Does Intercity Loco Haulage Have a Future?

[Sad Sprinter]

DMUs are horrible. Having a vibrating engine underneath your seat for several hours is not a nice way to travel. So I was wondering is it still logistically possible to have long distance loco hauled trains? Are there enough carriage sidings and run round lines for locos at large stations? Wouldn’t it be better to make trains 8,10 or 12 coaches depending on the demand of time of day and season?

 

[30907]

You would almost certainly go for fixed-formation trains with driving trailers. It's certainly possible, and from about 6 (?) coaches upward more efficient than units. But by the time you are operating such lengths you ought to be going electric.

Traditional working is steadily disappearing even in Central Europe where it is relatively common (because it is policy to have large numbers of staff, or the capital outlay can't be afforded).

 

[HSTEd]

DMUs are horrible. Having a vibrating engine underneath your seat for several hours is not a nice way to travel.

The number of routes where passengers will be spending several hours on a diesel unit, operating under diesel power, is diminishing every year.
Most long distance routes are now electrified, at least partially.

So I was wondering is it still logistically possible to have long distance loco hauled trains? Are there enough carriage sidings and run round lines for locos at large stations?

If you had loco hauled trains they would be push-pull, so there would be no need for carriage sidings and run around lines.
"Conventional" operation has essentially no advantages over push pull.

Wouldn’t it be better to make trains 8,10 or 12 coaches depending on the demand of time of day and season?

No
Because the major cost in operating hauled stock vehicles is the capital cost, there is little reason to ever take them out of service.
You can just dump cheap advance tickets if necessary, it still gains you more income than leaving them out of use.

 

[hexagon789]

So I was wondering is it still logistically possible to have long distance loco hauled trains? Are there enough carriage sidings and run round lines for locos at large stations?

Yes, but definitely not conventionally hauled, only push-pull.

Wouldn’t it be better to make trains 8,10 or 12 coaches depending on the demand of time of day and season?

Any loco-haulage is likely to be fixed formation, altering train formations during the day is too costly having to shunt coaches in and out, to say nothing of the time penalty.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It has a future for the next 30+ years with the TPE Mk5s?

 

[hexagon789]

It has a future for the next 30+ years with the TPE Mk5s?

I'm not so sure they'll see 30 tbh, at least maybe not with TPE. I wouldn't be surprised if they only last 20 years or so.

 

[Indigo Soup]

On electrified railways, emphatically no. Multiple unit operation is clearly superior for passenger work, with the possible exception of sleepers.

On diesel-operated railways, maybe. For trains longer than (IIRC) five cars, the overall through-life cost is lower for a standalone locomotive than a small engine under each car. So if you're committed to running long diesel-powered trains, locomotives are cheaper.

Of course, if you're running lots of long diesel-powered trains, you need your head looking at. That sort of operation really ought to be electrified.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not so sure they'll see 30 tbh, at least maybe not with TPE. I wouldn't be surprised if they only last 20 years or so.

I have mixed views on that. They would of course be simplicity itself to convert to electric operation - just whack an electric loco on the end.

 

[hexagon789]

I have mixed views on that. They would of course be simplicity itself to convert to electric operation - just whack an electric loco on the end.

I think if they do that, they would certainly last longer in service.

 

[PeterC]

I have no doubt that in 30 years or so somebody will invent a "modular" train where the power and driving units are housed in a unit that can be uncoupled from the passenger units.

I can see advantages in being able to detach the engine, have different maintenance cycles for engine and passenger coaches, being able to swap between diesel and electric and even add vehicles to a rake (at least in the depot rather than in service). How these stack up against the advantages of a totally fixed unit I don't know.

 

[cactustwirly]

For the UK where the loading gauge and train length is much more constrained, compared to Europe, then DMUs make more sense as there is mcuh less wasted space compared to LHCS.

European Operators such as OBB and CD prefer LHCS, as the capacity and length isn't as constrained, OBB actually ordered push pull stock for their high speed lines, instead of an EMU (like DB).

 

[Neptune]

I much prefer loco hauled stock, not for any dewey eyed loco nostalgia but due to the peace and quiet from not having a noisy engine under your feet. Air con units can be under the floor too meaning less noise from the overhead units common now. This all allows more space height wise inside the vehicle too meaning more luggage space and a less claustrophobic environment. Push pull is the best way forward as the vast majority of terminals don’t have run round facilities these days. While unit operation is preferable for electric I would definitely say loco hauled is better for long distance intercity.

It would also be good for regional routes too as in Germany amongst other European countries. Think if the S&C operated a class 68 with 4 x mk5 coaches. Loads of space including valuable luggage space which has diminished badly on the refurbished 158’s.

Failing that how about bi-mode units with central power packs like the Stadler units for GA.

 

[FrodshamJnct]

TPE certainly seem to think so, though only really viable as mentioned on push/pull.

 

[Indigo Soup]

European Operators such as OBB and CD prefer LHCS, as the capacity and length isn't as constrained, OBB actually ordered push pull stock for their high speed lines, instead of an EMU (like DB).

In the case of OBB, that was because they'd got an excess of locomotives which skewed the costs in favour of LHCS. It's not a given that they'd have done the same had they needed to buy new traction packages in either case.

 

[Journeyman]

DMUs are horrible. Having a vibrating engine underneath your seat for several hours is not a nice way to travel.

Only a tiny number of people seem genuinely bothered by this. 99.9% of travelers won't care and won't know the difference between DMUs and LHCS anyway. I honestly can't think of a single non-enthusiast who is put off by DMU noise, or even knows what it is.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Only a tiny number of people seem genuinely bothered by this. 99.9% of travelers won't care and won't know the difference between DMUs and LHCS anyway. I honestly can't think of a single non-enthusiast who is put off by DMU noise, or even knows what it is.

Depends on the DMU and the route. Plenty of non-enthusiasts will comment on a train that's noisy or noticeably vibrating, even if they don't know (or care) why it's the case. My 'favourite' is Class 170s attacking Slochd, where the engine hits the resonant frequency of the overhead luggage racks. Pacers are another infamous one. The solution is more likely to be better DMUs than LHCS in these cases.

Though at least once I've heard the air compressor starting up on an EMU explained away as the engine starting for the train to leave.

 

[hexagon789]

Depends on the DMU and the route. Plenty of non-enthusiasts will comment on a train that's noisy or noticeably vibrating, even if they don't know (or care) why it's the case. My 'favourite' is Class 170s attacking Slochd, where the engine hits the resonant frequency of the overhead luggage racks. Pacers are another infamous one. The solution is more likely to be better DMUs than LHCS in these cases.

Though at least once I've heard the air compressor starting up on an EMU explained away as the engine starting for the train to leave.

170s are along the worst for vibrations, but there are a number of DMU designs where engine noise isn't not that noticeable. If we are progressing as it seems to a loco-free future on InterCity services then for the diesel routes I think it should be specified that the engine noise shouldn't be noticeable inside and as vibration free as possible.

 

[cactustwirly]

In the case of OBB, that was because they'd got an excess of locomotives which skewed the costs in favour of LHCS. It's not a given that they'd have done the same had they needed to buy new traction packages in either case.

I doubt that, remember they have Rail Cargo Austria which operates over a large area of Central/Eastern Europe.
Plus they also had to buy more Taurus locomotives for the joint RailJet service to the Czech republic and Venice.

OeBB have just taken delivery of a bunch of brand new Vectron locomotives for freight services as well.

 

[43096]

I doubt that, remember they have Rail Cargo Austria which operates over a large area of Central/Eastern Europe.
Plus they also had to buy more Taurus locomotives for the joint RailJet service to the Czech republic and Venice.

OeBB have just taken delivery of a bunch of brand new Vectron locomotives for freight services as well.

They didn’t buy more Tauri for the Czech service. The last 68 of the original 1116 (ES64U2) order for 350 locos was amended to 50 1216s (ES64U4). It is the 1216s that are used for the Czech services, of which seven are leased to ČD to power their RailJet sets.

 

[cactustwirly]

They didn’t buy more Tauri for the Czech service. The last 68 of the original 1116 (ES64U2) order for 350 locos was amended to 50 1216s (ES64U4). It is the 1216s that are used for the Czech services, of which seven are leased to ČD to power their RailJet sets.

I thought the reason why they used 1216s on the Czech services, was because the 1116s no longer met the crash regulations when they were built?

 

[43096]

I thought the reason why they used 1216s on the Czech services, was because the 1116s no longer met the crash regulations when they were built?

No. 1216s have 3kV DC which is needed for the run through to Prague. 1116s are AC only (15kV and 25kV).

 

[cactustwirly]

No. 1216s have 3kV DC which is needed for the run through to Prague. 1116s are AC only (15kV and 25kV).

I thought that the CD network was 25kv AC?

 

[43096]

I thought that the CD network was 25kv AC?

Only in part - in fact there's at least as much DC as AC. This map on the infrastructure owner's (SZDC) website shows the electrification system: https://www.szdc.cz/documents/50007830/51603092/2019-m05-kol.pdf

 

[fowler9]

Only a tiny number of people seem genuinely bothered by this. 99.9% of travelers won't care and won't know the difference between DMUs and LHCS anyway. I honestly can't think of a single non-enthusiast who is put off by DMU noise, or even knows what it is.

Many people under the age of 25 or even older have never known anything different. People my age have just got used to it over the last 20-25 years. I heard people on the Cumbrian coast services saying how nice and quiet and comfortable the new trains were with the ancient Mk2's and 37's hauling them. Went a bit sour when they kept failing all the time but that was down to them being old. Ha ha.

On a humerous note I was on the 19:56 Lime Street to Oxford Road service the other day a young Asian girl travelling with her parents checked with me it was the right train to Oxford Road. I said yes. She then checked they weren't accidentally sat in first class as the train was so nice. He ha. It was a 156, God knows what they travelled to Liverpool on, hopefully not a 195 or that could look bad for Northern if they thought the 156 was like first class. Probably a 142 I am guessing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

People can be incredibly misinformed about what constitutes first class. On Sunday I was sat in the second composite coach of an 800 at Penzance, a couple boarded and got into a discussion about whether it was first class or not - they were in Standard. They wanted First Class so they were not unfamiliar with it - I pointed them through the door.

I suppose it doesn't help that LNR so-called First is the same as Southern Standard (and Southern First!) - and that SWR's new First Class appears near-identical to Standard in the GA FLIRTs.

 

[pt_mad]

This would be worthy of a thread by itself but I wonder whether a DMU will one day be developed which has no interior vibrations from underfloor engines? I.e. the suspension etc so superior that it feels as smooth as a drag. After all there are some pretty smooth riding cars out there.

 

[JonathanH]

Only a tiny number of people seem genuinely bothered by this. 99.9% of travelers won't care and won't know the difference between DMUs and LHCS anyway. I honestly can't think of a single non-enthusiast who is put off by DMU noise, or even knows what it is.

If you live in a place where both electric and diesel trains run, non enthusiasts do comment on why they run 'noisy trains' on one route and 'quiet ones' on the other. However, diesel-hauled LHCS still constitutes a 'noisy train'. To that extent they are put off by noisy DMUs.

 

[duffield]

Only a tiny number of people seem genuinely bothered by this. 99.9% of travelers won't care and won't know the difference between DMUs and LHCS anyway. I honestly can't think of a single non-enthusiast who is put off by DMU noise, or even knows what it is.

Despite being a great fan of the EMT/XC HSTs, I certainly don't find the EMT class 222s or the XC 221s noticeably noisy due to the the underfloor engines; however as per other posters I have really noticed extreme vibration noise on class 170s, to the extent that I'm sure that 'normals' would find it very irritating - but it only occurs on occasional journeys.

But by far the worst noise I've had to put with recently is on whatever class DEMU it is that runs Reigate to Reading, and that was down to the aircon. It was really quite painful and deafening.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Despite being a great fan of the EMT/XC HSTs, I certainly don't find the EMT class 222s or the XC 221s noticeably noisy due to the the underfloor engines; however as per other posters I have really noticed extreme vibration noise on class 170s, to the extent that I'm sure that 'normals' would find it very irritating - but it only occurs on occasional journeys.

I'd agree - 22x are quite well insulated and are not noisy, at speed the engine rumble is barely distinguishable from track noise. They have many faults but that isn't one of them. 80x are even better, it's hard to tell if you're on electric or diesel, and I normally choose the powered coaches as I prefer the higher floor as the window position is nicer to rest my arm on the sill.

 

[tbtc]

To take an example, look at the MML - that's due a decent sized order of new trains in the next year or two - what advantage would loco hauled give it? It'd mean less space for passenger accommodation at stations like St Pancras, so what benefits would there be? In theory, you could add/remove coaches much easier but how often do TOCs actually do that? Why would you order loco hauled if you were running the new EMR franchise?

TPE certainly seem to think so, though only really viable as mentioned on push/pull.

It'll be interesting to see what TPE's next step is (if they order additional trains to cope with increased demand or to dump thirsty 185s or to take on new work like the potential Nottinghams service) - it looks to me like they made their messy order of three different trains (397s, 802s, loco hauled - on top of keeping some 185s) because they wanted as many new trains as possible in a short space of time - rather than a proper medium/long term strategy.

So, hard to say at the moment whether the loco hauled stock was ordered to ensure that they could get something into service quickly (given the queues at Hitachi) or whether more loco hauled would be priority if TPE did need more trains (and is therefore better than 802s). Genuinely don't know.

Only a tiny number of people seem genuinely bothered by this. 99.9% of travelers won't care and won't know the difference between DMUs and LHCS anyway. I honestly can't think of a single non-enthusiast who is put off by DMU noise, or even knows what it is.

I'd agree, based on the conversations I've had with regular passengers - as someone who used to work in Leeds I had colleagues on the Skipton line who would aim to get the EMUs because they were three/four coaches long at the time, rather than a short (ex Carlisle/ Lancaster) DMU, but I never knew anyone say that they preferred the EMUs due to the under floor engines.

Same goes for Sheffield people using XC - certainly there are some who have tried to aim for the services generally run by HSTs or doubled up Voyagers but I don't recall anyone saying that the underfloor engines of the Voyagers were a reason to take one service over another.

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...