Does Intercity Loco Haulage Have a Future?

[Bletchleyite]

TBH, with the bouncy track, several announcements over the tannoy, mobile phone conversations and general other chat in carriages, it's hard to hear the engines underneath! Maybe rail enthusiasts are more sensitive than the rest of the population...

Modern DMUs are far less of an issue than older ones - 15x can be downright noisy. I went to Exeter some time ago on SWR, partly as it was cheaper and partly because I hadn't done the route. My ears were vibrating so badly on arrival that I coughed up for a single back on GWR (which I recall for some reason was cheaper than an excess, though I forget why). You could barely tell the 80x was on diesel.

And people are to some extent used to a bit of background engine noise, as every other mode of transport has it.

 

[xotGD]

Why would you order loco hauled if you were running the new EMR franchise?

In theory, you should need fewer rakes of coaching stock than you would need DMUs or emus since the maintenance requirements for unpowered stock will be lower.

Let's say there are 10 diagrams. You can either cover these with 13 multiple units or 12 sets of stock and 13 locos.

 

[HSTEd]

In theory, you should need fewer rakes of coaching stock than you would need DMUs or emus since the maintenance requirements for unpowered stock will be lower.

Let's say there are 10 diagrams. You can either cover these with 13 multiple units or 12 sets of stock and 13 locos.

Unfortunately most of the expensive stuff is in the loco!

 

[Indigo Soup]

Unfortunately most of the expensive stuff is in the loco!

But you only need it once per train... but it also has to be bigger...

In terms of overall cost, the critical length is apparently five carriages. Above that, loco-hauled is cheaper. Below that, a DMU is cheaper. But cost isn't everything; if platform lengths are limited and passenger numbers high - for appropriate values of 'limited' and 'high' - then the loss of passenger-carrying space to a locomotive is unacceptable.

Of course, then you get into the question of whether the savings from running DMUs are more or less than those from running loco & stock and forking out to extend the platforms. Ususally extending the platforms will be expensive, because of the impact on the track and signalling. But sometimes not.

Marketing could fall either way - the loco-hauled stock might offer a better cabin environment, the DMU might offer faster journey times, either factor potentially winning or losing business overall.

Really, to find places where loco-hauled stock is appropriate, you need a service which has enough passengers to fill a long train, but not one so long that it's getting close to length limits. I'm not sure how many services meet those requirements.

To be honest, I suspect that a lot of the longing for loco-hauled trains is actually longing for the big trains that were hauled by locomotives. Whether they were locomotive hauled, self-powered multiple units, or cable-hauled to the top of a hill and let roll down isn't really the factor. The fact that they had restaurant cars, buffet cars, van space for parcels and luggage, compartments, and neatly-uniformed staff is the point.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be honest, I suspect that a lot of the longing for loco-hauled trains is actually longing for the big trains that were hauled by locomotives. Whether they were locomotive hauled, self-powered multiple units, or cable-hauled to the top of a hill and let roll down isn't really the factor. The fact that they had restaurant cars, buffet cars, van space for parcels and luggage, compartments, and neatly-uniformed staff is the point.

That's probably true. I don't think anyone sees a Pendolino as "not a proper train" even though there's no "engine" (!) on the front - they might not even notice that there isn't. What they don't like is 15x, 185, Voyagers, 5-car 80x etc, and they don't like them not because of engines under the coaches, but because they are too short and inevitably overcrowded and have poor on board facilities e.g. (here's a bit of thread crossover for you) no buffet.

 

[Journeyman]

That's probably true. I don't think anyone sees a Pendolino as "not a proper train" even though there's no "engine" (!) on the front - they might not even notice that there isn't. What they don't like is 15x, 185, Voyagers, 5-car 80x etc, and they don't like them not because of engines under the coaches, but because they are too short and inevitably overcrowded and have poor on board facilities e.g. (here's a bit of thread crossover for you) no buffet.

Spot on. I know I'll possibly get flamed here, as many people consider them the spawn of Beelzebub, but the Voyager is a fundamentally good train that does what it was designed to do pretty well. The problem with them is that they're 5 cars when they often need to be 8 or 9, or running in pairs. They're only gruesomely unpleasant to travel in when they're horrifically crowded, which unfortunately happens far too often.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Spot on. I know I'll possibly get flamed here, as many people consider them the spawn of Beelzebub, but the Voyager is a fundamentally good train that does what it was designed to do pretty well. The problem with them is that they're 5 cars when they often need to be 8 or 9, or running in pairs. They're only gruesomely unpleasant to travel in when they're horrifically crowded, which unfortunately happens far too often.

I don't think there's anywhere near the same hate of them on VTWC (where they are to all intents and purposes a diesel Pendolino - the interior is quite deliberately near identical) - principally because they very rarely run in single formation and are near-never overcrowded as a result. They also have a buffet which VTWC seem to manage to staff reliably.

Along similar lines there seems to be an excitement about 80x on LNER yet a general dislike of them on GWR. Yet the only differences relate to the colour of the interior and the presence of a buffet car - the actual "hard product" is near identical.

Realistically, sending all the 222s to XC to allow lengthening will solve the majority of that issue.

 

[Indigo Soup]

What they don't like is 15x, 185, Voyagers, 5-car 80x etc, and they don't like them not because of engines under the coaches, but because they are too short and inevitably overcrowded and have poor on board facilities e.g. (here's a bit of thread crossover for you) no buffet.

Indeed - passengers expect a 'proper' train journey to involve a 'proper' train, not something that feels like it's been optimised for commuter service or for shuffling around a quiet branch line. Which is why the call from passengers most of the time is for more carriages: not more seats, but more carriages. Cramming more seats into the same carriages makes for a worse environment, and the justifications for not lengthening trains don't sell well to the public.

If there aren't enough carriages, people expect them to be bought; if the platforms aren't long enough, people expect them to be lengthened. No, it isn't that simple, but that's how the woman on the Birmingham train sees it.

The problem with them is that they're 5 cars when they often need to be 8 or 9, or running in pairs.

I'm firmly of the opinion that had Virgin Trains ordered (and been allowed to order!) the 221s as 8-car sets and the 220s as 5-car sets, they'd have been adequate for the demand increase that came with increased frequency, and their reputation would be very different.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm firmly of the opinion that had Virgin Trains ordered (and been allowed to order!) the 221s as 8-car sets and the 220s as 5-car sets, they'd have been adequate for the demand increase that came with increased frequency, and their reputation would be very different.

Most probably so, and the near-identical 222s don't receive anything like the same vitriol.

And had the 220s been built, as was originally the plan, as a single-ended Voyager set with a 67 on the end (rather like the TPE LHCS), I doubt peoples' views would be any different to now.

 

[Journeyman]

I'm firmly of the opinion that had Virgin Trains ordered (and been allowed to order!) the 221s as 8-car sets and the 220s as 5-car sets, they'd have been adequate for the demand increase that came with increased frequency, and their reputation would be very different.

You're absolutely right. Compare with the very similar 222s on the MML - very rarely overcrowded to anywhere near the same degree, therefore perceived rather differently (although they do have nicer seats in them).

 

[hexagon789]

You're absolutely right. Compare with the very similar 222s on the MML - very rarely overcrowded to anywhere near the same degree, therefore perceived rather differently (although they do have nicer seats in them).

Only after re-configuring though, something which isn't readily doable with Voyagers.

 

[cnjb8]

Most probably so, and the near-identical 222s don't receive anything like the same vitriol.

And had the 220s been built, as was originally the plan, as a single-ended Voyager set with a 67 on the end (rather like the TPE LHCS), I doubt peoples' views would be any different to now.

The 4/5 car 222s struggle with capacity on the MML. That's why there often joined up but sometimes they end up on there own. I just hope EMR order 9 car trains.

 

[tbtc]

Spot on. I know I'll possibly get flamed here, as many people consider them the spawn of Beelzebub, but the Voyager is a fundamentally good train that does what it was designed to do pretty well. The problem with them is that they're 5 cars when they often need to be 8 or 9, or running in pairs. They're only gruesomely unpleasant to travel in when they're horrifically crowded, which unfortunately happens far too often.

I agree with you.

People need to separate the trains (very reliable fast accelerating self powered trains capable of 125mph) with the role that they currently do (which needs more than the current capacity a Voyager offers).

I'd rather stand on a Voyager than stand on a platform whilst my unreliable 180 is cancelled!

Realistically, sending all the 222s to XC to allow lengthening will solve the majority of that issue.

Yup - twenty seven additional trains should allow the majority of services in the core to be doubled up.

Most probably so, and the near-identical 222s don't receive anything like the same vitriol

I do wonder how much of that is because Voyagers replaced the last loco hauled services on many lines whilst most 222s were initially a direct replacement for Turbostars (before the Midland Mainline services were re-cast).

Voyagers are criticised for their "noisy" underfloor engines because they replaced loco hauled (and we all know how precious some enthusiasts are about "proper" trains...) whilst people don't seem so bothered about underfloor engines in 222s because they replaced stock that already had them (and the Turbostars essentially provided new services in the first place, so the second hourly services from London to Nottingham/ Derby were in addition to the HST services).

TBQH, anything with underfloor engines that replaced the last loco hauled services to various corners of the UK was always going to be quite unpopular with enthusiasts (I don't think that Voyagers are particularly unpopular with the passengers who can get a seat on them, however).

I'm firmly of the opinion that had Virgin Trains ordered (and been allowed to order!) the 221s as 8-car sets and the 220s as 5-car sets, they'd have been adequate for the demand increase that came with increased frequency, and their reputation would be very different.

I believe you.

I've also wondered about an alternative world where the winner of the XC franchise retained the 90mph paths (given that services were run by 158s and class 47s, so generally not pathed for 125mph running), which would have made it much easier for the XC franchise to acquire follow on stock - e.g. if they'd ordered something like a 175 then it'd have been a lot easier to find other 90-100mph trains at a later stage - instead, they ordered something bespoke that meant they couldn't order any more a few years later.

Faster trains are great but I don't know that the time savings on XC services are worth the "cost" that 125mph trains bring (the space taken up by the "crumple zones" and the limitations on other stock that could match the diagrams. Just my opinion though.

 

[JamesT]

I've also wondered about an alternative world where the winner of the XC franchise retained the 90mph paths (given that services were run by 158s and class 47s, so generally not pathed for 125mph running), which would have made it much easier for the XC franchise to acquire follow on stock - e.g. if they'd ordered something like a 175 then it'd have been a lot easier to find other 90-100mph trains at a later stage - instead, they ordered something bespoke that meant they couldn't order any more a few years later.

Faster trains are great but I don't know that the time savings on XC services are worth the "cost" that 125mph trains bring (the space taken up by the "crumple zones" and the limitations on other stock that could match the diagrams. Just my opinion though.

Would that have required the services that were remapped to the West Coast operator in 2007 to have been done from the start in 1997? Otherwise you'd have your 90mph XC trains getting somewhat in the way of the faster Pendolino and VTWC Voyagers on the WCML.

 

[cnjb8]

I don't think there's anywhere near the same hate of them on VTWC (where they are to all intents and purposes a diesel Pendolino - the interior is quite deliberately near identical) - principally because they very rarely run in single formation and are near-never overcrowded as a result. They also have a buffet which VTWC seem to manage to staff reliably.

Along similar lines there seems to be an excitement about 80x on LNER yet a general dislike of them on GWR. Yet the only differences relate to the colour of the interior and the presence of a buffet car - the actual "hard product" is near identical.

Realistically, sending all the 222s to XC to allow lengthening will solve the majority of that issue.

Can 222s even couple with 220/221s? Even if not, still a big capacity increase.

 

[JamesT]

Can 222s even couple with 220/221s? Even if not, still a big capacity increase.

They're electrically incompatible for coupling. But that's not the end of the world, I'm sure the two classes could be diagrammed separately, presumably in Virgin days the 220s and 221s would need to be treated separately as only the 221s can/could tilt.
More important would be having a large pool of stock that all has the same performance characteristics. Substituting a HST for a Voyager causes issues as the HST can't keep to the timings, whereas all the 22x series are going to be the same.