Loco haul v MU

[43034 The Black Horse]

there hasnt been any new builds (Coaching stock wise) but we are not short of loco haulage

It's nothing compared to what we used to have. It may seem alot but it is minute in comparison. Plus there's the like of variety (Doesn't bother me, I don't mind 67s).......

 

[MCR247]

there hasnt been any new builds (Coaching stock wise) but we are not short of loco haulage

FSR Sleeper- 90+67
FSR-67
WSMR-67
FGW-67
VT Relef-90
NXEA-90
NXEC-91
FGW Sleeper-57
ATW WAG-57
VT Drags-57
NXEA Drags-47

and ive read about the following

FGW are having another one
Chiltern-67
Glasgow Trains-67

and if you count HST`s (as the 43 IS a loco) then EMT,NXEC,XC,FGW,GC

Thats alot of locos in regular service!

I dont see what that has to do with it but:

FSR Sleeper: Yes, thats the only way of doing it
NXEA: Looking for a AC 444 type train
FGW: Shortage of DMUs
VT Relief: Shortage of pendolinos
WSMR: open access. Grad what they can get. Would have MUs if poss.
Chiltern: Shortage of DMUs
FSR: Shortage of DMUs
Sleepers: What else could they use?
NXEC: Getting IEP, although that could be argued Loco hauled
ATW WAG: Only because a) ATW dont have spare DMUs b) They need a restaurant c) Not much point in building MUs
Glasgow Trains: See WSMR
VT Drags: Not by choice, anyway, getting rid of most 'cos 221s can haul 390s and other way round

 

[Daimler]

Surely it's obvious that by far the most important reason why multiple units are in favour is cost. A new multiple unit compared to a new loco-hauled train would almost certainly fare less well in terms of passenger ambience, what with noisy underfloor traction motors/diesel engines, fixed formations resulting in lack of versatility in times of high demand, lack of versatility when it comes to different (non electrified, say) routes*, and noiser air-con (the reason units' aircon systems are noiser than coaching stock - even 30 year old Mk3s is that the power units take up the underfloor space which would otherwise be used for aircon, meaning that they are in the carriage roof, and consequently intrude more on the passenger compartment).

But anyway, I digress. Units are cheaper - they are charged less per mile by Network Rail**, they need less staff to operate, they require less extensive infrastructure (for running round), etc. If loco hauled stock were cheaper, I'd expect it to dominate.

*Thogh the French AGC has got round this, I find it extremely unlikely that it will work in the supposed high-speed IEP.

**Even more annoyingly (unless this has recently changed), Network Rail charge more for electric locomotives than for diesels - presumably because they cause 'wear and tear' to the overhead wires. While this makes sense, it also discourages freight operators from investing in electric locomotives!

 

[johnb]

I dont see what that has to do with it but:

FSR Sleeper: Yes, thats the only way of doing it

Are there any railways worldwide that have sleeper MUs? Can't see any obvious reason why that wouldn't work (e.g. 3x4-car units on the Highlander). Either build them like the Bombardier electric/diesel MUs in France, or have DMUs that are electric-loco-hauled London-Edinburgh...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

**Even more annoyingly (unless this has recently changed), Network Rail charge more for electric locomotives than for diesels - presumably because they cause 'wear and tear' to the overhead wires. While this makes sense, it also discourages freight operators from investing in electric locomotives!

That's NR billing for the cost of the electricity (nearly all trains don't have meters installed, so it has to be charged on the basis of track mileage).

 

[Daimler]

Are there any railways worldwide that have sleeper MUs? Can't see any obvious reason why that wouldn't work (e.g. 3x4-car units on the Highlander). Either build them like the Bombardier electric/diesel MUs in France, or have DMUs that are electric-loco-hauled London-Edinburgh...

That'll make for a nice quiet ride while in Scotland! Not to mention London - Penzance...

That's NR billing for the cost of the electricity (nearly all trains don't have meters installed, so it has to be charged on the basis of track mileage).

Aha. I forgot about electricity costs - surely overall an electric locomotive should be cheaper to run though? If not, it would be nice to see the freight companies incentivised with regards to using electric traction, what with the supposed environmental benefits, lower noise levels, etc!

 

[90019]

That'll make for a nice quiet ride while in Scotland! Not to mention London - Penzance...

Not all cars in an MU have to have an engine.

 

[Active_Lad]

Aha. I forgot about electricity costs - surely overall an electric locomotive should be cheaper to run though?

It depends a lot on what you factor into the equation regarding "cost". Diesel traction has to carry its own fuel about which in itself requires more fuel. You also have to carry an engine to convert the fuel into something useful (depending on the type of traction motor used) which makes the whole thing much heavier which wears out the track etc. However, diesel traction doesn't require the infrastructure required to provide the electricity (power station, distribution grid, switchgear, overhead lines etc) although electric locomotives are cheaper to build, weigh less and have less to go wrong (and are often more powerful).

I suspect much of the decision about whether to go diesel or electric has less to do with costs to run rather the capital infrastructure costs to get it going and then keep it going.

 

[MCR247]

Are there any railways worldwide that have sleeper MUs? Can't see any obvious reason why that wouldn't work (e.g. 3x4-car units on the Highlander). Either build them like the Bombardier electric/diesel MUs in France, or have DMUs that are electric-loco-hauled London-Edinburgh...

Well I diddnt think of that, I suppose I was thinking of the noise..

 

[Daimler]

Not all cars in an MU have to have an engine.

True, but for good performance to be maintained over the hilly routes of northern Scotland while maintaining the compact underfloor engines of a multiple unit, we'll need a lot of bar-cars, and hence wasted space, negating one of the principal 'advantages' of these underfloor diesel engines in the first place!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I suspect much of the decision about whether to go diesel or electric has less to do with costs to run rather the capital infrastructure costs to get it going and then keep it going.

I guess so, but it is extremely irritating to see a succession of 66s making their way up the WCML.

In France, actually, the railway press has starting moaning about ECR's 66s and the amount of time they are operating under the wires!

 

[johnb]

That'll make for a nice quiet ride while in Scotland! Not to mention London - Penzance...

Hmm. Good point. OTOH for Scotrail *most* of the actual sleeping time would be under the wires, or at least on bits that aren't very steep.

I forgot about electricity costs - surely overall an electric locomotive should be cheaper to run though? If not, it would be nice to see the freight companies incentivised with regards to using electric traction, what with the supposed environmental benefits, lower noise levels, etc!

AIUI running costs for electrics are quite a bit lower, but freight operators prefer 66s for the UK's not-very-electrified network as they can go anywhere and are cheap as chips to buy.

 

[MCR247]

Good point. OTOH for Scotrail *most* of the actual sleeping time would be under the wires, or at least on bits that aren't very steep.

so you wouldnt be sleeping at 5am? On a sleeper that left at 2115?

And with a MU on the sleeper, would you need multiple departures?

 

[monkey]

^^well you can't uncouple an mu, so yeah you would. I think for sleepers the loco is the most common model around the world, as its simpler and more versatile. means you can leave a set, at a staion (done on one of the american sleepers) so people can wake up later, getting full nights rest, while the rest of the train continues on dropping off sets along the way.

tbh I still think loco's on the whole are better - more comfortable, and last longer. for long distance most mu's these days just feel plastic, not like they're built to last compared to the loco hauls they displaced. also loco's are more common around the world, there must be reason for that...

 

[johnb]

so you wouldnt be sleeping at 5am? On a sleeper that left at 2115?

That's why I said "most".

And with a MU on the sleeper, would you need multiple departures?

No - see Southern's MU operations. So you've got 3 MUs making up the Highlander ex-Euston, which get uncoupled from each other at Edinburgh.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

^^well you can't uncouple an mu, so yeah you would. I think for sleepers the loco is the most common model around the world, as its simpler and more versatile. means you can leave a set, at a staion (done on one of the american sleepers) so people can wake up later, getting full nights rest, while the rest of the train continues on dropping off sets along the way.

But that's completely impractical given present-day labour costs and H&S requirements, which is why dropping coaches (rather than splitting) has been abandoned on UK sleepers.

tbh I still think loco's on the whole are better - more comfortable, and last longer. for long distance most mu's these days just feel plastic, not like they're built to last compared to the loco hauls they displaced. also loco's are more common around the world, there must be reason for that...

Mostly, because trains last quite a long time. Pretty much everywhere has adopted MUs for new-build trains. The only exception I can think of is Austria, where they massively over-ordered locos for high-speed freight and then rapidly had to come up with coaches to run them with...

 

[37401]

just been reading somethings on here, I very much doubt we will see a MU sleeper

1. both would HAVE to be a DMU and this would cause lots of noice and a big rumble so no sleep

2. FSR split their sleeper and as said before you cant split a unit and have it all working

 

[90019]

you cant split a unit and have it all working

Yes you can, you just have more than one with corridor connections between them.

 

[monkey]

Yes you can, you just have more than one with corridor connections between them.

^^I deffo can't see it mu's working on a sleeper route, like 37401 says FSR split the sleeprs up north. and also the corridor thing wouldn't work on a long distance train, I think sleeper trains is one thing that deffo wouldn't work witih mu's, parictularly with noise.

anyway looks like with hs2, the sleepers will dissappear which I will be terribly sad about...:cry:

 

[90019]

like 37401 says FSR split the sleeprs up north.

Yes, they split into three trains at Waverley, my reasoning is that you could split 3 MUs much quicker, and without all the shunting.

and also the corridor thing wouldn't work on a long distance train

Um, why? :?

 

[monkey]

^^you can't split mu's though, unless you take them to mainenance depot to be reconfigured as far as I am aware. and the corridor thing would just make it look rather odd I guess (basically ugly).

anyway like someone else said, the train would be a dmu, so the noise wouldn't really give a peaceful nights sleep...

 

[MCR247]

^^you can't split mu's though, unless you take them to mainenance depot to be reconfigured as far as I am aware. and the corridor thing would just make it look rather odd I guess (basically ugly).

anyway like someone else said, the train would be a dmu, so the noise wouldn't really give a peaceful nights sleep...

No you dont, have you not see a 158 split or something in a station? A corridor connection like on 158s would make it ugly?

 

[90019]

^^you can't split mu's though, unless you take them to mainenance depot to be reconfigured as far as I am aware. and the corridor thing would just make it look rather odd I guess (basically ugly).

Depends whether they're fixed or semi-fixed formation. And if they have corridor connections, you can stick them together and then split them up later.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No you dont, have you not see a 158 split or something in a station?

I was thinking something along the lines of seeing three 377s running together, but same thing, really.

 

[monkey]

^^oh rite so mu's can be split? just reading from wikipedia (lol I know :roll and from what other people were saying here, I was under the impression that multiple units generally can't be split form the formation...

also a connecting corridor does somewhat interfere with the trains exterior (as you have to have protruding connector thingy, but I guess its function over form...

 

[MCR247]

I think 156s, 158s, 150/2s, 153s look alright at the front

 

[90019]

^^oh rite so mu's can be split? just reading from wikipedia (lol I know :roll and from what other people were saying here, I was under the impression that multiple units generally can't be split form the formation...

Some can, such as HSTs, because they're only semi-fixed formation.

also a connecting corridor does somewhat interfere with the trains exterior (as you have to have protruding connector thingy, but I guess its function over form...

They can be kept behind doors, so that it doesn't affect the aerodynamics quite so much, like on the 458s (albeit with connections that are easier and quicker to use).

 

[monkey]

^^neah they're pretty workhorse in design. the new 380 desiro's look ok guess, but still the connector does interfere with the design.

(although it's slanted on the 380, how would they conect in practice?)

They can be kept behind doors, so that it doesn't affect the aerodynamics quite so much, like on the 458s (albeit with connections that are easier and quicker to use).

...oh yeah! well I've never used south west, so wasn't aware of them, but yeah I guess that works!

 

[90019]

(although it's slanted on the 380, how would they conect in practice?)

They're hinged at the bottom so that they move out to be horizontal.

 

[monkey]

...oh well I guess mu's could be worked, if the problem of noise could be curbed. I still prefer loco's though in general...

 

[90019]

On the noise front, if the lines to Aberdeen and Inverness are electrified, it would be possible to run two EMUs and a DMU to Waverley with the DMU's engines off, then splitting, with the DMU going up the WHL, it would also get rid of the shunting that has to be done at Waverley to get the consists, replacing it with just the MUs splitting and then going on to their destinations.

 

[monkey]

^^yeah I guess the shunting is a bit of niggle. I deffo noticed it, being first time on the sleeper, but I'd imagine if I used it again I would get used to it.

(oh and I like your avatar by the way 90019 )

 

[37401]

Yes, they split into three trains at Waverley, my reasoning is that you could split 3 MUs much quicker,

but thats assuming something like a 158`s works it (small cab where the door closes it off) this would cause it to be un areo-dynamic and the loco would be faster, hence Sleepers will always show loco haulage, noone would want to sleep on a DMU from EUS to Aberdeen/Inverness

 

[starrymarkb]

Do you need aerodynamics when the sleepers cruising speed for passenger comfort is the same as a sprinter?