Loco haul v MU

[monkey]

Hi guys,

I've noticed most new train stock seems to be multiple units, either diesel or electric, rather than loco hauled and I was wondering why this was favoured? especially given the capacity problems this causes as carriages can't be added at busier times, to lenghten trains.

Also does anyone know if the new Hitachi Super Express's will be loco + carriage trains or multiple units?

 

[anthony263]

From what i have heard the new IEP will be a mltiple unit unless others have a different idea. As for loco hauled trains, i think network rail charge operators more to use a loco hauled trains.

 

[MCR247]

Hi guys,

I've noticed most new train stock seems to be multiple units, either diesel or electric, rather than loco hauled and I was wondering why this was favoured? especially given the capacity problems this causes as carriages can't be added at busier times, to lenghten trains.

Also does anyone know if the new Hitachi Super Express's will be loco + carriage trains or multiple units?

If you have a 9 coahc multiple unit, people can sit in 9 coaches, with LHCS, you can have 9 coaches, but the train length will be 11 coaches. So say for the ECML some electric 222 style trains were ordered, they could be 11 coaches long, and fit on the platforms

 

[driver9000]

lack of run round facilities these days means using two expensive locomotives instead of just one for running into terminals. Its cheaper to run a MU than a loco hauled train as you dont need as many staff to attend to it, ie shunters, shunt release loco crew etc with an MU you simply take the key out and walk to the other end which speeds up reversal when compared to the time taken to uncouple a loco, draw forward, change ends, run round the stock, change ends again and finally couple the loco back onto the train.

 

[Old Timer]

There are a variety of reasons why locos are now out of favour, mostly related to economics and staffing.

In addition very few terminal stations are now signalled with loco release crossovers, so any stock would have to be drawn off the train if the same loco was to be used or the loco would have to drop back onto the following service, in theory thus increasing the loco fleet requirements.

Soon I guess we will never see any loco hauled stock in the UK, other than heritage stock. Ireland is pretty much transformed these days when for ages it was a loco heaven.

Sadly not all progesss is good, at least in my view, being an old loco hauled stock man myself.

Edited
Beaten to it by Driver9000 !

 

[monkey]

...I thought DVT's ahd made change around easiar though? meaning trains could easily go backwards?

also another thing that bothers me about the super express is, whether it will have plug doors or not (in my mind a great british engineering triumph), cos the other hitachi trains built for the uk are the ones that slide into the the train body, and which are favoured in japan - they're more reliable, but look ugly and are less aerodynamic - thats' probs off topic though...

 

[MCR247]

...I thought DVT's ahd made change around easiar though? meaning trains could easily go backwards?

But DVT+coachx9+Loco = 11 (length)
against: 11 coaches (MU)

 

[monkey]

^^hmm I guess, see your point. but I just think it gives less versaitility, also its cheaper to repair loco's than mu's and also the whole train doesn't need to be taken out of service if something goes wrong.

But I guess with capacity a problem in the UK, and it be impossible to lengthen all platforms involved, it's probs the only option...

 

[MCR247]

^^hmm I guess, see your point. but I just think it gives less versaitility, also its cheaper to repair loco's than mu's and also the whole train doesn't need to be taken out of service if something goes wrong.

But I guess with capacity a problem in the UK, and it be impossible to lengthen all platforms involved, it's probs the only option...

Well if something goes wrong with a MU, then you can isolate the engine if its just the engine. But how would this be different if something went wrong in a middle coach of a loco hauled set

 

[Old Timer]

...I thought DVT's ahd made change around easiar though? meaning trains could easily go backwards?

also another thing that bothers me about the super express is, whether it will have plug doors or not (in my mind a great british engineering triumph), cos the other hitachi trains built for the uk are the ones that slide into the the train body, and which are favoured in japan - they're more reliable, but look ugly and are less aerodynamic - thats' probs off topic though...

The only reason DVTs in that form were introduced was because of specific requirements that passengers were not allowed to travel in the leading vehicle of trains travelling in excess of 100mph. This was the reason that the HSTs originally had the guards compartments in the rear of the power car.

These restrictions have now been eased where the vehicle design incorporates a crumple zone which prevents penetration of the passenger area of the leading vehicle in the event of a frontal collision.

 

[monkey]

Well if something goes wrong with a MU, then you can isolate the engine if its just the engine. But how would this be different if something went wrong in a middle coach of a loco hauled set

...as I understand it, you can't have mu train with car missing once it's set up that way. the only way for it to operate with one less car is tosend it back to the maintenance depot, for complicated reconfiguring, but I may have understood it wrong...

 

[MCR247]

I'm not sure about that

 

[A60K]

...as I understand it, you can't have mu train with car missing once it's set up that way. the only way for it to operate with one less car is tosend it back to the maintenance depot, for complicated reconfiguring, but I may have understood it wrong...

That's
correct
for
most
or
all modern units with lots of computers, but older units could normally have a trailer removed quite simply.

 

[Active_Lad]

There is also the issue of weight. With a multiple unit you distribute the weight of the propulsion units across multiple axles whereas a loco-hauled train has all the propulsion weight on a couple of axles. This leads to increased track wear.

Plus, as others have pointed out, you avoid having a single point of failure and you increase the amount of revenue space. A DVT is an expensive commodity to haul around with little more than a Guard's Office and a couple of bikes in it. Much better to have more passenger accommodation.

 

[37401]

DVT+Load 9 MK3`s+cl90 holds more passengers than a 9 car 390, plus LHCS is a quieter environment for passengers and if the engine fails the passengers do not have to be slapped onto another already full train.

that is why LHCS is better than a MU IMO

also its Loco Hauled not loco haul

 

[The Planner]

Still slower...

 

[MCR247]

if the engine fails the passengers do not have to be slapped onto another already full train.

But with a DMU you can isolate the engine You dont have to delay every train thats behind you.

 

[Drsatan]

The main issue, as far as Im concerned, is passenger comfort. After all the railway should be run for the passenger's benefit, not the staff's. In May I went on the Pathfinder's Tour excursion from Eastleigh to Chester and Llandudno (got on at Winchester and left at Chester), which was formed of a 67 and 8-9 Mk2s. One immediate difference is that there's no engine noise, because excessive engine noise makes the journey fairly unpleasant. I liked the armchair style seats which are more comfortable than the Chapman seats fitted to many multiple units. Unlike a voyager, the air con didn't smell either. All in all, I think most passengers would prefer a loco hauled service of mk2s or 3s (or an HST) than a Voyager. On the return journey, I felt a bit sorry for passengers at Chester who'd crammed onto a 158 for the journey to Manchester.

 

[MCR247]

But we are not just on about voyagers. There are other MU. That is a bad expample, a good example of a DMU is a 222. Overcrowding happens on Loco hauled as well

 

[Drsatan]

Therefore, I'd say that loco hauled services are largely more comfortable than multiple units, with a few exceptions like suburban services. And it also depends on what condition the coaches are in.

 

[starrymarkb]

IEP will be an odd one, the Power Cars will not be motored as it were, they just supply power to the motored coaches (has disaster written all over it!)

And for interesting multiworking of Railjets in Austria - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yKz2hwGzek - Drivingcar-Coaches-Taurus+Drivingcar-Coaches-Taurus

 

[Drsatan]

But we are not just on about voyagers. There are other MU. That is a bad expample, a good example of a DMU is a 222. Overcrowding happens on Loco hauled as well

Except overcrowding's got worse on XC services following the withdrawal of HSTs and 47 hauled services. I got on a York to Bournemouth voyager last year: it was standing room only from Leeds to Birmingham NS. If I'd had to pay full and stand all that way I'd be very ****ed off.

 

[driver9000]

The main issue, as far as Im concerned, is passenger comfort. After all the railway should be run for the passenger's benefit, not the staff's. In May I went on the Pathfinder's Tour excursion from Eastleigh to Chester and Llandudno (got on at Winchester and left at Chester), which was formed of a 67 and 8-9 Mk2s. One immediate difference is that there's no engine noise, because excessive engine noise makes the journey fairly unpleasant. I liked the armchair style seats which are more comfortable than the Chapman seats fitted to many multiple units. Unlike a voyager, the air con didn't smell either. All in all, I think most passengers would prefer a loco hauled service of mk2s or 3s (or an HST) than a Voyager. On the return journey, I felt a bit sorry for passengers at Chester who'd crammed onto a 158 for the journey to Manchester.

Yes I agree the railway should be run for the benefit of the passenger, but it also has to be cost effective - its no good having expensive loco hauled trains with their expensive peripheral costs such as ancillary staff (shunters for coupling etc) when that cost would be passed on to the passenger through the farebox leading to increases on already high fares.

 

[MCR247]

Except overcrowding's got worse on XC services following the withdrawal of HSTs and 47 hauled services. I got on a York to Bournemouth voyager last year: it was standing room only from Leeds to Birmingham NS. If I'd had to pay full and stand all that way I'd be very ****ed off.

Yes, but that wasnt because it was a DMU, thats down to poor planning of VTs behalf

 

[starrymarkb]

Didn't VT have plan to lengthen the Voyagers that were blocked. IIRC there were tests of 6 car formations with the extra coach both powered and unpowered with a view to placing an order for extra vehicles

 

[MCR247]

Didn't VT have plan to lengthen the Voyagers that were blocked. IIRC there were tests of 6 car formations with the extra coach both powered and unpowered with a view to placing an order for extra vehicles

Thats why they put the coach numbers wierd, so they could lengthen them

 

[37401]

But with a DMU you can isolate the engine You dont have to delay every train thats behind you.

well when I was at Nuneaton the DMSO of a 170 failed so it had to be taken back and the passengers had to cram onto a 2 car

 

[MCR247]

well when I was at Nuneaton the DMSO of a 170 failed so it had to be taken back and the passengers had to cram onto a 2 car

Ah, but with new MU. As the question was about why arent anymore LHCS being built

 

[37401]

Ah, but with new MU. As the question was about why arent anymore LHCS being built

there hasnt been any new builds (Coaching stock wise) but we are not short of loco haulage

FSR Sleeper- 90+67
FSR-67
WSMR-67
FGW-67
VT Relef-90
NXEA-90
NXEC-91
FGW Sleeper-57
ATW WAG-57
VT Drags-57
NXEA Drags-47

and ive read about the following

FGW are having another one
Chiltern-67
Glasgow Trains-67

and if you count HST`s (as the 43 IS a loco) then EMT,NXEC,XC,FGW,GC

Thats alot of locos in regular service!

 

[pinkpanther]

DVT+Load 9 MK3`s+cl90 holds more passengers than a 9 car 390, plus LHCS is a quieter environment for passengers and if the engine fails the passengers do not have to be slapped onto another already full train.

I imagine an 87 + 13 coaches * (as was standard practice on the WCML during the 80s) also holds significantly more passengers than a 9 car 390. The formations could easily be changed, too - how often does that happen on a 390, Voyager, etc.?

* even if 2 of those coaches were BGs!

Agree totally re noise levels on DMUs with engines distributed throughout the train. They may be photogenic, but the Voyagers seem to me to be the classic example of "how not to do it" re internal noise and vibration. Even a first-generation DMU is quieter...