Diesel Under The Wires?

[Zoe]

To quote what I was told elsewhere:

You may not like sitting on top of a big Cummins diesel, but since HST production ended in 1982 and everyone else in Europe uses electric trains for long-distance work, the likes of Voyagers and Adelantes were all that train builders were prepared to offer.

From that I take it that loco and stock wouldn't have been an option even Virgin had asked for it.

 

[Failed Unit]

To quote what I was told elsewhere:

From that I take it that loco and stock wouldn't have been an option even Virgin had asked for it.

Oh well looks like your source in this case is wrong. It is well documented other countries still build loco's and coaches. Yes emu seems to be the way forward for high speed lines. I am a customer - if I demand coaches I will get then. Virgin didnt ask for locos and coaches.

 

[TDK]

Using diesel under the wires is a crime against the planet.

So towing an electric train with a diesel isn't? Until the government pay for full electrification it isn't the train operators it's the lack of funds.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To quote what I was told elsewhere:

From that I take it that loco and stock wouldn't have been an option even Virgin had asked for it.

Engine and stock is toatally impractical unless you have either top & Tail (Expensive) or a DVT one end, VT gave this format up with the pendos,as for the Voyagers if I remember correctly the Voyagers were produced for Virgin XC now Arriva XC

 

[Zoe]

I am a customer - if I demand coaches I will get then. Virgin didnt ask for locos and coaches.

You may get coaches but would they be 125 mph and would you get a 125 mph diesel that could haul them?

 

[Failed Unit]

Yes. 125mph is low speed on the continent. As for the locos? How about a 67 for diesel. Electric capable 125mph locos are common in Europe!

 

[Zoe]

How about a 67 for diesel.

But they don't run at 125 mph.

 

[Failed Unit]

But they don't run at 125 mph.

You really don't like admitting you are wrong do you :I am sure the run at 125mph on the GWML. But how often are the coupled to stock capable of 125mph running on a route capable of it? Not very!

 

[TGV]

Yes. 125mph is low speed on the continent. As for the locos? How about a 67 for diesel. Electric capable 125mph locos are common in Europe!

Excuse me for being a little picky, but 200km/h is not "low speed" anywhere. It may not be classed as true high speed, but away from LGV's in France or Belgium, for example, it's a respectable maximum that in all honesty, most European rolling stock never gets anywhere near. In fact, it's usually TGV's themselves that hit the classic line maximum of 200km/h (125mph) more than anything else - in the same way that we have dual limits for tilting stock etc...

As I said, it's a little picky - I get what you were saying anyway.

 

[Zoe]

If that's the case then why did Virgin order a fleet of underfloor engine DMUs that were always going to be unsuitable for the job? If train manufacturers were happy to build loco and stock then why didn't the dft step in like they seem to often do these days and stop 7 coach trains getting reduced to 4 coaches?

 

[90019]

then why didn't the dft step in like they seem to often do these days and stop 7 coach trains getting reduced to 4 coaches?

Because it was the DfT that got them reduced in length.

 

[Zoe]

Because it was the DfT that got them reduced in length.

The SRA refused to allow extra coaches. I didn't think the dft had much to do with the Voyager order. Virgin were awarded the franchise in the days of a Conservate government that had a more hands off approach.

 

[90019]

The SRA refused to allow extra coaches. I didn't think the dft had much to do with the Voyager order.

I'd been told it was the DfT that refused them to be 7 car.

 

[Failed Unit]

If that's the case then why did Virgin order a fleet of underfloor engine DMUs that were always going to be unsuitable for the job? If train manufacturers were happy to build loco and stock then why didn't the dft step in like they seem to often do these days and stop 7 coach trains getting reduced to 4 coaches?

Because that was what virgin wanted and thought they needed. Oh and DFT didn't step in the gave operators freedom back in the 1990s. You need to do more research. Like your idea we have not built coaches since 1982. I am sure the mk4 was built in the late 80s

 

[Zoe]

Because that was what virgin wanted and thought they needed. Oh and DFT didn't step in the gave operators freedom back in the 1990s.

I know but it's one time where someone should have stepped in. 8 years later and we are still paying the penalty for Virgin's decision.

 

[90019]

8 years later and we are still paying the penalty for Virgin's decision.

But Virgin wanted 7 coach trains, they weren't allowed them.

 

[Zoe]

But Virgin wanted 7 coach trains, they weren't allowed them.

See Failed Unit's comment above, the dft did not dictate things back in those days like they do now. As I said Virgin were awarded the franchise in the days of the Conservative government. It was the SRA that blocked the lengthening of the Voyagers later though.

 

[87015]

But Virgin wanted 7 coach trains, they weren't allowed them.

But it as only willing to pay for four/five car carts.
Slight difference at over £1m/coach.

 

[90019]

See Failed Unit's comment above, the dft did not dictate things back in those days like they do now. As I said Virgin were awarded the franchise in the days of the Conservative government. It was the SRA that blocked the lengthening of the Voyagers later though.

AFAIK, Virgin wanted 7 coach trains from the beginning, which was blocked, and it was not their choice to have them reduced to 4 and 5 coach trains.

 

[87015]

AFAIK, Virgin wanted 7 coach trains from the beginning, which was blocked, and it was not their choice to have them reduced to 4 and 5 coach trains.

Actually, thinking about it more, they can't have wanted all 7 cars as their prize Operation Pumpkin timetable relied on reversing at Reading/New St in half platforms so 7 cars wouldn't have worked.

 

[MCR247]

I don't think they ordered stock based on that

 

[Failed Unit]

Actually Virgins strategy could have been right. They went for the smaller fleets as the were nearly the same so the thought that would cut down on training / parts etc. There big mistake which I don't know if anyone predicted was the growth and the sets were too short. Lengthing was talked about until a couple if years into the franchise. This was when the SRA were in charge and blocked it. Virgins other idea which never happen was 3 classes. Dont know what 3rd class was going to be.

So yes they bid for the mixed fleet but it was a crystal ball failure that meant it failed. If growth had not been as high they could have been genius

 

[Zoe]

It may well have worked in the core section of the route but west of Bristol retained a 1 tph frequency with half length trains and overcrowding resulted. Even today some Voyagers can be full and standing from Newton Abbot.

 

[RichW1]

Why can't those that procure these trains (if they're Intercity's) just make an agreement that every Intercity must have a minimum length of 10cars and be done with it. Why all this 5,6 or 7 business which obviously doesn't work. It's that simple, it just doesn't work, no excuses. When will they get it into their thick heads. Trying to base loading factors on economics on whether it'll be just enough meaning costs will be 'just right'. Trains don't work like that and never have.

 

[90019]

Why all this 5,6 or 7 business which obviously doesn't work. It's that simple, it just doesn't work, no excuses.

Hull Trains' 180s, are they not long enough?
How about GC's HSTs and 180s?
Or EMT's 222s?

 

[RichW1]

ok let me make my comment VERY clear. By Intercity's I mean interCITY's NOT intertown or village. I mean intercity's that connect major cities or run through the major central business districts. With respect, the routes Grand Central, Hull Trains run on are not major destinations even though they do require intercity's. However, I do feel the trains used on 2 of the routes you mentioned are good enough for those routes.

222's on east Midlands? No! They should be 90r10 cars long too! Overcrowding issues abound in my experience several times on these trains!

 

[Oswyntail]

.... I mean intercity's that connect major cities or run through the major central business districts. With respect, the routes Grand Central, Hull Trains run on are not major destinations even though they do require intercity's. ...

How do you rate the various cities then? Hull is the tenth largest city in England - larger than Newcastle, larger than anything in Wales and above Aberdeen. Presumably you would take InterCity status from Nottingham and Derby too, because they are smaller than Bradford. Admittedly Sunderland is smaller still, but still comes out above Norwich. These are all major destinations.

 

[RichW1]

How do you rate the various cities then? Hull is the tenth largest city in England - larger than Newcastle, larger than anything in Wales and above Aberdeen. Presumably you would take InterCity status from Nottingham and Derby too, because they are smaller than Bradford. Admittedly Sunderland is smaller still, but still comes out above Norwich. These are all major destinations.

I don't rate them, economic studies and geographers do (and I've studied it which is part of what I do but back to the point!..) I'm afraid Hull is no more than a town if you were to use global definitions on the inside of the industry. Neither is it particularly important economically. It should have an Intercity of course it should, but it isn't a major destination. The service frequency and loading purely in train terms also bares that out anyway.

Hull is not larger than Newcastle as when studying critical mass and where the major centre of employment is Sunderland is easily (even though locals would hate this and wouldn't agree) part of the Newcastle metro area. Over the years Newcastle is the dominant centre of employment and not Sunderland. Sunderland would not have what little standard of living it does if it were not for Newcastle. Cities are not measured today in the way you describe with old boundaries. Those studying city economics take no notice of it because it's no longer relevant just as Croydon was subsumed into London and acts as a suburb by every measure, as does sunderland to Newcastle.

Neither is it larger than anything in Wales as the critical mass and suburbs (that is continuous urbanised area connected to Cardiff) masses around 1.1 million people with very little measurable gap between that total and another 2 million people that splits between the rest of south Wales and Bristol (which is obviously its own place). Hull has no such population base around it that is as successful or as big.

All the places you mention deserve Intercity status but the overcrowding issue on Intercity comes from the ones that pass through 'the big O' which consists of a metro area stretching from Birmingham right around through Nottingham to Leeds and Manchester to Liverpool and this is where major overcrowding in the main comes from; the major population to population centres, NOT a major population cebtre to somewhere like Hull which passes through no other major population centres on the way.

To answer the other part of your comment, the cities in terms of the biggest centres of population attached to their respective central business districts break down as follows in 2010: 1) London 2) Manchester 3) Birmingham 4) Leeds 5) Glasgow 6) Liverpool 7) Sheffield 8) Bristol 9) Edinburgh 10) Nottingham. Hull in population and economic activity is still a further way down this list.

The northern cities of Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham/Derby, Leicester and Birmingham and almost Stoke are connected together to form a continuous mentropolitan area of some 17million people which creates very complex studies.

So when deciding where overcrowding is on trains there is correlation between where the trains go and how long they should be. My point is all the Intercity's that go through these major areas of business and population are always overcrowded and should be longer. Relating movement of people to these facts is imprtant which I hope HS2 will be 4 tracks south of Birmingham when it comes but I'm not holding my breath!

 

[Geezertronic]

[DIGRESS]I find it quite funny when people define Birmingham as a northern city, some people class anything north of Watford Gap as Northern

I too believe HS2 should be 4 track until the Y split at least and getting back on track, diesels should not run on it
[/DIGRESS]

 

[LE Greys]

[DIGRESS]I find it quite funny when people define Birmingham as a northern city, some people class anything north of Watford Gap as Northern

I too believe HS2 should be 4 track until the Y split at least and getting back on track, diesels should not run on it
[/DIGRESS]

I've occasionally heard Norwich described as "Northern" sometimes, because it's north of our measure (Potter's Bar). As for the digression, agreed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To answer the other part of your comment, the cities in terms of the biggest centres of population attached to their respective central business districts break down as follows in 2010: 1) London 2) Manchester 3) Birmingham 4) Leeds 5) Glasgow 6) Liverpool 7) Sheffield 8) Bristol 9) Edinburgh 10) Nottingham. Hull in population and economic activity is still a further way down this list.

The northern cities of Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham/Derby, Leicester and Birmingham and almost Stoke are connected together to form a continuous mentropolitan area of some 17million people which creates very complex studies.

So when deciding where overcrowding is on trains there is correlation between where the trains go and how long they should be. My point is all the Intercity's that go through these major areas of business and population are always overcrowded and should be longer. Relating movement of people to these facts is imprtant which I hope HS2 will be 4 tracks south of Birmingham when it comes but I'm not holding my breath!

So, basically, the balance is about right, but all trains should be a bit longer. Now that makes some sense. It's a pity that we can't lengthen the MkIV rakes on the ECML. I've sometimes wondered about collecting any spare MkIIIs and forming them into some 10+DVT rakes, which would release three or four MkIV rakes, to break up and allow most of the rest to increase to 10+DVT. Any longer won't fit into the platforms at King's Cross.

The slow speeds of the MML and GWML are also big problems. I've sometimes tried to draw ring diagrams to show how close in terms of time different places are from London. Nottingham is as far as Doncaster and Stafford; Sheffield is almost as far as Darlington and Preston; Plymouth is further than Newcastle and Carlisle; and Penzance is further than Kirkaldy.

 

[starrymarkb]

Very true, for me Bristol is in the North, but for a friend Newcastle is a Southern city, its down to your frame of reference