Loco & coach combination - why so rare?

[Dent]

Adding additional carriages is cheaper than additional units.

If the trains already are multiple units then adding carriages won't make them loco hauled, it would make them multiple units with trailer cars.

Obviously adding dead weight for units only designer to propel themselves to drag around is going to slow the whole train down.

 

[Mark62]

It's a great idea to run four coach dmu's from Glasgow to Plymouth. The level of comfort offered is incredible. Yes as someone said previously. DMU's are superior in almost every way. Not sure when this chap was born. Running DMU's has nothing to do with passenger comfort it's all about making as much money as possible for the least outlay. Oops I forget it's joe public who buys the rolling stock. It's just the operators who make all the money. Sorry for my incessant cynicism but I travel by rail a lot and I am not impressed by our rail network. It's costing the taxpayer more than ever and we are getting less in return.
The old mark 1 coaches were far from comfortable but they were a lot more comfortable than pacers, voyagers and meridians.

 

[WarrenTManager]

Cost too much.
Multiple units are superior in almost every way.

Last year's golden spanners

Chiltern 67s 3800 miles on average between a delay of 3 minutes plus due to a technical fault

Class 159/0 same criteria...... 163,000 miles

 

[AM9]

It's a great idea to run four coach dmu's from Glasgow to Plymouth. The level of comfort offered is incredible. Yes as someone said previously. DMU's are superior in almost every way. Not sure when this chap was born. Running DMU's has nothing to do with passenger comfort it's all about making as much money as possible for the least outlay. Oops I forget it's joe public who buys the rolling stock. It's just the operators who make all the money. Sorry for my incessant cynicism but I travel by rail a lot and I am not impressed by our rail network. It's costing the taxpayer more than ever and we are getting less in return.
The old mark 1 coaches were far from comfortable but they were a lot more comfortable than pacers, voyagers and meridians.

Of course one person's 'a lot more comfortable' is another's soggy, bouncy, ergonomically unhealthy MkI seating with cart spring bogies hitting their bolster bearings' slack when travelling across track shortcomings. I think there's a fair bit of nostalgia clouding judgement here as well.
I doubt that many fare-paying passengers would tolerate MkIs at even 75mph these days.

 

[HSTEd]

They ride terribly.

 

[Taunton]

Of course one person's 'a lot more comfortable' is another's soggy, bouncy, ergonomically unhealthy MkI seating with cart spring bogies hitting their bolster bearings' slack when travelling across track shortcomings. I think there's a fair bit of nostalgia clouding judgement here as well.
I doubt that many fare-paying passengers would tolerate MkIs at even 75mph these days.

No, remembered wrong. In the late 1980s I regularly used a Sunday evening Liverpool to Euston service that used one of the NSE sets that on weekdays did Northampton to Euston. Mk 1 stock, B4 bogies, electrically hauled at 100 mph like everything else on the fast lines. Way more comfortable and a pleasant ambience than being sat bolt upright and squashed in a Pendolino, in fact I would specifically go for this service compared to the Mk 3 runs before or after.

While speaking about the old times, in practice there were very few run-round loops used at termini, nor pilots pulling the stock off the locomotive to release it. At most termini in diesel days the loco remained, shut down, on the buffers until the train departed on its return, or was hauled off to the sidings. Even though smaller pilots, Type 2s, or tank locos in the days of steam, did some of the latter work, they were commonly mixed in with main line locos doing the same before or after a main run. Paddington was notable for this, it saved a couple of light engine moves, old photos often show one or more main line locos surprisingly tender-first against the stop blocks, having brought in some empty stock from Old Oak, they were fully prepared for a later run once their stock had departed.

Sometimes there were odd combinations. There was only one size of electric loco on the WCML so they were used equally for long runs or empty stock moves. At Liverpool Lime Street you might find the stock for a morning express to Newcastle was brought in by a 25Kv loco, which just looked strange.

 

[AM9]

No, remembered wrong. In the late 1980s I regularly used a Sunday evening Liverpool to Euston service that used one of the NSE sets that on weekdays did Northampton to Euston. Mk 1 stock, B4 bogies, electrically hauled at 100 mph like everything else on the fast lines. Way more comfortable and a pleasant ambience than being sat bolt upright and squashed in a Pendolino, in fact I would specifically go for this service compared to the Mk 3 runs before or after.

While speaking about the old times, in practice there were very few run-round loops used at termini, nor pilots pulling the stock off the locomotive to release it. At most termini in diesel days the loco remained, shut down, on the buffers until the train departed on its return, or was hauled off to the sidings. Even though smaller pilots, Type 2s, or tank locos in the days of steam, did some of the latter work, they were commonly mixed in with main line locos doing the same before or after a main run. Paddington was notable for this, it saved a couple of light engine moves, old photos often show one or more main line locos surprisingly tender-first against the stop blocks, having brought in some empty stock from Old Oak, they were fully prepared for a later run once their stock had departed.

Sometimes there were odd combinations. There was only one size of electric loco on the WCML so they were used equally for long runs or empty stock moves. At Liverpool Lime Street you might find the stock for a morning express to Newcastle was brought in by a 25Kv loco, which just looked strange.

I still maintain that LHCS wouldn't be acceptable with the majority of current rail passengers. Also a few express trains on the WCML in the '80s hardly represent much of the rail traffic running today. If those trains with all their logistical baggage and relativerly poor performance wouldn't have a hope in hell of operating the current service intensity compared with EMUs in use on that same line today. LHCS has had its day. Nobody would dream of bringing them back for any serious intensive timetables. The GEML is hamstrung by the LHCS Norwich trains and Chiltern line services are only playing at any high density traffic.

 

[GatwickDepress]

Using Pendolinos to argue against using multiple units as a whole is like using Pacers to argue against the existence of the North of England!

 

[ac6000cw]

Of course one person's 'a lot more comfortable' is another's soggy, bouncy, ergonomically unhealthy MkI seating with cart spring bogies hitting their bolster bearings' slack when travelling across track shortcomings. I think there's a fair bit of nostalgia clouding judgement here as well.
I doubt that many fare-paying passengers would tolerate MkIs at even 75mph these days.

I agree - although to be fair, by the early 1980s (at least) the stock cascade triggered by the introduction of HSTs meant that most long-distance loco-hauled services had moved to much better riding Mk2's.

The GEML is hamstrung by the LHCS Norwich trains

And yes, what the GEML Norwich services need is some modern high-performance EMUs - the East Anglia in general seems to have become a repository for some of the oldest electric stock on the network....(317s/321s/slam-door Mk3s+90s)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hi,

As the title suggests really. The traditional image of a locomotive hauling a rake of coaches on regular timetabled services is now becoming an increasingly rare sight on the network. Does anyone know why this is?

Thanks.

In reality, in terms of train numbers, most of the passenger network went multiple-unit a very long time ago - the railway companies south of the Thames (and in the North of England) started running EMU's over a century ago, and wholescale conversion of local and secondary services to DMUs happened in the 1950's and early 1960s as steam power was retired. In fact, Glasgow QS-Edinburgh has gone from steam LHCS to 'Inter-City' DMU to diesel LHCS to DMU over time (as have a few other services e.g. Birmingham-East Anglia).

 

[Taunton]

I agree - although to be fair, by the early 1980s (at least) the stock cascade triggered by the introduction of HSTs meant that most long-distance loco-hauled services had moved to much better riding Mk2's.

Long before then. The original B1 bogie on Mk 1 stock, which worked fine when new but deteriorated quite rapidly due to wear in the bolsters, was seen as unsatisfactory after a few years. Around 1959 new stock started being fitted with Commonwealth bogies, which were actually a US design licence-made by a manufacturer in Sheffield, which rode fine at speed but were particularly heavy. These were followed a few years later by the B4 design, developed at Swindon, which was fitted to the final years of Mk 1 production up to 1964. All this was fitted to Mk 1 stock, which itself had evolved substantially in build quality, interior fittings, and corrosion prevention. When the first (vacuum braked) Mk 2 stock came along in 1965, mainly for the WCML electrification introduction, there was thus a significant proportion of stock by the mid-1960s, including all the high speed services, already on the newer and good-riding bogies.

I still maintain that LHCS wouldn't be acceptable with the majority of current rail passengers.

What is acceptable to passengers is principally down to ride (bogies), noise and ventilation (body construction) and seating comfort, lighting, etc (internal fittings). None of these are in any way connected with whether the vehicle is hauled or a multiple unit. Of course, one thing that has happened is that the costs to build each vehicle has skyrocketed way ahead of inflation, so we now have services run with a minimum of vehicles and regularly, day in day out, half the passengers standing on some longer distance runs. Now THAT'S what passengers don't find acceptable.

 

[Dent]

What is acceptable to passengers is principally down to ride (bogies), noise and ventilation (body construction) and seating comfort, lighting, etc (internal fittings).

Other very important factors are journey times and levels of crowding, both of which can be improved by using multiple units.

 

[XCTurbostar]

I believe that this was the whole reason the pacers were introduced, as a cheap running alternative to loco hauled services. Just a shame that the 'stop gap' lasted a while longer than expected.

In my opinion, some routes would be a lot better off being loco hauled than being multiple units where a quicker running time is not hugely important. If you class HSTs as loco hauled, why are Scotland getting them instead of a fresh batch of multiple units or similar?

Thanks,
Ross

 

[Dent]

In my opinion, some routes would be a lot better off being loco hauled than being multiple units where a quicker running time is not hugely important.

1. Which routes are these?

2. In what way do you think they would be "a lot better" with an long obsolete means of propulsion that would make them much slower and less efficient?

 

[thealexweb]

Have Scotrail's new Class 68s been discussed yet? Seen here on the move https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB9I4_Erkwk

At 0:12. Thats a DBSO isn't it?

 

[jopsuk]

I think it's just a BSO- the one in DRS colours in the train certainly is

 

[thealexweb]

I think it's just a BSO- the one in DRS colours in the train certainly is

Ah, my mistake.

 

[ac6000cw]

I believe that this was the whole reason the pacers were introduced, as a cheap running alternative to loco hauled services. Just a shame that the 'stop gap' lasted a while longer than expected.

No - Pacers replaced 1st generation DMUs dating from the 1950s (which had already been refurbished once to extend their working life, because BR couldn't make the financial numbers stack up to get Treasury approval to replace them like-for-like with modern bogied DMUs).

One of the reasons BR stayed with LHCS (mostly) for the heavily loaded mainline services was because it reckoned that on a whole-life-cost basis, once the standard train length was more than about six coaches it was cheaper to concentrate the power equipment in one place rather than distribute it along the train.

 

[al.currie93]

I discussed this on another thread recently

Neither type is 'better' or 'worse', but the bigger picture needs to be looked at. Trains made up of locomotives hauling coaches have various advantages and disadvantages when opposed to multiple unit trains (greater simplicity and cost, worse acceleration for example). The predominant rolling stock will reflect what advantages are being prioritised at the time. Multiple units have better acceleration in most cases, there's no doubt about it - as acceleration is currently one of the main priorities of the railway as a whole (rightly or wrongly is another discussion) this means that multiple units are the predominant stock. However there are some signs to suggest that this might possibly change soon and that cost and simplicity (for example) are being prioritised, like the rolling stock specification in the Northern ITT for example

Hopefully that gives a good explanation

 

[RichmondCommu]

The old mark 1 coaches were far from comfortable but they were a lot more comfortable than pacers, voyagers and meridians.

However on the flip side they were down right dangerous.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I discussed this on another thread recently

Neither type is 'better' or 'worse', but the bigger picture needs to be looked at. Trains made up of locomotives hauling coaches have various advantages and disadvantages when opposed to multiple unit trains (greater simplicity and cost, worse acceleration for example). The predominant rolling stock will reflect what advantages are being prioritised at the time. Multiple units have better acceleration in most cases, there's no doubt about it - as acceleration is currently one of the main priorities of the railway as a whole (rightly or wrongly is another discussion) this means that multiple units are the predominant stock. However there are some signs to suggest that this might possibly change soon and that cost and simplicity (for example) are being prioritised, like the rolling stock specification in the Northern ITT for example

Hopefully that gives a good explanation

I don't understand why acceleration could ever be seen as not being a priority. Journey times and all that, especially in the case of Northern.

 

[XCTurbostar]

I don't understand why acceleration could ever be seen as not being a priority. Journey times and all that, especially in the case of Northern.

I agree. The Faster acceleration allows trains to run faster and allow more trains to run on the line. With a railway like today, I don't think would be in the position we are without multiple units. Take VXC for example, voyagers allowed a more frequent service to Manchester and Reading, yes they aren't Mk2s or Mk3s but they allowed services to be faster.
The only time I think of where this wouldn't be as big of an issue is where a service does not interact with any other at all during its journey and the trains are very irregular such as 2 a day. But even then the line probably has a lot of stops so better acceleration helps!

Thanks,
Ross

 

[ry34081]

Units do not always have better acceleration, 168 and 67+6+dvt have the same timings on chiltern and both reach 100 mph at roughly the same point from leaving London. The 68s actually reach 100 about a mile earlier than both the 168 And 67. Also to be noted is that a unit of over 5 coaches in length will use more fuel then a loco hauled set.

 

[A0]

I believe that this was the whole reason the pacers were introduced, as a cheap running alternative to loco hauled services. Just a shame that the 'stop gap' lasted a while longer than expected.

You're wrong on one part - the Pacers were not introduced to replace LHCS - they were to replace life-expired 1st generation DMUs that were uneconomic to overhaul mainly due to the presence of asbestos - so classes such as 100, 104, 105.

The DMUs which replaced LHCS were generally the Sprinters - some of the 150s did, but mainly it was the 156, 158, 159s which replaced most LHCS.

 

[jopsuk]

Also to be noted is that a unit of over 5 coaches in length will use more fuel then a loco hauled set.

This mantra I see repeated again and again. What is the source, and what year is it from?

 

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

four coach dmu's [sic] from Glasgow to Plymouth

As usual with Voyager-bashing, you are mising the point - how many people actually travel end-to-end on services such as these? Almost everyone, other than hard-core rail enthusiasts, would fly because it is both cheaper and quicker. Maybe the Voyagers are shorter and less comfortable than other types of stock which have or could work these services (my view is that the contrast is significantly exaggerated), but they are both faster and more reliable. To much of the travelling public, that counts for more.

 

[The Planner]

Units do not always have better acceleration, 168 and 67+6+dvt have the same timings on chiltern and both reach 100 mph at roughly the same point from leaving London. The 68s actually reach 100 about a mile earlier than both the 168 And 67. Also to be noted is that a unit of over 5 coaches in length will use more fuel then a loco hauled set.

That was done so not to have to separately timetable the locos and meant they could slot into any 168 path.

 

[Taunton]

As usual with Voyager-bashing, you are mising the point - how many people actually travel end-to-end on services such as these. Almost everyone, other than hard-core rail enthusiasts, would fly because it is both cheaper and quicker

Well certainly none to Plymouth, because the airport there has been closed.

I have used this service for Edinburgh to Rugby (changing at Birmingham), Darlington to Taunton (of course), and such like. But this was back in the days when they were 10 or 12 coach loco hauled formations, which even then used to get regularly all seats taken. So, at a time of rising rail usage, we have 4 coach trains substituted.

To cap it all, I think it was Roger Ford who called the Voyagers a "Reverse Tardis", because they actually have much less usable space inside than you would be given to believe looking at the outside.

 

[CC 72100]

However on the flip side they were down right dangerous.

Looking back with hindsight and compared to what we have today - not as safe I acknowledge, but not in my view 'dangerous'.

It is a bit unfair to make a comparison between modern DMUs and 1960s built coaches and say that, unsurprisingly, the more modern built train is safer. It's not a fair comparison.

Therefore mark 1 stock is not 'dangerous' but more so "older stock is not as safe as something built 40 years later", which isn't really a great surprise.

 

[Taunton]

Looking back with hindsight and compared to what we have today - not as safe I acknowledge, but not in my view 'dangerous' ... Therefore mark 1 stock is not 'dangerous' but more so "older stock is not as safe as something built 40 years later", which isn't really a great surprise.

Bizarrely, for those of us who remember back to those times, accident reports about Mk 1 stock in the 1950s-60s commonly contained comments about how robust the stock was, and how well it had stood up to the collision forces.

What I think has really happened is that the causes of collisions in the first place, whether from signalling, permanent way, or whatever, have been got to grips with so the chances of an accident in the first place are way reduced.

Was I alone in being surprised at the extent of the rolling stock destruction at Ladbroke Grove, particularly the almost-new Class 165 leading vehicle?

 

[route:oxford]

I have used this service for Edinburgh to Rugby (changing at Birmingham), Darlington to Taunton (of course), and such like. But this was back in the days when they were 10 or 12 coach loco hauled formations, which even then used to get regularly all seats taken. So, at a time of rising rail usage, we have 4 coach trains substituted.

But more often than not a loco hauled XC set would be 5 coaches.

How often was a 12 coach XC set diagrammed?

 

[Taunton]

How often was a 12 coach XC set diagrammed?

Possibly in the last couple of years before Voyagers took over.

However, in the 1950s-60s-70s-80s this was a common formation, especially in summer when additional vehicles were diagrammed.