Class 142 Pacers in service on Devon branch lines, 2007 to 2011 - merged topic

[whole diary]

[Timmer]

Don^t expect any sudden increase in reliability or comfort from the transfer to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) as Julian Crow stated quite clearly that ^they would tidy them up a bit^ but that^s all, as they only have them for two years.

Thats what you've been told. Its been mentioned somewhere that if Northern are given West Midlands 150/1s which Alison sad would be coming to the West, then FGW could be stuck with the 142s for the rest of the franchise. Another gift for FGW management to sort out from Dft. I guess they are trying to force FGW to invest in new rolling stock by parring them off with 142s as there is no other spare stock lying around that FGW could take on.

[grahame]

Don^t expect any sudden increase in reliability or comfort from the transfer to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) as Julian Crow stated quite clearly that ^they would tidy them up a bit^ but that^s all, as they only have them for two years.

That is DEVASTATING news for our TransWilts campaign, where we have been told "no trains now, no trains next year, but you may be able to have some 142 from December 2008 when they're no longer needed as cover for the units being refurbished.

FGW should start telling all their customers the same fibs stories ... don't they realise we talk to each other? 

I will crosspost this for follow ups to "TransWilts"

[devon_metro]

Oh lovely. Everywhere else gets nice new train whilst us in Devon on railways that aren't exactly quiet get the total crap!

Arggg

They better not have any fare rises! These trains should be on lines that don't need decent stock.ie Severn Beach (short), Melksham (better than no train), Commuter stuff (better than no train) and branches in Cornwall such as Newquay that aren't exactly booming in Winter months. I may have to complain to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) when i have a dodgy journey on one of these scrap heaps. Even  153 beats this as they have more doors per 2 car train! (4v3)

[vacman]

Oh lovely. Everywhere else gets nice new train whilst us in Devon on railways that aren't exactly quiet get the total crap!

Arggg

They better not have any fare rises! These trains should be on lines that don't need decent stock.ie Severn Beach (short), Melksham (better than no train), Commuter stuff (better than no train) and branches in Cornwall such as Newquay that aren't exactly booming in Winter months. I may have to complain to FGW^▸ (First Great Western) when i have a dodgy journey on one of these scrap heaps. Even  153 beats this as they have more doors per 2 car train! (4v3)

Exmouth's not exactly a long branch line!

[intercity125]

I cant see what all the fuss is about these units.

There brilliant units. Who cares if they bounce all over the place, just be thankful a train shows up. I personally cant wait to see these units back on the local lines in devon/cornwall etc...

I'll definitely be out doing them. FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have actualy got something right.

[vacman]

I cant see what all the fuss is about these units.

There brilliant units. Who cares if they bounce all over the place, just be thankful a train shows up. I personally cant wait to see these units back on the local lines in devon/cornwall etc...

I'll definitely be out doing them. FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have actualy got something right.

Have you ever travelled on a 142? I agree they're better than nothing though! but they're bloody awful contraptions!

[Timmer]

I cant see what all the fuss is about these units.

There brilliant units. Who cares if they bounce all over the place, just be thankful a train shows up. I personally cant wait to see these units back on the local lines in devon/cornwall etc...

I'll definitely be out doing them. FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have actualy got something right.

I wouldnt shout too loudly about your affection for 142s if I were you as you will find yourself very much in the minority with passengers in Devon who arent very pleased to see them back.

FGW cant take the credit for bringing them down to the West Country as they were forced on them by Dft. FGW didnt want them knowing how unpopular 142s/143s are with the travelling public along their reliabilty record which is poor which will only make FGW even more unpopular than they already are when they breakdown, cause delays and cancellations to services.

Ask yourself the question if they are that good, why would Northern want shot of them bearing in mind how cheap they are to lease as apposed to hiring 158s that FGW lose come December TT change?

PS welcome to the coffee shop 

[Jim]

I cant see what all the fuss is about these units.

There brilliant units. Who cares if they bounce all over the place, just be thankful a train shows up. I personally cant wait to see these units back on the local lines in devon/cornwall etc...

I'll definitely be out doing them. FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have actualy got something right.

Have you ever travelled on a 142? I agree they're better than nothing though! but they're bloody awful contraptions!

Thats before the traincrew even mention working them on here!

[Shazz]

i have to say, but whats wrong with them anyway? The valley lines round here pretty much rely on them and 143's, and i'm yet to ever go on one that has had a problem/reliability issue. After using them daily for the past 2 years

[Leyland Railbus fan]

What is the matter with you people .

A 142 / 143 pacer unit is a damn sight better than some of the tat that FGW^▸ (First Great Western) class as their trains. So the pacers dont have tables at seats. So the pacers dont have air conditioning. So the pacers dont have all that irritating automatic waffle passed off as the PA^▸ (Public Address) and they dont have the "disabled" toilet facility. People have lost touch with reality here. If its a train that can be used then it should be used. So what if the train has very lively suspension. All the more for an enjoyable journey i should think. (Yes i have travelled on these units and yes i do like them).

The pacer was very cheap to build and is i should imagine very easy to maintain and operate.  So what if they are very basic internally. Who wants to travel with all the extras you get with other train types. I certainly dont. They were built to perform a very basic simple function, to get people from A to B and they do this day in, day out.

May they last down there for a few more years yet .

[grahame]

i have to say, but whats wrong with them anyway? The valley lines round here pretty much rely on them and 143's, and i'm yet to ever go on one that has had a problem/reliability issue. After using them daily for the past 2 years

Andrew Griffiths of FGW^▸ (First Great Western) was quoting some reliability figures for trains last night at the Westbury meeting and I made some notes.  These are for FGW's class 143 which are similar

October 2006 - one failure in service every 3232 miles run
September 2007 - one failure every 4606 miles run
Target - one failure every 6000 miles or better

They are already achieving this target for other units (150 / 153 / 158) although it was much lower when they took over.

Top notch / best achieved figures are around one failure every 10000 miles run  but it's doubtful if that is practical with 20 year old stock of the type we have in these parts.

[intercity125]

Yes, i have travelled on these units. I have done many miles on them.

I am a regular user of them on the valley lines.

And i agree with "shazz", i have never once had, a or seen a failed 142/143/144.

As stated elsewhere on this page, we dont all care about tables, wi-fi, cripple crappers, boring announcements. We just want to get from A-B. Long live the railbus and i hope they all get preserved in about 15 years.

[Lee]

And i agree with "shazz", i have never once had, a or seen a failed 142/143/144.

There was an oil leak on the Class 143 0805 Bristol Temple Meads - Avonmouth service this morning. I also wonder whether you might be about to get deluged with tales of Pacer breakdowns past........

[vacman]

They are better than nowt but why should we loose decent 158's only to have them replaced by a bus with no tyres (or suspension!)?? they're not that cheap in the long run because they nacker up the track nearly 10 times quicker than a bogied vehicle!

[grahame]

And i agree with "shazz", i have never once had, a or seen a failed 142/143/144.

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) were talking last night of raising "failed in service" rates from once ever 3232 miles a year ago to once every 6000 miles, and telling us they're halfway there.   By "failed in service" they mean a fault that causes a delay of five minutes or more, so you may have seen a failure and thought (or been told) it was cows on the line.

A few quick sums ... if a unit does 320 miles a day, which is not very much, it has been failing once every 10 days.