It it Only Me that Doesn't Like Doubled-Up Units?

[whhistle]

... on a semi-permenant basis?

I just don't get it at all. The wasted space of the cab, train manager in only one section, which then begs the question about DOO, because people in the other set are travelling DOO, more or less (yes, I know it runs deeper than that but on the basics...).

A great example is the GWR 800s.
Okay, so why not double up if there are no trained drivers, but why didn't they request the longer sets to be delivered first instead of two shorter sets, that are just coupled together anyway? NOt sure I've seen a working/photo of the single set in service yet. If they intend to be split soon-ish, why didn't they get rid of a 180 sooner?

I suppose it goes the other way, with some gangwayed trains, which are rarely, if ever coupled to another unit. Yes, I get that at rush hour, additional vehicles can be added to a consist but in practice, does that really happen?

Just not sure I get it.

 

[jimm]

The first working of a single five-car 800 up the Cotswold Line to Hereford took place yesterday. More start tomorrow, with others following from the 15th, plus some working Bristol-Taunton splitting from London services/

It's all of 11 weeks since the first passenger-carrying services.

800011 at Worcester yesterday https://www.flickr.com/photos/142805908@N08/27632724559/

Once the full GWR fleet is in operation early next year, there will be services that are pairs of five-car sets for the peaks but which split and operate separately/go for maintenance the rest of the day.

 

[yorkie]

...which then begs the question about DOO, because people in the other set are travelling DOO, more or less (yes, I know it runs deeper than that but on the basics...

I disagree with that. DOO is driver only operation. It does not necessarily indicate whether there is a visible staff presence in that part of the train. That's something else.

If you are saying you want to see a visible staff presence in all parts of the train, that's fair enough, but you will get that on Strathclyde electrics (DOO) but you will not on many TPE services (not DOO) on a Saturday night. And you may still get that on doubled-up units: many units do have gangways between them. I'd also have thought most types that usually do run in multiple do have gangway connections?

The wasted space is a fair point but what is the alternative? How else do you cope with changes in demand?

Yes, I get that at rush hour, additional vehicles can be added to a consist but in practice, does that really happen?

It certainly does happen on numerous routes.

 

[47802]

... on a semi-permenant basis?

I just don't get it at all. The wasted space of the cab, train manager in only one section, which then begs the question about DOO, because people in the other set are travelling DOO, more or less (yes, I know it runs deeper than that but on the basics...).

A great example is the GWR 800s.
Okay, so why not double up if there are no trained drivers, but why didn't they request the longer sets to be delivered first instead of two shorter sets, that are just coupled together anyway? NOt sure I've seen a working/photo of the single set in service yet. If they intend to be split soon-ish, why didn't they get rid of a 180 sooner?

I suppose it goes the other way, with some gangwayed trains, which are rarely, if ever coupled to another unit. Yes, I get that at rush hour, additional vehicles can be added to a consist but in practice, does that really happen?

Just not sure I get it.

The 9 car sets were originally meant to be Electric only which does of course require completed electrification where as 5 car were always meant to be Bi-mode so its hardly surprising they are being delivered first. The initial diagrams were simply replacing HST's and are not a proper IET timetable hence the initial 2 x 5 diagrams, I believe they have had some teething problems regarding coupling and uncoupling, but as post #2 has said there will be some splitting soon.

In such as France, running TGV units in pairs is common so get used to it.

 

[xotGD]

Passengers on Cross Country and Trans-Pennine would love to see doubled-up units on a semi-permanent basis!

Having two shorter units provides flexibility and facilitates splitting/portion working.

 

[route101]

Around Glasgow 318s and 320s double up . I prefer the 318s .

 

[cjmillsnun]

This is why I like units with corridor connections. Yes you still have the wasted space of the cabs, however you do get the advantage of one through train, meaning the guard (if there is one) or OBS can be reached by all passengers.

 

[D365]

The other reason for electric units being delivered in three or four car formation is of course that depots and sidings were traditionally designed to service shorter units.

 

[takno]

Passengers on Cross Country and Trans-Pennine would love to see doubled-up units on a semi-permanent basis!

To be fair I'd like the train to be twice as long. I can cope if that's done using a second unit, but really I prefer one long train

 

[Starmill]

Are pairs of 800s generally being diagrammed on GWR with either two train managers or one train manager and one RPI, and at least one customer host per unit?

If they are then that isn't really any loss to the customer. Of course they could still be displaced and end up running without them.

I have heard that EMT frequently have two train managers on mainline services formed of coupled units.

 

[BestWestern]

I have heard that EMT frequently have two train managers on mainline services formed of coupled units.

I'm struggling to picture which of EMT's units are non-gangwayed and operate in multiple? The 222s are all 7 or 9 car aren't they? The local stuff is 153s, 156, 158s...? Do they have anything else?

 

[Agent_Squash]

I'm struggling to picture which of EMT's units are non-gangwayed and operate in multiple? The 222s are all 7 or 9 car aren't they? The local stuff is 153s, 156, 158s...? Do they have anything else?

No, the 222s are either 4, 5 or 7 cars. Sometimes they double up with 4 and 5 car units.

 

[221129]

Are pairs of 800s generally being diagrammed on GWR with either two train managers or one train manager and one RPI, and at least one customer host per unit?

If they are then that isn't really any loss to the customer. Of course they could still be displaced and end up running without them.

I have heard that EMT frequently have two train managers on mainline services formed of coupled units.

The IETs cannot run without a guard or TE in both sets.

 

[bramling]

... on a semi-permenant basis?

I just don't get it at all. The wasted space of the cab, train manager in only one section, which then begs the question about DOO, because people in the other set are travelling DOO, more or less (yes, I know it runs deeper than that but on the basics...).

A great example is the GWR 800s.
Okay, so why not double up if there are no trained drivers, but why didn't they request the longer sets to be delivered first instead of two shorter sets, that are just coupled together anyway? NOt sure I've seen a working/photo of the single set in service yet. If they intend to be split soon-ish, why didn't they get rid of a 180 sooner?

I suppose it goes the other way, with some gangwayed trains, which are rarely, if ever coupled to another unit. Yes, I get that at rush hour, additional vehicles can be added to a consist but in practice, does that really happen?

Just not sure I get it.

As regards the IEPs and similar, yes I tend to agree. As a 5-car they are likely to be too short in many situations, and as a 10-car there's lots of wasted space for various reasons.

There are undoubtedly times when a 5-car may be adequate for a given service or part of a journey, however there are many more times when it won't be.

There may well be efficiencies by only running 5 cars at a given time, but from a passenger point of view it's nearly always an inferior situation compared to a longer train.

 

[BestWestern]

No, the 222s are either 4, 5 or 7 cars. Sometimes they double up with 4 and 5 car units.

Interesting! I thought they were all bigguns!

 

[driver_m]

The 221s on VT can't run as doubles in service without a member of onboard staff in both parts and at least one safety crit member of staff in each portion. The front portion typically has a driver and someone in shop, TM and shop in rear, plus any additional staff ie First Class caterer, assisting TM who will be in either.

 

[GW43125]

Interesting! I thought they were all bigguns!

They were (emphasis on use of the past tense).
In or around 2006 the 9s were reduced to 7s and the 4s made up to 5s.

 

[Starmill]

As regards the IEPs and similar, yes I tend to agree. As a 5-car they are likely to be too short in many situations, and as a 10-car there's lots of wasted space for various reasons.

The original concept for the programme was to have all 10-car units with engines in the end vehicles. I think the key driver behind having 5 car units is that it allows more destinations to be served through attaching and detaching.

 

[F Great Eastern]

As regards the IEPs and similar, yes I tend to agree. As a 5-car they are likely to be too short in many situations, and as a 10-car there's lots of wasted space for various reasons.

There are undoubtedly times when a 5-car may be adequate for a given service or part of a journey, however there are many more times when it won't be.

There may well be efficiencies by only running 5 cars at a given time, but from a passenger point of view it's nearly always an inferior situation compared to a longer train.

I personally think the move of late from a 4/8/12 car railway to a 5/10 car railway is a bad thing to be honest.

At 20m which a lot of the 4 cars are, you're looking at
4 car = 80m
8 car = 160m
12 car = 240m

At 23m which a lot of the 5 cars are you're looking at
5 car = 115m
10 car = 230m

What you do with the 8 car services is a problem.

 

[GW43125]

I personally think the move of late from a 4/8/12 car railway to a 5/10 car railway is a bad thing to be honest.

At 20m which a lot of the 4 cars are, you're looking at
4 car = 80m
8 car = 160m
12 car = 240m

At 23m which a lot of the 5 cars are you're looking at
5 car = 115m
10 car = 230m

What you do with the 8 car services is a problem.

IETs are 26m carriages, giving a 5 car as 130m and 10car as 260m.

 

[AlexNL]

Running 2x5 cars has some advantages over running 1x10:
- It enables splitting (e.g. London - Bristol - Penzance/Swansea*) so that the amount of paths used is optimised (think TAC, capacity, and so on) while still offering maximum capacity on the core route.
- It allows better supply/demand adjustment. No need to run 10 cars when 5 is enough (e.g. late at night, super off-peak)
- It gives more flexibility when it comes to planning maintenance.
- In the event of a broken unit you can still have the other half work the service. It might be a bit uncomfortable for passengers, but I think running a short train is better than not having a train at all.

* Please note that I'm just making up a route here, I have no idea about passenger flows to know if this would be realistic or not.

 

[F Great Eastern]

IETs are 26m carriages, giving a 5 car as 130m and 10car as 260m.

Sure - but I was just talking about the general trend of moving to a 5/10 car railway and the flaws of it.

 

[bramling]

I personally think the move of late from a 4/8/12 car railway to a 5/10 car railway is a bad thing to be honest.

At 20m which a lot of the 4 cars are, you're looking at
4 car = 80m
8 car = 160m
12 car = 240m

At 23m which a lot of the 5 cars are you're looking at
5 car = 115m
10 car = 230m

What you do with the 8 car services is a problem.

Well, from the passenger point of view it's obvious - run 10 cars.

Whether this is what will happen in reality is of course another matter entirely.

Personally I think 4/8/12 is better for commuter operations.

There aren't that many routes/services where 5 cars is sufficient for an entire journey on the Intercity network, and dividing/joining carries substantial performance risks.

In my view the temptation for TOCs to stretch the margins of where 5-car trains can be adequately operated will prove too great. We already see 5-car operation on XC and EMT which is very often totally inadequate. It can happen on SWT too with the 444s.

 

[bramling]

Running 2x5 cars has some advantages over running 1x10:
- It enables splitting (e.g. London - Bristol - Penzance/Swansea*) so that the amount of paths used is optimised (think TAC, capacity, and so on) while still offering maximum capacity on the core route.
- It allows better supply/demand adjustment. No need to run 10 cars when 5 is enough (e.g. late at night, super off-peak)
- It gives more flexibility when it comes to planning maintenance.
- In the event of a broken unit you can still have the other half work the service. It might be a bit uncomfortable for passengers, but I think running a short train is better than not having a train at all.

* Please note that I'm just making up a route here, I have no idea about passenger flows to know if this would be realistic or not.

Most of these are advantages for the operator. Some may well filter through to the passenger (e.g. more through train opportunities), but unfortunately in many cases the result for the passenger will simply be a more crowded journey.

 

[pdeaves]

It is a fact of life now that we have a 'fixed formation' railway (debate the rights and wrongs in a separate thread, please...!). Having twice the number of half-length trains makes it easier to prevent cancellations by shuffling things around or short-forming, etc. to give as close to the planned service as possible.

 

[Jonfun]

The 221s on VT can't run as doubles in service without a member of onboard staff in both parts and at least one safety crit member of staff in each portion. The front portion typically has a driver and someone in shop, TM and shop in rear, plus any additional staff ie First Class caterer, assisting TM who will be in either.

What happens then if a double Voyager with one TM, one Driver and one member of catering staff has to reverse en route away from a station, such as if the line ahead was blocked?

You can move the Driver and TM to the other sets so there's a safety critical member of staff in each unit but the catering staff won't have PTS or PPE so won't be able to switch sets meaning there won't be a member of onboard staff in each portion. Or, you can keep the Train Manager in the (old rear, now front portion) so there's a member of onboard staff in each unit but then there's no safety critical member of staff in the rear portion.

 

[Bornin1980s]

What happens then if a double Voyager with one TM, one Driver and one member of catering staff has to reverse en route away from a station, such as if the line ahead was blocked?

You can move the Driver and TM to the other sets so there's a safety critical member of staff in each unit but the catering staff won't have PTS or PPE so won't be able to switch sets meaning there won't be a member of onboard staff in each portion. Or, you can keep the Train Manager in the (old rear, now front portion) so there's a member of onboard staff in each unit but then there's no safety critical member of staff in the rear portion.

Has this actually happened?

 

[pompeyfan]

Sorry really late to the party here, if a 10 car is 260m does that mean the units are effectively locked to GW, certainly 3rd rail land is built to 240m.

 

[takno]

Sorry really late to the party here, if a 10 car is 260m does that mean the units are effectively locked to GW, certainly 3rd rail land is built to 240m.

Are they cleared to run on third rail anyway? Doesn't make much difference how long the train is the bogies touch the third rail...

 

[swt_passenger]

Are they cleared to run on third rail anyway? Doesn't make much difference how long the train is the bogies touch the third rail...

They are down to be route cleared Reading to Waterloo for diversionary purposes.