The future for DMU's

[tbtc]

I know that various projects are being considered. Like I said I think it has got to the point where fuel costs are getting that high that TOC's want the wires up if they can.

Ideally they would wire more. But we're already committing to about the most we could wire over the rest of this decade.

You started this thread suggesting that loco hauled was the future to replace DMUs though?

 

[Dave1987]

Ideally they would wire more. But we're already committing to about the most we could wire over the rest of this decade.

You started this thread suggesting that loco hauled was the future to replace DMUs though?

Yes because at the moment while the wires are not up on the Birmingham - Banbury - London line it is more efficient with a loco and coaches for the length of trains that the Birmingham - London services need to be. I think it was something like 5 or more coaches and a loco is more efficient than a dmu. It was in RAIL magazine recently. And emission legislation means new dmu's just aren't viable options at the moment

 

[The Ham]

And lose out on those sweet delivery charges? Dont hold your breath mate.

They could still charge a delivery fee (Amazon Locker will), as it would just mean that people who are work all day don't have to go to the depot to get their parcel, they just pick it up at the station on the way past. It does however mean that there only needs to be a few big deliveries rather than lots of small one all over the place meaning that the delivery companies can pass on (some of) the cost savings.

 

[Jonny]

Yeah - we're not electrifying the right kind of routes to replace Pacers - apart from the Valley Lines most of the electrification happening in CP5 is going to replace HSTs/ Voyagers/ Meridians/ 185s - none of which are exactly suitable replacements on 75mph stopping services. 165/166s are going to be freed up in reasonable number, but have restricted route availability due to their size, so probably won't get far from the GWML.

Still, the class 165-166s are to GWR loading gauge, so at least they can be cascaded around the former GWR area with relatively little work needed, and the existing units moved on from there.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The only reason DVTs are suggested is because they're what we have- there's no reason that (in the unlikely event that new build loco hauled happens in this country) a new build driving trailer couldn't be a passenger carrying one instead of a van. The mark 3/mark4 DVTs were the result of an over-reaction to the Polmont disaster. There's plenty of 100mph stock with passenger carrying driving trailers.

East Coast use the DVT extensively for luggage, bikes and non-perishable catering supplies- though as far as I'm aware the crew cannot access the van other than at stations.

The 'over-reaction' continues into the backward-facing seating in 2/3 of the leading coach on voyagers, and IIRC other similar units as well.

PS there is a corridor connection to the DVT on East Coast services.

 

[jopsuk]

There is a corridor connector to the DVT, and there's even a guard's office there (that i've been into when I had a matter that I needed help with). But the door from the office or vestibule (I can't remeber which it is) to the main "van" area is, as far as i can remember, locked (with an emergency release).

 

[O L Leigh]

That A DVT is an inefficient way of providing a driving position at the trailer end of a push-pull unit.

Not at the length of formation Chiltern are running. In fact, there is still plenty of space at Marylebone to allow them to add extra coaches if they wished. The addition of power-operated doors also means they can de-selected coaches if the train ever calls at a station with a short platform.

Yes he has said that they will prob be the last new dmu's introduced as they meet the emissions rules but are awful on fuel economy.

See my post on the first page of this thread.

The emissions regulations do not automatically mean that fuel economy will be poor. It simply means that the existing selection of powerplants are not sufficiently clean-burning to meet regulations on their own. Likewise, this does not sound the death-knell for the DMU. There are options still on the table for either a new generation of diesel powerplant.

Are there any emission compliant locomotives out there yet. I know MTU's 4000V version that does comply won't fit in UK stock?

So perhaps it's the end for diesel locomotives too...?

O L Leigh

 

[Dave1987]

I see your point we will have to see wont we. But if that was the case why would chiltern pump so much money into loco hauled sets?

 

[Cherry_Picker]

There is a corridor connector to the DVT, and there's even a guard's office there (that i've been into when I had a matter that I needed help with). But the door from the office or vestibule (I can't remeber which it is) to the main "van" area is, as far as i can remember, locked (with an emergency release).

I dont know about Mk4 DVT's, but that door is simply locked with a key that both the guard and driver are in possession of on a Mk3 DVT.

 

[jopsuk]

I'll see if I can get a better look after Christmas; I'll be travelling south on EC on electrics with a bike

 

[Eagle]

I see your point we will have to see wont we. But if that was the case why would chiltern pump so much money into loco hauled sets?

Simply because it's cheaper than buying brand new DMUs. The locos and carriages were literally lying around spare.

 

[Goatboy]

Plus from a passenger comfort perspective, loco+stock > DMU. No engine noise in the cabin, no vibrations through the cabin from the engine beneath. I guess this sort of thing isn't really considered to be important when choosing stock these days but unpowered (or electric) coaches are certainly preferable to DMU's for journeys of any length.

 

[tbtc]

Yes because at the moment while the wires are not up on the Birmingham - Banbury - London line it is more efficient with a loco and coaches for the length of trains that the Birmingham - London services need to be. I think it was something like 5 or more coaches and a loco is more efficient than a dmu. It was in RAIL magazine recently. And emission legislation means new dmu's just aren't viable options at the moment

The biggest factor for Chiltern was the fact that they had spare locos/ coaches sat around - this shouldn't be seen as any evidence that locos/ coaches are more efficient/ cheaper/ better though.

If we are talking about a TOC who order a new build of locos and coaches compared to a new build of DMUs then that would be significant. Otherwise, people are likely to read far too much into this.

 

[jopsuk]

I do wonder if they also got a particularly good deal for the project to fit power doors to demostrate the feasibility of the conversion?

 

[tbtc]

Plus from a passenger comfort perspective, loco+stock > DMU. No engine noise in the cabin, no vibrations through the cabin from the engine beneath. I guess this sort of thing isn't really considered to be important when choosing stock these days but unpowered (or electric) coaches are certainly preferable to DMU's for journeys of any length.

I wonder how many passengers really notice this - some enthusiasts seem very sensitive to it but I'm not sure about ordinary passengers.

 

[Eagle]

The biggest factor for Chiltern was the fact that they had spare locos/ coaches sat around...

Which, it must be pointed out, is a fairly unusual occurrence (before anyone says why don't other TOCs do this more often). There's not actually that much serviceable coaching stock that's in a useable condition that isn't already being used.

 

[tbtc]

Which, it must be pointed out, is a fairly unusual occurrence (before anyone says why don't other TOCs do this more often). There's not actually that much serviceable coaching stock that's in a useable condition that isn't already being used.

True.

 

[junglejames]

I wonder how many passengers really notice this - some enthusiasts seem very sensitive to it but I'm not sure about ordinary passengers.

Wasnt it Mr Shooter himself that claimed this is what passengers had said they wanted?

Anyway, you go round making out as if enthusiasts arent ordinary passengers. Of course we are. We are everyday ordinary people, with ears just like everybody else. Its a bit harsh to go round claiming everybody except enthusiats are deaf. Of course they arent. Whether they care or not is open to question, as i dont think the question is really ever put to anybody. But whether they notice? Of course they do.

 

[Goatboy]

I wonder how many passengers really notice this - some enthusiasts seem very sensitive to it but I'm not sure about ordinary passengers.

Of course they notice it. It's not a rail enthusiast thing (Infact is an enthusiast not likely to enjoy 'thrash' at every station). It's blatantly obvious to everyone on the train that the coach is a) noisy and b) vibrates under engine load and idling at stations.

What you mean is 'do passengers care about this'. I suspect nobody has ever asked them, and I also suspect that not many won't travel as a result of it.

Does this mean its not important? Depends whether passenger comfort is something that matters only in terms of potential revenue generation or not.

 

[tbtc]

Wasnt it Mr Shooter himself that claimed this is what passengers had said they wanted?

Anyway, you go round making out as if enthusiasts arent ordinary passengers. Of course we are. We are everyday ordinary people, with ears just like everybody else. Its a bit harsh to go round claiming everybody except enthusiats are deaf. Of course they arent. Whether they care or not is open to question, as i dont think the question is really ever put to anybody. But whether they notice? Of course they do.

I'd bet that most passengers couldn't tell you whether a train was electric or diesel - and I doubt that the noise of a DMU would make any difference to most people's journeys.

If you honestly believe that enthusiasts are representative of ordinary passengers then fair enough though.

Of course they notice it. It's not a rail enthusiast thing (Infact is an enthusiast not likely to enjoy 'thrash' at every station). It's blatantly obvious to everyone on the train that the coach is a) noisy and b) vibrates under engine load and idling at stations.

What you mean is 'do passengers care about this'. I suspect nobody has ever asked them, and I also suspect that not many won't travel as a result of it.

Does this mean its not important? Depends whether passenger comfort is something that matters only in terms of potential revenue generation or not.

Ah, "thrash" - the noisy noise that enthusiasts love, yet apparently the presence of an underfloor engine is far too loud for a lot of them.

 

[sprinterguy]

I think that the govt/rail industry has finally figured out that the cost of diesel is going to make diesel powered traction very expensive to operate so I wouldn't be surprised to see the wires going up more and more quickly in the years to come.

I will be. If anyone else has been watching, there is a trend in the British railway industry where every thirty years a detailed, high level study is undertaken into the benefits of electrification, lots and lots of miles of electrification are proposed and then about a decade later one main line gets electrified. This has already happened in the fifties, when British Railways were defining the direction of their modernisation plan, which resulted in the WCML being electrified within about a decade, and again at the start of the eighties, which was followed by the electrification of the ECML towards the end of the decade. And now we have a huge set of electrification proposals from Network Rail, that have not all been fully signed off and a general election lies ahead before the less certain schemes can begin to be implemented. I wouldn't be at all surprised if we see the GWML electrified as promised, and then have to wait another thirty years to see the MML get wires.

Suburban and commuter schemes seem to get around this rule quite happily however, and it is those sorts of schemes that will be required to really reduce our dependence on DMUs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The locos and carriages were literally lying around spare.

I don't recall that they were. I seem to remember that Chiltern were considering implementing loco hauled services before the Wrexham & Shropshire operation was pulled. Which is why there was a Chiltern blue & white liveried DVT running around in Wrexham & Shropshire trainsets for some time before W&S services were withdrawn. If the Wrexham & Shropshire trainsets were spare following the demise of that operation then it wasn't for very long before they were thrown into driver training and route learning for Chiltern.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In fact, there is still plenty of space at Marylebone to allow them to add extra coaches if they wished. The addition of power-operated doors also means they can de-selected coaches if the train ever calls at a station with a short platform.

There's not much space left at Birmingham Moor Street to extend the trains any further, and you can't just de-select carriages there as a longer formation would be beyond the signal and potentially obstructing the neighbouring bay platform. If Chiltern services require additional capacity above the six carriages that are presently provided by the Silver sets then seven or eight carriage DMU formations would be a better idea and would fit within the length of the platform.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

DB own Chiltern so any leasing cost is staying in the business

Yes but DB Schenker and DB's British TOCs are still all separate subsidiary companies of DB that have their own books to keep. There will still be leasing charges being paid between the likes of DB Schenker and Chiltern for the hire of locomotives, and I have never seen it proved that DB are providing "mates rates" to their TOCs for these charges either. It is only at the highest level that costs are being kept "in the family".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Are there any emission compliant locomotives out there yet. I know MTU's 4000V version that does comply won't fit in UK stock?

Are the Vossloh Eurolights (Class 68s) non-compliant already, before they have even been built?

 

[Cherry_Picker]

The through platforms at Moor Street are plenty long enough, they are huge. You can fit almost anything on there. That doesn't mean Chiltern will run longer rakes (I cant see it myself) but both Moor Street and Snow Hill can accommodate them.

As for the Mk3 stuff? Ask yourself who bought all those ones Virgin got rid of when Penolinos and Voyagers were coming into service.

 

[Dave1987]

I'm fairly sure the class 70 is compliant

 

[sprinterguy]

The through platforms at Moor Street are plenty long enough, they are huge. You can fit almost anything on there.

The bay platforms at Moor Street that are regularly used by the Chiltern loco-hauled sets are no good for any longer trains though. Thinking about where the 4-car boards for the 172s are on the UP through platform at Moor Street, I can envisage that the full platform face might, just barely, accommodate a 9-car formation. The 7-car Clubman services that I've boarded there have seemed to fill up a good proportion of the available space. Mind you, you will of course know the route far better than me, so perhaps I am wrong. I'll have to have a peruse of the Quail in the office tomorrow for platform lengths.

 

[AndyLandy]

I'd bet that most passengers couldn't tell you whether a train was electric or diesel - and I doubt that the noise of a DMU would make any difference to most people's journeys.

If you honestly believe that enthusiasts are representative of ordinary passengers then fair enough though.

Quite. My own experiences say they are not. Many of my friends here in Southampton are happy with the Voyagers. Indeed, I know people who will use them in preference to SWT's 444s along the BSK-BMH corridor. The only complaint you ever hear raised is when they're overcrowded. It's only when you get to those who are rail enthusiasts that you start to encounter any other objections to Voyagers.

most of the electrification happening in CP5 is going to replace HSTs/ Voyagers/ Meridians/ 185s - none of which are exactly suitable replacements on 75mph stopping services. 165/166s are going to be freed up in reasonable number, but have restricted route availability due to their size, so probably won't get far from the GWML.

I do wonder what we're going to do with all these surplus Intercity DMUs once all these wires go up. As you say, they aren't really suitable for displacing things like Pacers.

And, no, we're not going to see loco hauled services replacing Pacers...

I think we're far more likely to see some ingenious solution to make Pacers DDA compliant than we are to see a return to LHCS.

Ideally, we'd be looking at procuring some kind of "second generation Pacer", a cheap and cheerful 75mph DMU that's DDA compliant. You could probably even do a 2+2 seating arrangement in one and replace 153s with it, too.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

I'd bet that most passengers couldn't tell you whether a train was electric or diesel - and I doubt that the noise of a DMU would make any difference to most people's journeys.

Has anyone ever done a survey to ascertain people's views on the subject?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Are the Vossloh Eurolights (Class 68s) non-compliant already, before they have even been built?

Better ask the nice Roger Waller to come up with one of his external combustion locomotives. They meet emission standards easily.

 

[starrymarkb]

Are the Vossloh Eurolights (Class 68s) non-compliant already, before they have even been built?

If they are it doesn't make a difference. They haven't been built yet. I was asking if compliant stock was out there now...

 

[Goatboy]

I'd bet that most passengers couldn't tell you whether a train was electric or diesel - and I doubt that the noise of a DMU would make any difference to most people's journeys.

I don't think you give the average passenger enough credit. There are many who won't give a stuff provided the train gets them there (So quite how we expect those people to be bothered enough about mass electirification to happily pay the fare hikes it will result in but thats another story) but there are also many who value a more quiet environment in which to travel.

Cabin noise on airliners for example is a big selling point - Boeing are keen to stress how much quieter the cabin of the newest stuff is, for example. Passengers DO care about ambient noise.

Reducing ambient noise, either by using eletric multiple units or hauled stock, is a plus point for passenger comfort. Passenger comfort should be important, especially on long distance services. Less important on commuter trains, I agree (Though most of these are electric anyway, so no such noise issues).

 

[tbtc]

quite how we expect those people to be bothered enough about mass electirification to happily pay the fare hikes it will result in

You do know that MML electrification is cheaper than *not* electrifying the route?

Electrification is about a lot more than engine noise - it's about longer trains/ newer trains (since DMUs are hard to justify these days).

 

[43074]

DMUs are going to be increasingly more difficult to justify in the future with such a wide range of options avaliable: TramTrain is a possibility, 3rd rail electrification and ex-LU stock to replace DMUs on rural routes, re-engineering what we already have, more electrification (e.g Paisley)... The options are endless.
In some circumstances DMUs will be needed, for example the Cumbrian Coast or the Heart of Wales line, for example, I cannot see being electrified in the future, but the DMU as I see it has a (relatively) limited future considering the options avaliable - certainly we can expect to see far fewer DMUs operating, but the immediate priority in the DMU world currently is to replace the dreaded pacer.

 

[D365]

Top-contact third rail is avoided unless a justifiable extension of an existing system... Would have been interesting to see how Harrogate would have worked out with D Stock converted to bottom-contact (as seen on DLR), but that would need the bi-mode IEP to continue InterCity service..

And unfortunatly, we WILL need further new DMUs if we want to replace Pacers by 2020, even with the current rate of electrification - most of the diesels released are InterCity type! (HSTs, Voyagers/Meridians thanks to the loss of Thor, several Adelantes)