DMU Shortage: Where would Loco-hauled be a good solution?

[61653 HTAFC]

There have been several discussions on here lately about a lack of serviceable DMUs leading to, among others, a delay in the Manchester-Burnley-Blackburn service and likely increased overcrowding on the Preston-Bolton-Manchester line...

Of course, enthusiasts (including myself) often suggest using LHCS as a way of freeing up a few DMUs, but those 'in the know' are quick to point out the deficiencies of this solution. Given this, which are the routes where the DfT could step in to fund the extra costs of LHCS with minimal negative effect on these services and to free up the required number of DMUs for Burnley (3x 75mph units?) and for Bolton strengthening (2-3x 75mph units?).

Even with use of DVT/DBSOs I'd avoid services with reversals as much as possible, ruling out Calder Valley and Leeds-Morecambe. I'd also avoid 'all-shacks' services in order to avoid the increased dwell-times and the extra fuel costs that using LHCS on such services would involve.

Leeds-Carlisle has seen LHCS in recent(ish) times, and every diagram of loco-hauled frees up a 158. Given that the earliest any change could take place would be the next summer timetable, 2 LHCS sets on the S&C would in fact free up more than just 2 DMUs due to summer strengthening (and on that route might actually attract extra passengers in the summer).

Leeds-Nottingham would be another possible route though that might be affected by SP-differentials, are there any other likely routes? They needn't be Northern services though that'd probably make it easier.

 

[YorkshireBear]

There have been several discussions on here lately about a lack of serviceable DMUs leading to, among others, a delay in the Manchester-Burnley-Blackburn service and likely increased overcrowding on the Preston-Bolton-Manchester line...

Of course, enthusiasts (including myself) often suggest using LHCS as a way of freeing up a few DMUs, but those 'in the know' are quick to point out the deficiencies of this solution. Given this, which are the routes where the DfT could step in to fund the extra costs of LHCS with minimal negative effect on these services and to free up the required number of DMUs for Burnley (3x 75mph units?) and for Bolton strengthening (2-3x 75mph units?).

Even with use of DVT/DBSOs I'd avoid services with reversals as much as possible, ruling out Calder Valley and Leeds-Morecambe. I'd also avoid 'all-shacks' services in order to avoid the increased dwell-times and the extra fuel costs that using LHCS on such services would involve.

Leeds-Carlisle has seen LHCS in recent(ish) times, and every diagram of loco-hauled frees up a 158. Given that the earliest any change could take place would be the next summer timetable, 2 LHCS sets on the S&C would in fact free up more than just 2 DMUs due to summer strengthening (and on that route might actually attract extra passengers in the summer).

Leeds-Nottingham would be another possible route though that might be affected by SP-differentials, are there any other likely routes? They needn't be Northern services though that'd probably make it easier.

The ones FGW have used before for me are a good idea. Like you say no reversals. But a LHCS will do better on GWML than a 75mph 150 with the gaps between stops.

Leeds Nottingham i would avoid as i don't think the platform capacities would allow it very well.

 

[TheEdge]

Well speaking from experience its a doable but not particularly viable long term solution.

Having worked the Greater Anglia hauled sets (as a conductor) which is operated as a T&T service they do have the bonus of running trains with enough seats and as an actually train service but they really don't fit in very well around DMU services.

Where they are used by GA (Norwich - Yarmouth/Lowestoft) they do all shacks stops and they do loose time, to the point their diagrams need 5 to 6 recovery minutes thrown in. They also need an awful lot of vehicle for not all that many seats. The GA set is made up of 5 vehicles (47, DVT, Mk3, Mk3, 47) for only two passenger vehicles.

Another problem that has hit us hard this year is reliability. The 47s (although AFAIK this is more a DRS issue) especially have been abysmal, simply using a 1960s loco as they are just doesn't do well. They've spewed vital fluids out on several occasions.

I would say using them vice a DMU is a reasonable stop gap but unless part of a specifically designed diagram (WAG, Chiltern etc) rather than shoehorned in as a part of a mainly DMU timetable isn't a great solution.