Generic Centre Cars

[dstrat]

DVT = Space for bikes/luggage/elephants etc. Food for thought there.

 

[MCR247]

And on the average East Coast service, is every part of the DVT utilised?

 

[Geezertronic]

DVT = Space for bikes/luggage/elephants etc. Food for thought there.

Bikes is one thing but not luggage as I would assume there is too much scope for things to go missing. Also, if you are booked in a coach further down the rake, sticking your luggage in the DVT could involve a hike down the train. I presume an Elephant might cause weight issues so that is not a good idea either.

Plus, you're supposed to keep your luggage within eyesight are you not?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Ermm yes? If EC went to EMU operation, you would have about 1 and 1/2 extra carriages for seating.

I do love the 'with LHCS you can add an extra carriage when you want'

So why don't EC just add a carriage to some of their MK4s that run busy services? Oh wait, they can't can they? They don't have SDO and it would be too long for platforms. There's that idea out the window

I don't think EC need longer trains, but more of them at busy times. If you recall GNER added a coach to their HSTs to boost space because Virgin stopped using them, a DMU and EMU operator will have trouble doing that with any cascade of stock!.

TOCs like Crosscountry and Transpennine Express need longer trains, but can't rely on extending units if another TOC finishes using theirs because they are, for the most part, completely incompatible.

Mk2s and Mk3s (loco hauled) will happily work together, even with Mk1s if need be, and I presume the same applies to Mk4s although I have never seen it done.

ANyway, I'm not saying 'they can be added at anytime' but that they can be extended before they leave the depot for special situations (footex or Summer Saturday workings for example) and could be used as a multiple unit for all other purposes.

 

[90019]

with leg room that would be illegal if I were cattle

But a cow is a quadraped, somewhat bigger than you, and has to stand or lie down.
Maybe we should introduce actual cattle class, with no seats at all, no windows, just a few ventilation holes, and people only get the amount of space around them proportional to what a cow gets
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Mk2s and Mk3s (loco hauled) will happily work together, even with Mk1s if need be, and I presume the same applies to Mk4s although I have never seen it done.

I think they can connect to the TSOE or DVT end, not sure they can with intermedate coaches?

 

[sprinterguy]

ANyway, I'm not saying 'they can be added at anytime' but that they can be extended before they leave the depot for special situations (footex or Summer Saturday workings for example) and could be used as a multiple unit for all other purposes.

And multiple units are often doubled up during special events such as those you have mentioned above, when spare capacity in the fleet can be found to allow this. The TOCs, if they were to use loco hauled formations, would not hold a raft of additional carriages for special events any more than they would hold a raft of additional DMUs for the same purpose in the current arrangement.

I don't think EC need longer trains, but more of them at busy times. If you recall GNER added a coach to their HSTs to boost space because Virgin stopped using them, a DMU and EMU operator will have trouble doing that with any cascade of stock!.

Northern will be doubling up some of their most overcrowded trains when they receive 150s from London Midland, and as London Midland and FGW have proved, it is perfectly feasible to form a three carriage 150 or 158 respectively from a two carriage 150 or 158 by adding an extra carriage.

It can be argued that adding capacity to a multiple unit train is easier than adding extra carriages to a loco hauled formation, as a two carriage DMU can simply couple to another DMU for a busy service, and the additional train can then be easily "dropped off" to go and do something else during quieter hours. Whereas adding carriages to a loco hauled train requires a station pilot loco to add or remove carriages at the very least.

 

[Drsatan]

Bikes is one thing but not luggage as I would assume there is too much scope for things to go missing. Also, if you are booked in a coach further down the rake, sticking your luggage in the DVT could involve a hike down the train.

A cheaper way of increasing the number of seats would be to convert EC's DVTs for passenger use. However, I'm fairly certain that when operating at over 100mph DVT's cannot carry passengers. Considering that the risk of the DVT being involved in an accident is very unlikely, would it not make sense to change the law so that DVT's could carry passengers?

TOCs like Crosscountry and Transpennine Express need longer trains, but can't rely on extending units if another TOC finishes using theirs because they are, for the most part, completely incompatible.

Not necessarily. If Birmingham-Glasgow services switch to Pendolino option then Virgin could give some of its Voyagers to XC. Either any cascaded Voyagers could be used to double the capacity of overcrowded services or they could increase the length of some Super Voyagers to 6 cars.

 

[sprinterguy]

TOCs like Crosscountry and Transpennine Express need longer trains, but can't rely on extending units if another TOC finishes using theirs because they are, for the most part, completely incompatible.

Which is back to the original point of this thread that there is a need for generic centre cars for multiple units.

It is pretty much true that any number of carriages of any BR design can be hauled around by a locomotive. But bear in mind that push-pull operation which negates the need for loco run rounds at terminuses and shortens turn round times requires the carriages to be through-wired for the particular form of multiple working used by the locomotive.

 

[ainsworth74]

However, I'm fairly certain that when operating at over 100mph DVT's cannot carry passengers.

I believe that rule was abandoned some time ago, hence why 390s and other modern high speed trains have passengers in their leading vehicles.

 

[jopsuk]

Was it ever a rule as such, or rather just a design recommendation at the time the Mrk3 and Mrk4 DVTs were built?

Better use of luggage space in DVTs and HST power cars could be achieved- though it would really require, at most stops, a member of platform staff to act as porter, and perhaps some sort of destination label for the bags. I know EC were using the Guards Van part of the TGS for luggage when I travelled north for Christmas, but I think luggage was only put there at London- approaching Edinburgh, an request was made for passengers for Falkirk and Gleneagles (short platforms) to collect their luggage whilst stopped at Edinburgh. Not sure how well that worked, what with the horde trying to board at Waverley. But anyway, with a bit more organisation (and perhaps staff) better use could be made at busy times- porters at the main stations, with train staff identifying which bags need to come off in advance of stops- on HSTs, to use the power cars, issue ear defenders?

 

[tbtc]

Which is back to the original point of this thread that there is a need for generic centre cars for multiple units

This is it.

If you built 100 "one size fits all - plug and play" centre coaches then I'm fairly sure they'd be snapped up pretty quickly - given how busy 185s/ Voyagers etc are. These routes are busy, but more people would use them if there was a better chance of a seat. However, it's prohibitively expensive to order a small number of new coaches (given production lines etc).

Yes, it'd be a risk to build, but no stock goes unused - the only stock built "on spec" I can think of were the Porterbrook 170s and they were soon aquired by Central Trains.

If we had forced operators to ensure new stock was compatible with existing stock in the area (with allowances for Southern Region having different couplings to elsewhere etc) then we wouldn't have this problem.

Imagine if ScotRail/ London Midland/ XC could order new centre cars from the 172 production line to slot into their 170s? At the moment these TOCs have busy Turbostar services, with them often coupled to a 153 (LM) or 158/170 (ScotRail) all day. Increasing the length would then free up those 153/158s (etc) for elsewhere.

I remember reading of the Chinese car firm who made car parts compatible with General Motors vehicles (?). There are obviously some copywrite/ trademark issues, but there must be some scope for "backwards compatible" technology. I mean, I can buy an ipod charger (or docking station etc) not made by Apple. I can buy a Playstation/X-Box (etc) controller not made by Sony/ Microsoft. So could someone make a coach which worked with existing Voyager coaches?

 

[ainsworth74]

Was it ever a rule as such, or rather just a design recommendation at the time the Mrk3 and Mrk4 DVTs were built?

I'm not sure to be honest, I was always under the impression that it was formal rule rather than a recommendation but I don't have any source for that. Either way it certainly doesn't apply today.

Your also right about using the luggage space more effectively. I personally don't understand why EC don't make more use of the DVTs or TGS luggage space, it would be a handy way of getting massive suitcases out of the way and surely not that hard to implement a system to make it simple for all involved.

 

[tbtc]

I'm not sure to be honest, I was always under the impression that it was formal rule rather than a recommendation but I don't have any source for that. Either way it certainly doesn't apply today.

Your also right about using the luggage space more effectively. I personally don't understand why EC don't make more use of the DVTs or TGS luggage space, it would be a handy way of getting massive suitcases out of the way and surely not that hard to implement a system to make it simple for all involved.

I presume the "no passengers in the front vehicle of anything over 100mph comes from the Polmont train crash? Voyagers/ Pendolinos have to have a fairly big "crumple zone" to get round the rules. Trouble is, this eats up a lot of the capacity of a four coach Voyager...

Luggage in the DVT sounds a nice idea. Trouble is, a lot of people want to keep their luggage in sight and don't even use the "luggage" areas at the end of the coach, so asking them to leave them in the DVT may not go down well. Plus, unless you are sitting in the coach adjacent, you have to deal with the logistics of putting the luggage into the DVT, walking down the train to your coach in the middle, sitting there for the journey, walking back along the train to the DVT before the train arrives at your destination and recovering the luggage. Sadly I think the British Public won't be able to cope with that kind of arrangement. I hope I'm wrong, but...

 

[jopsuk]

My concept with that, whilst expensive (requires staff) is that at your departure station, you hand your luggage to a member of platform staff, who puts a destination label on your bag and gives you a counterpart coupon. This could be easily done on the platform. The destination only needs (in fact has to be) where you're going to get off that train.

The train arrives, and the platform staff member and train staff member off load the bags for that station and quickly load the new bags. The bags being loaded don't need sorted immediately, the on-train staff can deal with them whilst the train is in motion. Passengers that have alighted simply need to match their coupon to the ticket on their bag to reclaim it.

There should be no more "security" (as in terrorism) risk than with normal baggage- in fact, I'd say there's less risk. The staffing element deals with theft.

But it requires more staff- though the platform staff can be a dispatcher, as, after all, the train can't leave until he's ready anyway.

 

[T163R]

It COULD theoretically be possible, if electrical systems, coupling, braking, power, ancillary systems (eg lighting, heating), and control, could somehow be organised under the floor in a manner that would allow interchangeable 'modules' to be installed.

Yeah it would need to be symetrical on each side

 

[starrymarkb]

This is it.

If you built 100 "one size fits all - plug and play" centre coaches then I'm fairly sure they'd be snapped up pretty quickly - given how busy 185s/ Voyagers etc are. These routes are busy, but more people would use them if there was a better chance of a seat. However, it's prohibitively expensive to order a small number of new coaches (given production lines etc).

Yes, it'd be a risk to build, but no stock goes unused - the only stock built "on spec" I can think of were the Porterbrook 170s and they were soon aquired by Central Trains.

If we had forced operators to ensure new stock was compatible with existing stock in the area (with allowances for Southern Region having different couplings to elsewhere etc) then we wouldn't have this problem.

Imagine if ScotRail/ London Midland/ XC could order new centre cars from the 172 production line to slot into their 170s? At the moment these TOCs have busy Turbostar services, with them often coupled to a 153 (LM) or 158/170 (ScotRail) all day. Increasing the length would then free up those 153/158s (etc) for elsewhere.

I remember reading of the Chinese car firm who made car parts compatible with General Motors vehicles (?). There are obviously some copywrite/ trademark issues, but there must be some scope for "backwards compatible" technology. I mean, I can buy an ipod charger (or docking station etc) not made by Apple. I can buy a Playstation/X-Box (etc) controller not made by Sony/ Microsoft. So could someone make a coach which worked with existing Voyager coaches?

Are you talking powered or unpowered. If slotting a 172 style vehicle or vice versa into a Turbostar you'd need to make it a powered trailer (IIRC Turbostars are underpowered), then you'd have issues with the drives. There was an accident in the 1970s where a Hyraulic unit (127) and Mechanical unit (105 IIRC) were working together and the performance difference lead to the 105's gearbox exploding. You'd have to somehow control the engine speeds to keep both transmission types in line.

Plus you'd need two layouts - end door for long haul and 2/3 doors for suburban/commuter runs. A generic suburban coach style wouldn't work in a Voyager

 

[hairyhandedfool]

And multiple units are often doubled up during special events such as those you have mentioned above, when spare capacity in the fleet can be found to allow this. The TOCs, if they were to use loco hauled formations, would not hold a raft of additional carriages for special events any more than they would hold a raft of additional DMUs for the same purpose in the current arrangement.

Northern will be doubling up some of their most overcrowded trains when they receive 150s from London Midland, and as London Midland and FGW have proved, it is perfectly feasible to form a three carriage 150 or 158 respectively from a two carriage 150 or 158 by adding an extra carriage.

It can be argued that adding capacity to a multiple unit train is easier than adding extra carriages to a loco hauled formation, as a two carriage DMU can simply couple to another DMU for a busy service, and the additional train can then be easily "dropped off" to go and do something else during quieter hours. Whereas adding carriages to a loco hauled train requires a station pilot loco to add or remove carriages at the very least.

There is no reason push-pull sets can't be coupled or uncoupled, in service, to form longer trains like multiple units can. There is infinate potential for reforming of stock throughout use by a franchise and when 'off-lease' for potential customers. You can't split 3-car 170s to make three more 3-car Turbostars a coach longer afterall. The 150/2, 155, 156 and 158 units can be, which is probably still good for lesser use lines in the future, but, on the mainline, units are a mistake in my opinion.

My concept with that, whilst expensive (requires staff) is that at your departure station, you hand your luggage to a member of platform staff, who puts a destination label on your bag and gives you a counterpart coupon. This could be easily done on the platform. The destination only needs (in fact has to be) where you're going to get off that train.

The train arrives, and the platform staff member and train staff member off load the bags for that station and quickly load the new bags. The bags being loaded don't need sorted immediately, the on-train staff can deal with them whilst the train is in motion. Passengers that have alighted simply need to match their coupon to the ticket on their bag to reclaim it.

There should be no more "security" (as in terrorism) risk than with normal baggage- in fact, I'd say there's less risk. The staffing element deals with theft.

But it requires more staff- though the platform staff can be a dispatcher, as, after all, the train can't leave until he's ready anyway.

I am led to believe such staff did once exist, alledgedly they were called "porters" and helped all manner of passenger with bags and suitcases. A modern day equivilant would probably be branded "Customer Travel Mobility Assistance" or something equally stupid.

 

[sprinterguy]

There is no reason push-pull sets can't be coupled or uncoupled, in service, to form longer trains like multiple units can. There is infinate potential for reforming of stock throughout use by a franchise and when 'off-lease' for potential customers. You can't split 3-car 170s to make three more 3-car Turbostars a coach longer afterall. The 150/2, 155, 156 and 158 units can be, which is probably still good for lesser use lines in the future, but, on the mainline, units are a mistake in my opinion.

Despite the pro-multiple unit stance of my posts in this thread, I agree wholeheartedly that multiple units are not suitable for long distance Intercity and inter-regional work. MUs are suited to high frequency suburban work with short turn-round times, and rural and regional services with short train lengths. Longer distance workings should, you would hope, favour loco hauled operation.

 

[tbtc]

The "borderline" for me is length of train.

Assuming a train is going to remain in fixed formation each day, there is a length at which a "multiple unit" is more efficient - a separate engine (and DVT) would be a nonsence on a two coach train.

However, as trains get longer, it becomes more efficient to have separate engines/ power cars. A nine coach intercity service would be better with engine and coaches (rather than engines under the coaches).

Trouble is, what's the cut off? I reckon four or five coach trains are okay for multiple units, but anything over this its better to have power cars (or an engine/DVT).

So the seven coach 222s would be better replaced with an HST equivalent...

 

[jopsuk]

I think it's different for diesel and electric- for instance, having a loco at one end (or both) of the 12 car formations in and out of London would be much less efficient than having three four car units.

The idea of varying the length of LHCS sets throiugh the day is never coming back. They require carriage sidings much closer than an MU depot needs to be to the terminals, they require loco-release facilities, they require shunter locos and groundstaff to carry out the coupling (sticking auto-couplers on every carriage is a non-starter really).

For electric intercity (as opposed to diesel or potential hybrid) I think it is alos clear that distributed power is the better way- mainly because this is is what EVERYONE is doing. All currently built European and Far East electric intercity trains are EMUs.

 

[MCR247]

For me, I have a rule - if the train is at a length where it could be coupled to another of the same kind, make it an MU.

 

[Daimler]

And on the average East Coast service, is every part of the DVT utilised?

Perhaps not on the *average* East Coast service, but at busy times (for example, when the universities up and down the route break up for holidays), it can be seriously packed - not just bikes, but trunks and suitcases.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The "borderline" for me is length of train.

Assuming a train is going to remain in fixed formation each day, there is a length at which a "multiple unit" is more efficient - a separate engine (and DVT) would be a nonsence on a two coach train.

However, as trains get longer, it becomes more efficient to have separate engines/ power cars. A nine coach intercity service would be better with engine and coaches (rather than engines under the coaches).

Trouble is, what's the cut off? I reckon four or five coach trains are okay for multiple units, but anything over this its better to have power cars (or an engine/DVT).

So the seven coach 222s would be better replaced with an HST equivalent...

Indeed, this seems eminently sensible. That said, I have nothing against distributed power intercity EMUs per se (DMUs really aren't ideal for intercity services - whatever people say, there is *a lot* of additional noise and vibration, even in the best of them). This issue with distributed power EMUs, of course, is that when it comes to dragging them around non-electrified areas, there's an awful lot of extra weight.

For the reason given in my post above, I also believe a proper intercity train should have a considerable luggage area - something a DVT guarantees.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Perhaps not on the *average* East Coast service, but at busy times (for example, when the universities up and down the route break up for holidays), it can be seriously packed - not just bikes, but trunks and suitcases.

. . . .

I also believe a proper intercity train should have a considerable luggage area - something a DVT guarantees.

I agree!

As someone who uses the space in EC's DVTs on a regular basis, I occasionally see other people using that capacity too. But not often.
In fact, I can only recall one ocasion on which there was such a profusion of luggage that I had to carefully pick a route though all the bags to avoid standing on something. But if you consider that this was just a layer of luggage on he floor, then the reaming unused capacity was the other (almost) 50 cubic meters of air above them.
Maybe we just need to make the facility in DVTs more widely known - I've never known a guard or dispatch staff to hesitate in opening the DVT for passengers' luggage!

(But I've strayed right Off Topic here. Sorry folks!)

 

[RobShipway]

In the early days of testing the class 91, an HST power car was acring as the DVT as I think has been mentioned if not in this thread but in forum before.

But here is a thought, if you had a five car train with diesel power car at each end and a pantograph car in the middle, would that be any different to a five car voyager with a pantograph car in the middle?

 

[Kingfisher200262]

In the early days of testing the class 91, an HST power car was acring as the DVT as I think has been mentioned if not in this thread but in forum before.

But here is a thought, if you had a five car train with diesel power car at each end and a pantograph car in the middle, would that be any different to a five car voyager with a pantograph car in the middle?

It wouldn't be any different, based on the fact that you've got diesel engines and a pantograph. However, you've still got to find a way to get the juice from the 'leccy to the traction motors, which based on your suggestion would be at each end of the train.

If your suggestion is that the pantograph car should have its own traction system and traction motors, one powered car in five (plus two power cars) would be insufficient to power the train set.