Loco haul v MU

[37401]

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

90019 said you could have a walkway in the cab (much like a sprinter) so the cab would be small and it would be flat.

and also

158= 100mph (IIRC)
90= 110mph

so nope different speeds

 

[starrymarkb]

158s are 90mph...

Sleepers are timed for 75mph operation to help the pax on board sleep

 

[Fincra5]

Therefore, I'd say that loco hauled services are largely more comfortable than multiple units, with a few exceptions like suburban services. And it also depends on what condition the coaches are in.

I doubt that. i went on a loco-hauled train recently and it far less confortable than travelling on a class 170 or pendolino.

Loco-hauled units no longer make sence. They require more space, you can carry less passengers. And as someone said that nearlly all terminal stations don;t have run rounds for locos.

 

[monkey]

^^run around? is that to change the loco to the front? cos nowadays it isn't needed with dvt...

 

[Daimler]

I doubt that. i went on a loco-hauled train recently and it far less confortable than travelling on a class 170 or pendolino.

Purely out of curiosity (I don't doubt you!), on what/where were you travelling?

Loco-hauled units no longer make sence. They require more space, you can carry less passengers. And as someone said that nearlly all terminal stations don;t have run rounds for locos.

Loco-hauled units?

I would argue that the added versatility of a loco-hauled train makes an awful lot of sense, not to mention the extra luggage space a DVT offers (it is wrong to say a DVT is a waste of space on the platform).

 

[37401]

Loco-hauled units no longer make sence. They require more space, you can carry less passengers. And as someone said that nearlly all terminal stations don;t have run rounds for locos.

Errm

The VT 90 set has more seats than a class 390, also most units seem to run in 2 car 3 car and locos ran in about 5 cars when they were on the NW Coast

also, err all locos in service run T+T or they have a DVT so no need for run arounds and at terminals there is always somewhere to propell the stock (the train reverses out the locos runs around the stock and it put back on where it reverses into the station)

 

[Daimler]

Errm

The VT 90 set has more seats than a class 390, also most units seem to run in 2 car 3 car and locos ran in about 5 cars when they were on the NW Coast

While I agree entirely with what you're saying in spirit, it's important to acknowledge that the 390 is an extremely poor individual example of use of interior space - other units use space much more efficiently than the 390, which manages somehow to have surprisingly few seats and feel cramped.

 

[90019]

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

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).

noone would want to sleep on a DMU from EUS to Aberdeen/Inverness

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.

Reading is a useful skill.

 

[37401]

While I agree entirely with what you're saying in spirit, it's important to acknowledge that the 390 is an extremely poor individual example of use of interior space - other units use space much more efficiently than the 390, which manages somehow to have surprisingly few seats and feel cramped.

yeah I agree, just an example I could think of because the person I quated said LHCS Holds less but in reality the hold more because the have more coaches than units.

e.g 37+load 4/5 Mk2`s Vs 2 car cl175 hmm good luck finding more seats on the 175 Mr Fincra5

I agree with you there 90019 but putting OHLE on the EDI-ABR/INV would take many many many years!

also im no driver but im willing to bet having a small cab to drive in up the WCML is not a nice thing at all

 

[monkey]

^^have to say was a bit shockign looking at the vt seat plan for pendo's and the number of seats basically with a pillar for a view...

(I mean I have used them several times from edinburgh, and have been lucky enough to get a window seat, and it was comfortable and all that)

oh and one more thing, it appears pendo's have a kitchen on board? but they don't have dining car - so does that mean dinner is restricted to first class only?

 

[90019]

e.g 37+load 4/5 Mk2`s Vs 2 car cl175 hmm good luck finding more seats on the 175 Mr Fincra5

Or, for a fair comparison, how about 37+5 Mk2s vs. 2x3 car 175.
Or, for a similar length to the 175; 37+1 Mk2 vs. 2 car 175.

 

[Daimler]

^^have to say was a bit shockign looking at the vt seat plan for pendo's and the number of seats basically with a pillar for a view...

It's a poor, poor design. It's amazing, really, how badly they've been done. While I am a loco-haulage man m'self , a well-designed unit (i.e. Desiro) can be pretty good. The design of the Pendolinos suggests that the seats were positioned with no forethought whatsoever into passenger enjoyment of what is, at least in its northern portion, a pretty scenic journey. Add that to the huge amount of wasted space at the end of each coach for oversized vestibule/shop/overlarge disabled toilet* and we have a train which feels cramped and yet accomodates relatively few people.

* French trains have disabled toilets and they aren't that big!

 

[37401]

Or, for a similar length to the 175; 37+1 Mk2 vs. 2 car 175.

Ive never seen a fot 37 hauling 1 Mk2 on a regular service, im keeping it at a more "everyday" scene

 

[90019]

Ive never seen a fot 37 hauling 1 Mk2 on a regular service, im keeping it at a more "everyday" scene

And I'm pointing out that it's not a fair comparison to make with the capacity and length, because the 37 and Mk2s is a much longer consist, approx. 3x the length of a single 2 car 175.

 

[37401]

And I'm pointing out that it's not a fair comparison to make with the capacity and length, because the 37 and Mk2s is a much longer consist, approx. 3x the length of a single 2 car 175.

I think its fair, 175`s replaced 37`s on the NW Coast (note its only an example really)

we could do the 47`s and HST`s on the XC compared to a 220/221 too

 

[Daimler]

we could do the 47`s and HST`s on the XC compared to a 220/221 too

Ah, now that's very interesting (if, like me, you're extremely dull and find facts and figures improbably exciting). A series of sums* has enabled me to work out the seats per metre length of train of the old 47+Mk2s (with their fixed interior seating capacity of 64 seats, all in tables lining up with the windows) and the Voyagers (cramped, loads of airline seats to pack people in). For the sake of argument, I've kept them both to standard class only (the Voyager is actually at a slight advantage as we begin, as the only way I've been able to calculate this is to divide the standard class seating of a 220 by 3, and then multiply that by 4, meaning that I'm almost certainly over-estimating the capacity of the (in real life first class) driving coach of the Voyager - whose passenger compartment is rather smaller than that of the centre cars! So, to begin we must bear in mind the Voyager has a slightly unfair headstart, because I can't find details of seats per coach.

So, 'seats per metre length', rounded to 1 decimal place:

Class 220: 2.3 spm (!)
Class 221: 2.4 spm
Class 47 + 3 Mk2s: 2.5 spm
Class 47 + 4 Mk2s: 2.6 spm
Class 47 + 5 Mk2s**: 2.7 spm

So, that's very revealing! Even with its unfair advantage owing to my limitations on data, the 221 fares worse than even the most unfavourable loco-hauled argument. Most interestingly, as the train gets longer and approaches a 'proper' length for an intercity train, the 'useless' space occupied by the loco is spread more thinly among seats, meaning that the use of space becomes more and more efficient. So, while it would stand to be 'obvious' that the 221, a unit, will have better capacity 'in the platform' than any loco hauled train, this is by no means the case - indeed, quite the opposite.

Apologies for being so dull and geeky!

*Basically the overall train length divided by the total number of seats.

**While it is made up of 6 vehicles, as these are relatively short, it's only 1.5m longer than a 221, and, therefore, a 'fair comparison', I think - certainly fairer than 47+4 compared to 221, as the 221 is 18m longer than a 47+4.

 

[43034 The Black Horse]

Excellent! Just what I like to read

 

[johnb]

@Daimler: you're flattering your comparison by ignoring shops/buffets, disabled bogs (all new trains of any kind need at least one) and DVT/second loco (shunting isn't viable on the modern railway, a few off-peak anomalies like the Sleepers aside).

2x67 + Mk4s (all standard, normally 78 seats, but including one SV with 32 seats and one TSOD with 70) would be a better comparison to an actual Voyager - I make that 2.2 seats per metre for a four passenger coach formation (and that's still 132m total length, compared with 116m for a five-car 221).

 

[ukrob]

@Daimler: you're flattering your comparison by ignoring shops/buffets, disabled bogs (all new trains of any kind need at least one) and DVT/second loco (shunting isn't viable on the modern railway, a few off-peak anomalies like the Sleepers aside).

People don't like facts to get in the way of their arguments

 

[87015]

Why would you need 2x67? DBSOs are used across the world aswell as this country.

 

[The Box Photter]

Loco plus 11 coaches always superior to smelly Voyager. I'd like to have a seat on a train with a view out of the window, no engine noise (except maybe the muted scream of a straining Valenta or Whistling 40) and no whiffy chemical toilet ambiance.

 

[Daimler]

@Daimler: you're flattering your comparison by ignoring shops/buffets, disabled bogs (all new trains of any kind need at least one) and DVT/second loco (shunting isn't viable on the modern railway, a few off-peak anomalies like the Sleepers aside).

2x67 + Mk4s (all standard, normally 78 seats, but including one SV with 32 seats and one TSOD with 70) would be a better comparison to an actual Voyager - I make that 2.2 seats per metre for a four passenger coach formation (and that's still 132m total length, compared with 116m for a five-car 221).

I'd rather not compare with Mark 4s. While they might seat more than a Mark 2, they're a lot more cramped inside (the density, however, is pretty much identical, at around 3.6spm), and have never been used on XC services. However, I like 87015's DBSO idea. I also think it's unfair to lumber the loco-hauled cross country train with a huge buffet - after all, XC 220s are all buffet free now, with the extra luggage space provided being more than matched by a DBSO's luggage compartment - which is probably more secure too.

However, I can't get round the argument of the disabled toilet - I'll take 8 seats out of a Mark 2 to fit one. So, my loco-hauled set is make up of 67 + X Mk2s + DBSO* (assuming 32 seats), giving these seating densities (I've included those of the Voyagers again for easier reference):

Class 220: 2.3 spm (length 93.3m)
Class 221: 2.4 spm (length 116.1m)
Class 67 + 3 Mk2s + DBSO: 2.2 spm (length 98.8m)
Class 67 + 4 Mk2s + DBSO: 2.4 spm (length 118.4m)

However, for long distance cross country services, 4 1/2 coaches isn't really enough. Let's make up a pair of 220s, for a proper intercity train:

Class 220 x 2: 2.3 spm (length 186.6m)
Class 67 + 7 Mk2s + DBSO: 2.7 spm (length 177.5m)

The longer the train, obviously, the better the seating 'density' of the loco hauled train is - and these trains should be long. In its shortest form, the four-vehicle loco-hauled train doesn't do as well as the four coach Voyager. But, it must be said, four coaches isn't enough for these trains. as the train increases in length (even to just five coaches), we see the loco-hauled stock 'in the lead'. We must also remember that the Mark 2 has just 64 well spaced out seats, all around tables. Newer coaches could increase this - not that I'd want to, as that's one of the Mark 2s' main advantages! I've no doubt that if a new 'class' of stock were commissioned, with higher density seating and a DBSO almost entirely devoted to passenger accomodation, the density would be higher still.

Of course, the Voyager is an extremely poorly designed unit, which is one thing I was trying to highlight! I also feel my second 'table' highlights another issue with these units - the wasted space created by coupling them together, something which you certainly don't find when adding an extra couple of coaches to a loco-hauled train.

*It should be borne in mind that Mk2 DBSOs feature a much larger van area than is the norm across Europe. Elsewhere, this would be almost entirely devoted to passenger accomodation. Still, I'll leave it as it is for the purpose of this comparison.

 

[monkey]

...I know everyone moans about the voyagers, but we have them now so have to work with them - why don't they build extra carraiges and reconfigure them to 9 car units?

 

[Daimler]

...I know everyone moans about the voyagers, but we have them now so have to work with them - why don't they build extra carraiges and reconfigure them to 9 car units?

Why indeed? An interior redesign making better use of space would help too, but this would mean cutting holes in the bodyside for extra windows.

 

[monkey]

^^well the modifications that have been done, obv been done on the cheap. the new luggage racks in coach d look like cardboard. also the extra seats introduced to replace the cabin luggage racks, have no reservation display above them or seat numbers - I wonder if this means theres no more advance tickets than before conversion? since advance tickets have to have reservations...

 

[Old Timer]

Ive never seen a fot 37 hauling 1 Mk2 on a regular service, im keeping it at a more "everyday" scene

Oh chap !

What you missed by being born so late.

Class 37s on Kings Lynn and the Parkestone Boat trains out of Liverpool St in the 70s.

And if your luck was in, on one of the Lowestofts on a Summer Saturday !

Marvellous days.

 

[90019]

something which you certainly don't find when adding an extra couple of coaches to a loco-hauled train.

No, instead you get wasted time, wasted space, wasted effort and a wasted loco, that could be doing something else.

 

[37401]

Oh chap !

What you missed by being born so late.

Class 37s on Kings Lynn and the Parkestone Boat trains out of Liverpool St in the 70s.

And if your luck was in, on one of the Lowestofts on a Summer Saturday !

Marvellous days.

yeah I did miss out on all the good stuff, but never knew 37`s only hauled 1 or 2 Mk2`s

 

[Daimler]

No, instead you get wasted time, wasted space, wasted effort and a wasted loco, that could be doing something else.

Wasted time? With a well-oiled operation such as is found in France, not really much more than coupling two units together.

Wasted space? No wasted space in the train, apart from the locomotive itself - certainly less wasted space than on a 'Voyager'.

Wasted effort? Why, someone needs to drive the second of two units until they're couple together.

Wasted loco? I don't agree. A locomotive specifically designed for marshalling trains - as is the norm in France - is hardly a waste, meaning that trains are always well-suited to the job in hand. Shunting engines, they used to be called.

 

[87015]

Wasted loco? I don't agree. A locomotive specifically designed for marshalling trains - as is the norm in France - is hardly a waste, meaning that trains are always well-suited to the job in hand. Shunting engines, they used to be called.

Or you have a joined up railway and things called mixed traffic diagrams, then you can have locos working 24/7 on things such as freight and parcels trains.