can't polish a turd.

I was firing and driving Planet at MoSI today and it rode better than a 142 despite being designed in 1830.

davidaward wrote:

jackandyclare1 wrote:142's have had a massive refurbishment and you can't say they don't look the part now

You can't polish a turd.

I was firing and driving Planet at MoSI today and it rode better than a 142 despite being designed in 1830.

I doubt it, since the Pacer has better wheels designed for the line. If you got a Pacer and placed it down the same line of track the comfort would be AT LEAST the same, but it would run a hell of a lot faster than the 20mph of the 1830s.

The Planet might be good, but it cant even run on proper rails so it doesnt count

Actually Alex, I have spoken to one of the people who designed the Pacer unit suspension and according to him the main problem is that they were designed for use on Continuously Welded Rail (CWR). When they were rolled out on branchlines, where fishplates were still used to join lengths of rail together, they suffered from poor ride.

I would say that the leaf spring suspension on the Planet is comparable with the coil spring units on a Pacer - don't forget that the Pacers are not designed for high speed running anyway and that the long single axle wheelbase, whilst cheap, is still not an optimal design for passenger use.

Regards,

Dan

BR7MT wrote:Actually Alex, I have spoken to one of the people who designed the Pacer unit suspension and according to him the main problem is that they were designed for use on Continuously Welded Rail (CWR). When they were rolled out on branchlines, where fishplates were still used to join lengths of rail together, they suffered from poor ride.

I would say that the leaf spring suspension on the Planet is comparable with the coil spring units on a Pacer - don't forget that the Pacers are not designed for high speed running anyway and that the long single axle wheelbase, whilst cheap, is still not an optimal design for passenger use.

Regards,

Dan

Completely agree, the Pacer was designed for either heavy suburban routes or out-of-the-way rural routes using straight tracks.
Thats why they were dumped from down south up here.....

MoonKid47 wrote:Thats why they were dumped from down south up here.....

Yet some have ended back down south for FGW