How successful could multiple unit railtours be with the correct itinerary?

[DustyBin]

The 117 is due to be mainline certified for services to Wareham. The 4TC has been used for mainline tours hauled by their 33/2; I went on it from Waterloo back in 2019.

The 4TC with 2 or 3 MLVs for haulage, that would be good! It’s not actually the most ridiculous suggestion when you think about it (I think 2 MLVs have ran on the main line in recent years albeit not under their own power).

 

[61653 HTAFC]

The 117 is due to be mainline certified for services to Wareham. The 4TC has been used for mainline tours hauled by their 33/2; I went on it from Waterloo back in 2019.

In the case of the 4TC, did that include running with the loco at the rear? Or just treating the set as hauled stock?

 

[43066]

Well… Being a multiple unit doesn’t seem to have held back the Blue Pullman HST set .

 

[DustyBin]

Well… Being a multiple unit doesn’t seem to have held back the Blue Pullman HST set .

Where's that can of worms emoji when you need it!

 

[43096]

Well… Being a multiple unit doesn’t seem to have held back the Blue Pullman HST set .

I’ve never seen two HSTs working in multiple… Your avatar shows what happens when it’s tried!

 

[pdeaves]

With MU railtours, what sort of market are you after? Packing a train with enthusiasts is different to providing a cheap 'lets all go to York* for the day' type excursion. I would wager that with the 'right' sort of MU (must have loos!) the latter could work, sometimes.

* or any other tourist trap

 

[43066]

I’ve never seen two HSTs working in multiple

That’s plenty good enough for me*.

Your avatar shows what happens when it’s tried!

I think that was when someone tried to mate an 8xx with an HST, but we digress…

*I don’t think HSTs are multiple units either.

 

[StephenHunter]

In the case of the 4TC, did that include running with the loco at the rear? Or just treating the set as hauled stock?

Hauled stock. 33/2s can't work with the 4TCs like that.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Hauled stock. 33/2s can't work with the 4TCs like that.

Thanks. I'd assumed that the /2s had the Southern Region multi-working system the same as the /1s, just with narrower bodyshells.

 

[StephenHunter]

Correction, it was a 33/0.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

That would be an expensive project. All documentation for use on NR is probably well out of date. So, you would need to get route clearance, type approval, a driver with type & route knowledge (or a pilot driver). And finding paths on 90/100+ mph main lines for stock limited to 70 mph would not be easy. And, unlike steam trains which often haul at least 10 coaches - you would have to spread the cost between only 2,3 or 4 coach loads of passengers.

If there were enough 1st gen vehicles that were mainline certified, you wouldn't be limited to a single set. The speed would be an issue on mainlines but if you could get a trio of three-car sets doing a return trip from Leeds to Carlisle, that might have legs...

As a thought experiment, what would be required to run such a trip? Presumably the middle set wouldn't need the TPWS and OTMR as long as it stayed sandwiched, and you'd need CDL and window bars and/or stewards. I agree it's probably a bit of a leap, but I'm interested in what the technical requirements would be rather than a blanket "too difficult"... even if in reality it would be too difficult or expensive.

TPWS = Train Protection & Warning System
OTMR = On Train Monitoring & Recording
CDL = Central Door Locking.

 

[43096]

If there were enough 1st gen vehicles that were mainline certified, you wouldn't be limited to a single set. The speed would be an issue on mainlines but if you could get a trio of three-car sets doing a return trip from Leeds to Carlisle, that might have legs...

As a thought experiment, what would be required to run such a trip? Presumably he middle set wouldn't need the TPWS and OTMR as long as it stayed sandwiched, and you'd need CDL and window bars and/or stewards. I agree it's probably a bit of a leap, but I'm interested in what the technical requirements would be rather than a blanket "too difficult"... even if in reality it would be too difficult or expensive.

TPWS = Train Protection & Warning System
OTMR = On Train Monitoring & Recording
CDL = Central Door Locking.

GSM-R would be required as well.

 

[paul1609]

Thanks. I'd assumed that the /2s had the Southern Region multi-working system the same as the /1s, just with narrower bodyshells.

The 33/1 conversion came in 1965 after TOPs was introduced specifically for the Bournemouth mainline. Originally the members were just standard locos. The 33/2s were specifically for use in Kent & East Sussex from build because of the restriction 0 gauge
The plan originally was that conversions to push pull would become class 34.

 

[nw1]

They'd be better off getting the VEP running on the mainline. Toilets, first class, the slam does would provide the novelty factor after fifteen years.

Yes, CIGs and VEPs - the bread-and-butter traction of my youth. Not sure I'd have the time these days to do a railtour but I'd imagine a VEP tour would do well for those of us wanting a throwback to the 70s, 80s and 90s. (And quite honestly, given the grim times we live in nowadays, who wouldn't?)

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, CIGs and VEPs - the bread-and-butter traction of my youth. Not sure I'd have the time these days to do a railtour but I'd imagine a VEP tour would do well.

If certainly book on it !

 

[DustyBin]

If certainly book on it !

Me too!

Further to my previous post regarding MLVs hauling the 4TC I forgot about this:

The Vulcan Vantrain - 15th March 1986 (southernelectric.org.uk)

Looks like great fun to me!

 

[zwk500]

If there were enough 1st gen vehicles that were mainline certified, you wouldn't be limited to a single set. The speed would be an issue on mainlines but if you could get a trio of three-car sets doing a return trip from Leeds to Carlisle, that might have legs...

As a thought experiment, what would be required to run such a trip? Presumably he middle set wouldn't need the TPWS and OTMR as long as it stayed sandwiched, and you'd need CDL and window bars and/or stewards. I agree it's probably a bit of a leap, but I'm interested in what the technical requirements would be rather than a blanket "too difficult"... even if in reality it would be too difficult or expensive.

TPWS = Train Protection & Warning System
OTMR = On Train Monitoring & Recording
CDL = Central Door Locking.

If the middle set isn't capable of running on it's own what happens if the outer unit fails?

Just for the unit, you'd need: TPWS, AWS, OTMR, CDL, GSM-R. Provision for ETCS/ERTMS would be advisable (unless you don't plan on running for too long). You'd also need to demonstrate crashworthiness to an acceptable standard (which may mean things like reinforcing corners), fit retention tanks to the toilets and have wheelchair accessible accommodation and facilities (or have a very good reason why it isn't possible). Depending on the age of the unit things like additional anti-telescoping measures (fixed couplings or the ridged pads above the buffer beam) may be necessary, and if you plan on running units fixed permanently together then some warning or protection against separation would probably be needed, but I'm not 100% on that one.

Have a look at the Brighton Belle project for an idea of how much they had to do.

 

[TrainTrackJack]

I think that there could be a market for DMU farewell tours within the next 15 - 20 years, not forgetting ones for 15x series units within the next 10 years. And perhaps for some that are moving to pastures new, e.g a WMR 170 farewell tour, much like the London Midland 150 farewell tour in 2011(correct me on the year of wrong)

 

[Deepgreen]

In the case of the 4TC, did that include running with the loco at the rear? Or just treating the set as hauled stock?

Top and tail:

 

[StephenHunter]

Yes, that's correct.

 

[47827]

156s were often used on private S&C charters from other areas of the North when crew knowledge over the route used to allow it. It was an economical way of running budget trips over the route with low fares. They did occasionally get to other areas too but this was the most common. I had a contact in Northern who told me several years ago crewing them was the main reason it will seldom happen now as the TOCs won't take the chance then risk the scheduled train service being hit. The S&C would also potentially need 2 sets of crew due to loss of 156 competency at the like of Skipton.

 

[reddragon]

Old Southern Mk1 EMUs can be used with MLVs, 33s & 73s which have all the gear needed to run anywhere in the UK

 

[DustyBin]

Old Southern Mk1 EMUs can be used with MLVs, 33s & 73s which have all the gear needed to run anywhere in the UK

You’ll not get far though with an MLV off the juice!

 

[reddragon]

You’ll not get far though with an MLV off the juice!

Yag rip those lead acids out and pack it full of Tesla batteries and add ludicrous mode!

 

[StephenHunter]

Yag rip those lead acids out and pack it full of Tesla batteries and add ludicrous mode!

That's actually not a bad idea.

 

[DustyBin]

Yag rip those lead acids out and pack it full of Tesla batteries and add ludicrous mode!

That's actually not a bad idea.

It has actually occurred to me previously that an MLV would make a great test bed for battery technology. I know the cost to replace the batteries is “substantial” so it could be a win-win.

I’ll confess to having a soft spot for MLVs, they’re interesting and versatile little trains.

 

[LOL The Irony]

When it comes time, I'd be down for a 185 railtour. It'd have to include Standedge of course.

Yag rip those lead acids out and pack it full of Tesla batteries and add ludicrous mode!

Toyota Fuel Cells. Slap the tanks inside the MLV.

 

[The exile]

If the middle set isn't capable of running on it's own what happens if the outer unit fails?

Just for the unit, you'd need: TPWS, AWS, OTMR, CDL, GSM-R. Provision for ETCS/ERTMS would be advisable (unless you don't plan on running for too long). You'd also need to demonstrate crashworthiness to an acceptable standard (which may mean things like reinforcing corners), fit retention tanks to the toilets and have wheelchair accessible accommodation and facilities (or have a very good reason why it isn't possible). Depending on the age of the unit things like additional anti-telescoping measures (fixed couplings or the ridged pads above the buffer beam) may be necessary, and if you plan on running units fixed permanently together then some warning or protection against separation would probably be needed, but I'm not 100% on that one.

Have a look at the Brighton Belle project for an idea of how much they had to do.

Presumably the point being that the middle unit would need to be operational but would only need the safety equipment required on hauled stock, so be cheaper.

 

[zwk500]

Presumably the point being that the middle unit would need to be operational but would only need the safety equipment required on hauled stock, so be cheaper.

Cheaper to install, but NR don't give out thunderbird locos for free. All the time you're sitting down blocking the line trains will be accruing delays. Although charter operators aren't on the hook for the full schedule 8 payments, they'd still have to pay for the costs of the rescue loco and at least some of the delays.

 

[The exile]

Cheaper to install, but NR don't give out thunderbird locos for free. All the time you're sitting down blocking the line trains will be accruing delays. Although charter operators aren't on the hook for the full schedule 8 payments, they'd still have to pay for the costs of the rescue loco and at least some of the delays.

Why would a thunderbird loco come into it. A train consisting of (say) 6 DMS DMU vehicles ( ie 3 power twins) only needs two vehicles ( the outer ones) to have the full safety equipment like GRSM, signalling safety systems etc) and ( probably) only four to have functioning motors. Assuming all 6 start with working engines, that’s a reasonable allowance for “ on the day” failures.