|
|
|
gaf71
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: June 16, 2009, 14:46:44 » |
|
rumour has it, that we will be waving a 'fond' farewell to the pacers in the not too distant future.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
eightf48544
|
|
« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2009, 14:58:39 » |
|
rumour has it, that we will be waving a 'fond' farewell to the pacers in the not too distant future.
What is the not too distant future? What will replace them? There still won't be enough units to go round even with some new 172s arrivng in the not too distant future. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 16, 2009, 16:56:32 by eightf48544 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
cereal_basher
|
|
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2009, 15:10:14 » |
|
I heard that to but it doesn't add up as until London Midland release there 150s we won't have anything to replace them, and the release of the 150s won't happen in time for the proposed withdrawal of them down here.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
paul7575
|
|
« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2009, 15:32:15 » |
|
Neither the original rolling stock plan or its later update mention early scrapping of Pacers, even if they move on from the FGW▸ area. That is planned for a future build of new generation DMUs▸ or even tram trains. All the currently planned new trains (sorry 202 DMU vehicles - yuk), and the resulting reallocation of 150s etc are to increase capacity.
Paul
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
cereal_basher
|
|
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2009, 15:56:43 » |
|
I meant the withdrawal down here, they will be put to use up north again afterwards. The LM▸ 150s are to replace them down here.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01
|
|
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2009, 16:29:41 » |
|
you know i cant help but think that if there were only 10 in service in the whole country they would have been withdrawn, the reason i would like to see the report is that the rumour going round is that the unit in question derailed because the engine dropped off... i know the report recomended withdrawl and replacing with sprinters but if they were withdrawn fgw and northen would be screwed!! there are already questions about there crashworthyness what would happen if they were withdrawn and realistically is the only reason they have not been withdrawn the fact that there is nothing to fill in?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
eightf48544
|
|
« Reply #8 on: June 16, 2009, 17:20:23 » |
|
It's surprisng there wasn't a reccomendation to withdraw them after South Winsford crash 1999.
87 versus a 14X, the 87 shoved the both bodies clean off their unframes.
Lovley quote from report "Bodies are secured to the underframe by "wire straps""
Also "it was fortunate there were no passengers aboard" the 142.
Atkins did a crash worhtiness report will see if I can find it, still looking on HMRI▸ site.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01
|
|
« Reply #9 on: June 16, 2009, 17:30:18 » |
|
hehe just read this made me smile... dont you love the media Northern Rail is understood to use 200 of the 30-year-old class 142 carriages.
96 2 car units built 2 withdrawn fgw has some as does atw good maths there
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
The Grecian
|
|
« Reply #10 on: June 16, 2009, 19:41:37 » |
|
Pacers aren't really suited for jointed track, as you get on most branch lines in the south west, unless you like sitting on a moving seesaw. Unfortunately they aren't that well suited for mainline work either from a safety point of view as if they were involved in a collision with a mainline service, they're not terribly robust... However, on the plus side they are cheap and that's the key factor for the DFT▸ / ATOCs» .  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
RailCornwall
|
|
« Reply #11 on: June 16, 2009, 19:56:09 » |
|
Can someone confirm that the reopening of Falmouth Docks station was in part related to Pacers. A story I heard was that the Pacer Unit couldn't turn around at Falmouth Town due to some engineering issue and had to go down to the Docks to do the turnaround. As a result BR▸ decided to re-open Falmouth Docks, only to withdraw them a few weeks later because of other issues operating them on the western branch lines.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
vacman
|
|
« Reply #12 on: June 16, 2009, 21:55:04 » |
|
Can someone confirm that the reopening of Falmouth Docks station was in part related to Pacers. A story I heard was that the Pacer Unit couldn't turn around at Falmouth Town due to some engineering issue and had to go down to the Docks to do the turnaround. As a result BR▸ decided to re-open Falmouth Docks, only to withdraw them a few weeks later because of other issues operating them on the western branch lines.
No, it was heritage DMU▸ 's that weren't allowed to turn around at Falmouth town, the docks was re-opened in the late 70's, around 8 years before the first pacer was built, even when the Docks (previously "Falmouth") was closed the trains still had to go down there for the crew to change ends. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
RailCornwall
|
|
« Reply #13 on: June 16, 2009, 23:08:04 » |
|
Thanks for the clarification.....
Now on with the Pacer debate ....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
The SprinterMeister
|
|
« Reply #14 on: June 17, 2009, 11:34:40 » |
|
Derailment of 142042 at Olive Mount (11-02-2009) confirmed as rear engine detaching and being run over by the rear wheelset precipitating the derailment. Engine apparently suffered a broken crankshaft and locked up with enough of a jolt to dislodge it from the mounting. Some sort of lubrication issue apparently. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: June 17, 2009, 11:41:22 by The SprinterMeister »
|
Logged
|
Trundling gently round the SW
|
|
|
|
