Fan preferences for loco-hauled vs multiple-unit

[Amalie]

I was partly inspired by this thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-locomotive-hauled-passenger-services.293022/

One thing I’ve noticed on this forum, as a non-Brit, is that there seems to be a general preference for loco-hauled trains. Now, I’m not here to argue against that preference, I’m personally more indifferent if anything, but I was more so curious as to why.

For reference, my bias comes from being Dutch. While we have a history with loco-hauled passenger trains, I suppose we might be uncommon in having a rich history in unique EMUs/DMUs specifically built by or for us. A lot of them, I’d argue, having lots of character. While our train interiors were never the most comfortable compared to other countries, it’s not as if our carriages were necessarily more comfortable either.

 

[The exile]

I was partly inspired by this thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-locomotive-hauled-passenger-services.293022/

One thing I’ve noticed on this forum, as a non-Brit, is that there seems to be a general preference for loco-hauled trains. Now, I’m not here to argue against that preference, I’m personally more indifferent if anything, but I was more so curious as to why.

For reference, my bias comes from being Dutch. While we have a history with loco-hauled passenger trains, I suppose we might be uncommon in having a rich history in unique EMUs/DMUs specifically built by or for us. A lot of them, I’d argue, having lots of character. While our train interiors were never the most comfortable compared to other countries, it’s not as if our carriages were necessarily more comfortable either.

A very personal and generalised take (if that’s possible!) from a 1980s onwards UK perspective:
1. Ambience: replacement of loco-hauled stick by DMU (note - most of the negativity is towards dmus) usually meant swapping ex mainline seating for something intended for short journeys. Unlike with electrification, introduction of dmus rarely brought much improvement in the service and iften meant a 4 or 5 coach train replaced by a 2 car unit. Reduction in seats was less dramatic than that implies - reduction in space was. Underfloor engines mean rattle and noise everywhere.
2. From an enthusiast perspective - increase in boring predictability (only partly caused by DMU replacement but happening at the same time).Prior to the allocation of resources to business areas, almost any loco coukd turn up on the front of your train.
3. Romance and nostalgia. Loco- hauled trains represent the “good old days. Units are what you cram into to go to work /school every day. Loco-hauled trains are what take you on holiday. If that loco also has a name it starts acquiring a personality…

 

[stadler]

I was partly inspired by this thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-locomotive-hauled-passenger-services.293022/

One thing I’ve noticed on this forum, as a non-Brit, is that there seems to be a general preference for loco-hauled trains. Now, I’m not here to argue against that preference, I’m personally more indifferent if anything, but I was more so curious as to why.

For reference, my bias comes from being Dutch. While we have a history with loco-hauled passenger trains, I suppose we might be uncommon in having a rich history in unique EMUs/DMUs specifically built by or for us. A lot of them, I’d argue, having lots of character. While our train interiors were never the most comfortable compared to other countries, it’s not as if our carriages were necessarily more comfortable either.

I have always preferred multiple unit stock. That may be due to the fact that i grew up and have always lived or worked in Surrey or Sussex or Kent or Hampshire in the third rail regions so units have been the stock that i worked on and used all my life. It has always been very rare for me to come across a locomotive hauled train. I went to school on slam door third rail EMUs every day and then i worked as a guard from 1976 to 1996 mostly on CEP/CIG/VEP EMU stock and Thumper DEMU stock. I think a lot of peoples preference is probably what they grew up with. If you grew up in my era outside the third rail region (where most stuff was locomotive hauled) then you probably would have grown up used to the locomotive hauled stock and they would probably be your preference. So a lot of it probably comes down to whether you grew up with units or locomotive hauled stuff.

I like all sorts of trains but even to this day i still find units more interesting. Even modern ones. I will always prefer riding on a unit over a locomotive hauled train if i have the choice.

I also much prefer slow trains. I find it so much more enjoyable and interesting when you travel at slow speeds and stop at every station and have more time to slowly see the scenery. These slow trains tend to far more commonly be units where as fast trains are more likely to be locomotive hauled.

 

[Harpo]

The trouble for us in the UK is our atrocious record on electrification meaning that our units have tended to be DMUs givings us the abominable and noisy 220/221 etc..

It’s not so much unit vs hauled for me it’s peaceful versus unenjoyable.

 

[duesselmartin]

I think loco hauled trains (or HST TGV type sets) have a smoother ride than carriages with an electric motor or diesel motor in it. Also noise level is reduced.

 

[tbtc]

My favorite trains will probably be the specific loco classes, liveries and carriages we had on the line closest to my house growing up, in the way that (decades later) much of my favorite music is coincidentally from the period between say me being my thirteen to reaching about twenty

Neither of these preferences stand up to any objective scrutiny, it's just human nature. Steam does nothing for me, but it's not my era

Your mileage may vary, but I appreciate I'd probably appreciate certain trains a lot more if I'd grown up in another place in another time (Westerns, Warships, Hymeks etc probably give some a Proustian rush but look foreign to me)

There are clear reasons why some enthusiasts will always perfect loco haulage though:

. The randomness (even if it's the same class of engine as usual, the assortment of coaches might vary, the mismatch in colors (especially when BR were introducing and amending a variety of liveries)

. The fact that some classes would regularly be seen on both passenger and freight trains (even if subclasses focused particular units on particular duties, e.g. some 47s tended to stick to Parcels)

. The much bigger variety (rather than three huge classes of Sprinters)

. Double heading

. More movements - shunting, decoupling, running round the stock etc (some trains were scheduled to swap traction mid-route, now that is mainly confined to the highland Caledonian Sleeper)

. The larger number of smaller classes (compared to the small number of Sprinter types) meant it was feasible for Spotters to tick off an entire class of something like 50s

. Named locos seemed to give classes more personality (one named after mountains, castles, regiments or battleships is more exciting for many young enthusiasts than the bland or worthy names on the handful modern units that did get nameplates)

All of which means it's a lot more fun to consider loco hauled I were to build a model railway, but a lot of the attractions of such engines effectively boil down to how unreliable or problematic they were

The character/varieties are great for enthusiasts but most passengers just want the train to do a consistent job for them - they need boringly reliable rather than fun and romantic

Sprinters aren't as much fun on a route like the S&C because you don't get the clag we had fifty years ago? Sure, but DMUs manage to climb those hills without the same polluting clouds which made for treasured pictures

The relative efficiency of DMUs was probably one reason why BR was able to get away with their "two for three" approach to scrapping older trains. Similarly, that's why you no longer got those thrillingly huge yards of spare locos you might see on long distance journeys or need various locos hanging around 'just in case' another one failed

However BR handled Sprinterisation badly IMHO. 150s were put onto routes like Scarborough - Liverpool or Nottingham - Cardiff, a huge drop in quality. 155s were bad enough before yet another BR funding crisis necessitated most of them being turned into a couple of single coach 153s.

Noise? It's funny how many of the people who complain about the underfloor engines might also be people preferring the front carriage of a loco hauled train so they could hear it's engines working. I can't recall non-enthusiast friends complaining about DMU engines (many passengers have headphones in these days anyway - I've never seen anyone suggesting the benefits of one of the IET carriages that didn't have an underfloor engine) - I think it's a bit like the way the smoking bans didn't mean pubs stopped smelling, you just noticed other smells more - just like the way an electric bus still has rattles and squeaks

If Brunel/ Gresley etc had stuck to multiple units, I'm not sure that anyone would invent loco haulage for passenger trains. The supposed benefits (being able to tailor train length by marshalling carriages etc) gave way to fixed formations forty plus years ago anyway

But if I find the time/ space/ money for that layout, it'd be much more fun to base it on the complicated loco hauled era, with all of the messy movements and double heading that I'd like to recreate

 

[The Pelican]

The Southern reigon, and the London Underground area, as well as the old Liverpool and Tyneside third rail areas, certainly are somewhat of an exception- all three having been substantially multiple unit worked since very early on, leading to exciting multiple units like the Brighton Belle Pullman express units and the Class 442 Wessex express units.

The most exciting set up to me has always been a loco and carriages operated in a push pull or top and tailed way like a unit. I think the HST was classified as a multiple unit at some stages and as a pair of locomotives at opposite ends of a rake of carriages at others. The Class 91+ DVT push-pull set ups, or their Class 90 equivalents, also seem to have been particularly impressive trains.

Abroad, I have found the withdrawal of the RhB's EW1 coach and Ge 4/4 ii sets a real dissapointment, and none of their modern multiple units anything like as interesting- nonetheless, some of the constituent railways of the RhB, like the Bernina railway, had railcars operating trains instead of locos since before 1910!

 

[Sun Chariot]

One thing I’ve noticed on this forum, as a non-Brit, is that there seems to be a general preference for loco-hauled trains. Now, I’m not here to argue against that preference, I’m personally more indifferent if anything, but I was more so curious as to why.

I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s when the transition from loco hauled passenger services to fixed formation units was in full swing. The previous posters have touched on reasons I preferred loco hauled:

1) Seat comfort and space. I am just under 2m tall and my "frame" is wide from former years in gym and rugby. Older loco-hauled coaches, generally, offered me the legroom and width i needed, together with more comfortable cushions and lumbar support than the awful seats I endured on (as was).Virgin West Coast and South Western Railway fixed formation units.

2) Vibration. I can recall my dismay between the loco hauled Inverness to Kyle of Lochalsh service in 1988, versus on the Super Sprinter multiple unit's Inverness to Thurso service in 1990. The latter had a mind-twisting drone of engine noise; and a truly lumbar-aching high frequency vibration through the inside of our carriages both to and from Thurso. Neither problem existed on my 1988 trip in comfortable loco hauled carriage.

3) Sensory "drama". Having one (or maybe two) locomotives hauling unpowered dead weight (carriages), created far more theatrics - in my view - than a fixed formation of many, if not all, powered axles. I loved the battle of train versus gravity as locomotives gave their all to pull carriages (or freight) up the steeper gradients of Britain's railways.

4) Commuting versus leisure. I had a daily commute with main line + London Underground, 1994 to 2008. All the main line commutes were on electric fixed formation units (West Anglia Great Northern units, or Virgin Trains Pendolino units). All felt cramped and uncomfortable (back to points 1.and 2). Conversely, when I travelled on railway excursions in 1980s and early 1990s, it was all done in loco-hauled carriages.

 

[AdamWW]

An interesting question and something I've given a bit of thought to.

I'm firmly in the loco-hauled camp, oarticularly traditional non push-pull trains.

I find them much more interesting - whereas a multiple unit will spend long periods if not its entire life in the same formation, coaches get reshuffled and trains can be made up of a mixture of types of coach - sometimes from different operators or of vastly different types and loading gauge and can even be re-arranged en route. For me, joining/splitting multiple units, usually indentical and with no corridor connection, isn't the same.

Likewise there can be en route changes of locomotive, or maybe just running round at a change of direction.

I like being able to have an unobstructed view out of the back (perhaps the least subjective item in my list), and being able to look out of the front carriage at the locomotive.

I like hearing the sounds of the wheels on the track rather that it being masked by an underfloor engine.

But more fundamentally, even if they're not doing any of the interesting things above, I just like loco hauled trains - the idea of a big engine at the front hauling coaches. I can't give a reason and don't feel that I need to. It's something rarely seen in other forms of transport and it's what captures my interest.

Noise? It's funny how many of the people who complain about the underfloor engines might also be people preferring the front carriage of a loco hauled train so they could hear it's engines working. .... I think it's a bit like the way the smoking bans didn't mean pubs stopped smelling, you just noticed other smells more - just like the way an electric bus still has rattles and squeaks

Well I'll happily say that I dislike underfloor engine noise but enjoy the sound of a locomotive. Again I don't think I need to have a reason, but I were to attempt one I'd say the difference is that it's in addition to rather than overwhelming the other sounds. You normally hear a diesel locomotive as it accelerates the train or takes it up a gradient, but not all the time!

If Brunel/ Gresley etc had stuck to multiple units, I'm not sure that anyone would invent loco haulage for passenger trains. The supposed benefits (being able to tailor train length by marshalling carriages etc) gave way to fixed formations forty plus years ago anyway

Well for quite a while the UK took advantage of being able to swap diesel for electric traction rather than just running diesel long distance under the wires.

But we're in the international transport section and some countries still retain the benefits (and I'd argue against the "supposed" bit).

Quite likely loco hauled trains are usually "fixed" formations, but that fixed formation might involve adding coaches for a busier section of the route. And last year when I was in Poland they even managed to stick some extra coaches on a train to accommodate passengers who'd missed their connection due to the overhead lines coming down.

 

[StephenHunter]

I prefer loco-hauled myself, but am also partial to a novel/interesting multiple unit class.

 

[JohnMcL7]

Purely as a passenger what I don't like about many DMUs is the noise and vibration of the engine underneath. At the moment in the north of Scotland there is the choice of 158 or 170 DMUs or the HSTs, on the 158/170s you can clearly hear the engine all the time while on the HST you can't, I particularly like on the HST as it smoothly moves away without any noise then during the trip not hearing revving up and down. It perhaps depends on the position within the carriage but I don't find the diesel engine noticeable on the class 800 and of course not an issue on EMUs.

As an enthusiast loco hauled services are more interesting to me, they feel more varied and more character to them than the almost generic DMUs.

 

[Richard Scott]

Recently did a return trip from Newport to Manchester, out by 67 plus mk4 set, return on 197. Absolutely no contest as to which was better train. A number of passengers getting on questioned if they were in 1st class when getting on a mk4. Enough said?

 

[AdamWW]

Recently did a return trip from Newport to Manchester, out by 67 plus mk4 set, return on 197. Absolutely no contest as to which was better train. A number of passengers getting on questioned if they were in 1st class when getting on a mk4. Enough said?

Absolutely, and I was thinking about those.

But of course the differences between them aren't mostly just because one is loco hauled and one is a unit.

 

[Gloster]

I have always preferred multiple unit stock. That may be due to the fact that i grew up and have always lived or worked in Surrey or Sussex or Kent or Hampshire in the third rail regions so units have been the stock that i worked on and used all my life. It has always been very rare for me to come across a locomotive hauled train. I went to school on slam door third rail EMUs every day and then i worked as a guard from 1976 to 1996 mostly on CEP/CIG/VEP EMU stock and Thumper DEMU stock. I think a lot of peoples preference is probably what they grew up with. If you grew up in my era outside the third rail region (where most stuff was locomotive hauled) then you probably would have grown up used to the locomotive hauled stock and they would probably be your preference. So a lot of it probably comes down to whether you grew up with units or locomotive hauled stuff.

I like all sorts of trains but even to this day i still find units more interesting. Even modern ones. I will always prefer riding on a unit over a locomotive hauled train if i have the choice.

I also much prefer slow trains. I find it so much more enjoyable and interesting when you travel at slow speeds and stop at every station and have more time to slowly see the scenery. These slow trains tend to far more commonly be units where as fast trains are more likely to be locomotive hauled.

Having been brought up in Stadler’s present village, I much preferred diesels. A constant diet of 4-EPBs, later replaced by 4-VEPs, was not the stuff that dreams are made of: efficient people carriers they may have been, but they didn’t fascinate teenage me. I always hoped that when I was hauled into Guildford, even to see the dentist, that we would catch the 10.10 as, with a little bit of bloomin’ luck, the Portsmouth-Clapham Up Loop vans would trail through the station behind the 10.06 to London: a 33…what a treat. (It would be still.)

When I was allowed to venture away, never towards London, the various locos were new and fascinating; even the DMUs and DEMUs were something different. I am afraid that nowadays the dearth of locos and the fact that the diesel and electric units look so similar has taken a lot of the fun away.

 

[thaitransit]

Myself I prefer locomotive hauled trains for regional and long distance trains they are generally more reliable and comfortable with diesel locomotive at the front of the train. No noise from engines under every carriage floor.

For suburban trains I prefer DMU with onboard toilets eg Vline Velocity on Western suburban services in Melbourne. Generally DMUs are more reliable than EMUs as you don't suffer disruptions from pantograph failures or storm damage to the wires a big issue in Queensland in the summer months.

 

[43096]

For me it is because a locomotive is inherently a far more impressive piece of engineering than a multiple unit. There is this machine that you can’t go in or sit in and it does all the work to move the train.

As an example, all of DB’s ICEs are excellent to travel in, but the ICE1 and ICE2 is more impressive - the power cars/locomotives make them so much better.

 

[MarcVD]

One of the reasons is that the design of most current units is just bland and unattractive. Units that had an attractive design were in fact loved by railfans. Think SBB RAEe, NS/SBB RAm, DB E403, DB VT08 and VT11.5, NS hondekop, SNCF turbotrains, FS ETR300, etc. Today's units design make them just look like oversized trams - I think many recent trams have even more character.

 

[Amalie]

One of the reasons is that the design of most current units is just bland and unattractive. Units that had an attractive design were in fact loved by railfans. Think SBB RAEe, NS/SBB RAm, DB E403, DB VT08 and VT11.5, NS hondekop, SNCF turbotrains, FS ETR300, etc. Today's units design make them just look like oversized trams - I think many recent trams have even more character.

I’d say the most recent of Dutch trains have been much more “boring,” but that’s more because of increased standardised designs in Europe overall. But I will say that even non-high speed EMUs/DMU’s don’t have to be boring. I’d find the double decker VIRM or the quirky DM90 DMUs (to use more recent examples) to be more interesting than Traxx or Vectron locomotives.

But thanks everyone for their answers!

 

[cambsy]

I have always been more of a fan of loco hauled trains, than multiple units. A loco hauling proper old fashioned hauled stock really cant be beaten, as a journey experience, and with windows down its pure heaven.

 

[NCT]

My interest in the railway stems from it being a sustainable economic good. I want a system that serves its purpose with efficiency. I care about SRTs and minimising dwells. For me it's about exploiting what the latest technology can offer. High-speed trains need pressure-sealed carriages. Maxing out a 400m platform length is best done without locomotives. Then there's this generational thing - and entirely personal - VVVF interests me far more than clickety clackety.