Loco hauled trains

[exile]

Does anyone think that "green" issues may force the railways to consider reverting to loco hauled passenger trains, or at the very least a more flexible system for multiple units that allows them to separate into smaller formations more easily?

It occurs to me that it's not a very environmentally friendly thing to run 9 or 11 car pendolinos, or double length eurostars, throughout the day even when they're only full at peak times. Though ON AVERAGE you might get lower emissions by carrying passengers on a train than having them drive their own cars, I suspect it doesn't apply when you have a minibus-load of passengers scattered throughout a late evening departure from Euston.

 

[rail-britain]

Very unlikely
Here in Scotland the consulatation has resulted in electrification being taken forward
Remaining routes will utilise ever more efficient diesel powered engines
On a balance between regular services and emissions, smaller trains win outright

A Class 390 might seem inefficient when the loading is very low, but in general they operate at at least 80% capacity

 

[sprinterguy]

The perceived flexibility of loco hauled trains is a red herring on the twenty first century railway: All the infrastructure at major stations that was synonymous with the easy alteration of loco hauled train lengths; run round loops, carriage sidings, etc, has been removed in the majority of cases and it would be inadvisable to attempt to put much of it back when terminal stations are now being used to their maximum capacity without the addition of light engine and shunting moves. Modern loco hauled formations operate in fixed formation rake for operational ease, just like multiple units.

You can't get much more flexible than a multiple unit on local and regional services where you can have through connections between units. Instead of the need to have a pilot loco to add or remove carriages from a train, and the possibility of having to remarshal formations to have them in the right order, you just need to run a second unit up to the first and couple them up. This is very important on services with short layovers at terminal stations.

However, the advantages of being able to couple and uncouple units at will is rather lost on faster Intercity and long distance services where the ability to have a corridor connection between units is precluded, which means that facilities and crews end up being doubled up to an extent, and there is a limit to the amount of passenger circulation throughout the train.

 

[4SRKT]

Although push-pull working removes nearly all the disadvantages of loco-haulage over MU operation.

 

[heenan73]

The pendolino is one of the few EMUs that does not have flexibility; they come in 2- 3- 4- 5- car units and reshuffling for the rush hour does not involve a lot of time and energy consuming shunting - not to mention the wasted manpower.

A loco and DVT makes changing length even more of a chore.

The green solution is to keep the off peak trains as full as possible, and run them slightly less frequently; exactly what Virgin do.

I'm sure the loco vs MU debate has raged here forever, but in economic and green terms, MUs - especiallly EMUs are the present and the future; the only reason that loco hauled passenger trains continue - with two exceptions - is to plug gaps in DaFT's daft policies of stock allocation, and unforeseen failures / accidents leaving temporary stock shortages. And most of them have to be uneconomically topped and tailed, as shunting is out of the equation.

The exceptions are ICEC - and there's discussions going on now about the future; my bet is MU. And Norwich, which exists on cast-offs, because the line can't justify new stock; it'll probably be the last to go, but with hand-me-downs, even that line won't last forever.

I can't think of any reason why anyone would order diesel loco+carriages today (even though underfloor diesels, 180 aside, are fairly awful), and anyone ordering electric loco+carriages has a severe screw loose.

 

[Zoe]

I can't think of any reason why anyone would order diesel loco+carriages today (even though underfloor diesels, 180 aside, are fairly awful), and anyone ordering electric loco+carriages has a severe screw loose.

There isn't even any good reason for ordering a pure DMU for an intercity service these days when bi-mode is available.

 

[heenan73]

There isn't even any good reason for ordering a pure DMU for an intercity service these days when bi-mode is available.

True, though the 22Xs are all UUDEMUs*.

There's actually little reason to order a DMU for anything, as electrification will cascade sufficient to dispose of tired stock, and enlarge regional fleets.

The only reason Chiltern has failed to justify electrification so far has been the (relative) youth of its fleet; once GW and MML are done, a reassessment will show that ordering new diesels would be very silly indeed.

*Unpleasant underfloor DEMUs

 

[sprinterguy]

There's actually little reason to order a DMU for anything, as electrification will cascade sufficient to dispose of tired stock, and enlarge regional fleets.

There will still be a need for new regional/rural DMUs in the future. Even with an aggressive programme of electrification over the next fifteen years or so that is much further reaching than the currently announced programme, and a stay of execution for a select small number of Pacers on a handful of routes for about five years beyond the current DDA compliance cut off date of 2019 until there are enough Sprinters available to replace them all, then there will still be some lines in Britain that have very little hope of ever being electrified.

I can think of many lines in the North East of England that fall into this category (The Whitby branch due to the low frequency and passenger levels, the Durham coast because it is blocked by Metro electrification at a different voltage at the north end, the Tyne Valley because of the low frequency train service and the Cumbrian Coast for similar reasons). Not to mention the Scottish West and North Highland lines, the Heart of Wales and Cambrian lines and the Devonian and Cornish branches.

 

[Zoe]

True, though the 22Xs are all UUDEMUs*.

When I say pure DMU I am referring to the fact that they only run on diesel and are not bi-mode. I was not referring to the transmission. There isn't any reason to order any type of DMU for an intercity service that doesn't also have the ability to run on 25 kV.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There will still be a need for new regional/rural DMUs in the future.

Would be an idea to order bi-mode though as it could be quite short sighted to order stock with a lifetime 40 - 50 years that is diesel only.

 

[heenan73]

There will still be a need for new regional/rural DMUs in the future. Even with an aggressive programme of electrification over the next fifteen years or so that is much further reaching than the currently announced programme, and a stay of execution for a select small number of Pacers on a handful of routes for about five years beyond the current DDA compliance cut off date of 2019 until there are enough Sprinters available to replace them all, then there will still be some lines in Britain that have very little hope of ever being electrified.

No, you have failed to count the many diesel units that will be released by Thameslink and CrossRail.

And there isn't a snowball in hell's chance of an extension for Pacers - and I'd bet serious money against ANY extensions. Unlike the Mk1 business, the TOCs have had 10 years to plan replacement for unsuitable units; and the Pacers aren't just unsuitable - they are well beyond their use-by date.

 

[Nym]

No, you have failed to count the many diesel units that will be released by Thameslink and CrossRail.

OK then, lets count what thameslink and crossrail releases directly from Diesel Diagrams...

Some of the Thames Valley Turbo Fleet...

Thats IT!

Where are these masses of DMU's going to be released from?

Even with the 2nd life hand me downs, we're only looking at 30 or so DMUs released in the SW and NSE by Crossrail.

Thameslink with release NOTHING directly, there is no new electrification.

The EMUs being released will provide the capacity to release the DMUs from Great Western and Bristol commuter areas.

Aswell as the Northern Triangle... so when complete, the Lancs Triangle

Releases the following directly...

4 units from Hazel Grove - Preston
3 units from Liverpool L St - Manchester Airport
3 units from Liverpool L St - Manchester Victoria
3 units from Manchester Victoria - Blackpool North
4 units from Liverpool S Parkway - Blackpool North
4 units from Liverpool L St - Wigan

I did the exact maths before, but on a unit by unit replacement schme and diagram by diagram, it can be covered by the 323 fleet currently with London Midland.

So if we have NO increase in service levels (witch there will be, dramatically) we're going to save about 20 to 25 units

The same with the Great Western electrification, it will allow about 20 - 25 units of diesel to be gone (the pacers).

If you have another way of working this out that means that Crossrail and Thameslink magically removes diesel diagrams that currently don't run on any part of any of their routes (other than the great western) then sorry, but I didn't realise we used Diesels on the Shenfeild Shuttle or Great Northern routes, ya know, with the TOCs that don't posess diesels that run out of Ilford Depot, or out of KX or even through Thameslink.

So no, electrification in it's current form will not even come close to getting pacers retired, and the diesel units freed up by the Lancs Triangle will be needed for enhanced services elsewhere on the Northern Network by that time anyway. The same for TPE, any additional units released are already needed anyway!

 

[sprinterguy]

No, you have failed to count the many diesel units that will be released by Thameslink and CrossRail.

As Nym says, the only diesel units that will be released by Thameslink and Crossrail will be some (probably a majority, but not all) of the Thames Turbos, and even that is indirectly by movng Thameslinks' 319s to the Great Western. The Thameslink and Crossrail programmes won't release any diesel units directly. The relatively small number of Pacers and Sprinters that will be released by the North West electrification will be required within the Northern service as additional capacity on the remaining diesel services.

I don't know for sure what wll be replaced by Crossrail, other than the five Heathrow Connect class 360/2s. I'd imagine that the new Crossrail trains will allow the class 315s to be withdrawn, and they'll be pretty much life expired by that point.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And there isn't a snowball in hell's chance of an extension for Pacers - and I'd bet serious money against ANY extensions. Unlike the Mk1 business, the TOCs have had 10 years to plan replacement for unsuitable units; and the Pacers aren't just unsuitable - they are well beyond their use-by date.

Precisely my point: I was suggesting that even in a worst possible case scenario, there is still likely to be a need for new regional and rural DMUs.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would be an idea to order bi-mode though as it could be quite short sighted to order stock with a lifetime 40 - 50 years that is diesel only.

I really don't think that the application of bi-mode to seemingly absolutely everything is the most sensible way forward. In the case of rural/regional units, it adds additional cost to what should be cheap, basic trains, and I firmly believe that there are some rail lines in Britain that will certainly not be electrified within the typical lifespan of a DMU, or possibly ever.

Additionally, I don't know the mechanics of it, but I thought that a diesel-electric transmission was less efficient for regular start-stop services. There must be some good reason why even the most modern DMU designs still use mechanical/hydraulic transmissions.

 

[Yew]

I would say that regional dmu's should be geared towards easy electrification though, with electric transmission and space for pantograph mounts, So that the diesel engines and fuel tanks can be ripped out and the transformers fitted.

 

[exile]

i cant imagine railways starting to diminish because of this.

The spotlight will increasingly be pointed at rail emissions and energy usage. The industry will have to take these into account - so far, the aim of rail management has been to reduce staff costs even if this
results in practices that waste fuel and electricity.

 

[Moog_1984]

At the time of "third generation" DMU/DEMUs in the 80s, BR had a fleet of over 25 loco types more than half available to work at least summer passenger trains. Also there was "excess capacity" if you based it all on minimal passenger numbers- ie when the most loss is made.

DMU and EMU isation was supposed to make the whole fleet more standard, faster and cheaper to maintain in life cycle: all of which is very debatable when you throw in the fact that there is less capacity on many peak time and intercity expresses as compared to the early 80s!

Now we have many different units, and some which will not conform to new emissions or become obsolete with bi mode.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Talking about loco haule though :

I think we are poised to see far more than today - with "drags" of pendo's and other stuff becoming more efficient than slinging more 'bus engines' under coaches for load 5 +.

( Scotrail employee quoted on record saying that load 5 to 6 mrIIs was more efficient to run with a 37/4 than a third DMU set: virgin also did this comparison on the Rimi valley and of course were not impressed with the voyager reliability /availability)

Why build long intercity bi modal trains with DE powercars ( 160 tonnes dead weight!) or lots of extra weight and dubiuous reliability in underslung engines??


Routes then?
Cardiff while bristol gets wires and waits for them to go west, same for swansea and maybe fishguard if the Rosslaire ferries become economic again. Maybe some Plymouth services?

Manchester-leeds-newcastle

Scarborough

Lincoln, Hull

Nottingham

Aberdeen-Inverness-Perth

Stranrær.

If loco classes were introduced for these, and the 67s get rightly 'track-accessed' off most routes, then X country ( bangor-norwich and other madness) would be as well with some express services run with locos.

Give us a nice bit of v12 and v16 RK 215 WOOF!!

 

[Zoe]

Loco haulage of EMUs off the wires was considered for the IEP but was ruled out. I doubt much has changed since then.

 

[ainsworth74]

Loco haulage of EMUs off the wires was considered for the IEP but was ruled out.

What were the reasons for this? Other than the time taken to couple and uncouple (these times were of course ridiculed by many people including Rodger Ford as being hyper inflated) was there any other reason given?

 

[Greenback]

Loco haulage of EMUs off the wires was considered for the IEP but was ruled out. I doubt much has changed since then.

You never know what the prevailing wisdom on such things will be in a few years time. I wouldn't write loco haulage off completely on the basis of one rather flawed report.

 

[Zoe]

What were the reasons for this? Other than the need to couple and uncouple (the times for which were ridiculed by many people including Rodger Ford) was there any other reason given?

I seem to remember in the discussion about the IEP a few months back that the reasons suggested were the logistics of loco haulage, Hitachi not wanting to build a locomotive and the CO2 emissions of a diesel locomotive.

 

[ainsworth74]

I seem to remember in the discussion about the IEP a few months back that the reasons suggested were the logistics of loco haulage, Hitachi not wanting to build a locomotive and the CO2 emissions of a diesel locomotive.

Suggested by us (as in good people of RailUK) or the DfT?

 

[Zoe]

Suggested by us (as in good people of RailUK) or the DfT?

I believe the information was sourced and was not just forum speculation but not sure exactly where from. Did the DfT ever give an official reason? If not then we will never know for sure.

 

[Moog_1984]

I seem to remember in the discussion about the IEP a few months back that the reasons suggested were the logistics of loco haulage, Hitachi not wanting to build a locomotive and the CO2 emissions of a diesel locomotive.

CO2 being notably better for loads over 250 tonnes with a loco!

Also if things go crazy you have potential for a single "tender" to scrub exhausts or pre-process biofuel, or safely house hydrogen. GE in the USA have produced prototype systems.

Try distributing that on a DE/EMU!

Has virgin's experience with the 57/3 plastolino drags and the 37/4s on the Rimi valley not been positive?

 

[Rhydgaled]

I seem to remember in the discussion about the IEP a few months back that the reasons suggested were the logistics of loco haulage, Hitachi not wanting to build a locomotive and the CO2 emissions of a diesel locomotive.

Why would Hitachi have to build a locomotive anyway? All they would have to do is make their electric multiple units draggable by existing class 67 locomotives. CO2 emmisions of a diesel loco operating solely away from the wires on IEP drags should be much lower than an IEP bi-mode which would drink fuel like there's no tommorow to accelerate as fast as the electrics and use more power while under the wires. Also you need a far bigger fleet of diesel-powered vehicles if they are doing the whole distance rather than just being tacked on for the bit beyond the wires.

 

[Moog_1984]

Some very good points raised : here is my tuppence

1) Will they be mad enough to make multi under-slung DE/EMUs? in a tilting IEP ?*

2) Do they think dragging 180 tonnes of dead weight DE power cars is worth while? Okay, a nett 60 to 90 tonnes above DVTs

3) has the pendo drag experience on the N Welsh coast been so awful`


1 explored

a) HSE: a lot of diesel spread around the train with a lot more combustable sources, hot exhuast routes etc and all underneath passengers.

b) difficult to "future proof" ie you have a very limited space in which to effect changes for lower emissions, or conversely if the idiots in governance actually realise CO2 per passenger mile is way better than a car on the m1-m25-m4 routes even with a loco from 1958!! Then you have to swap out hundreds of power units, or a very specialist set of power units in power cars.

Locos give you flexibility and better safety.

 

[heenan73]

OK then, lets count what thameslink and crossrail releases directly from Diesel Diagrams...

Some of the Thames Valley Turbo Fleet...

Thats IT!

Where are these masses of DMU's going to be released from?

An indirect cascade following TL/CR will release a fair number of additional units; 319s will go north, release diesel units there, and the rest of the 319s are expected to go to GW, releasing further Thames Valley Turbos.

The Heathrow fleet (alas, not the expresses just yet) will also be released, and if there's a brain in DaFT, they'll go to leeds, adding capacity and probably releasing a few diesels there.

I haven't done the numbers; both Rail and Modern Railways have. And both magazines have consistently reported that NONE of the ROSCOs expects to order any more diesels, as these cascades (plus the later ones from GW/MML electrification) will supply ample for 30 years.

You can juggle the numbers until blue in the face, it won't change a thing; personally, I'll go with Roger Ford's judgement - he hasn't let me down in 40 years, I doubt he'll be wrong this time.

 

[Nym]

Sooo... the 20 diagrams replaced in Lancashire, that allows some extra units to increase capacity...

And the 10 or 15 round Greater Bristol that aren't HSTs being replaced will only cover extra capacity too, proberbly give them a chance to scrap the SE Pacers...

So... even without any additional capacity on diesel diagrams, we still need to find somthing to replace 80 pacers...

 

[heenan73]

1) Will they be mad enough to make multi under-slung DE/EMUs? in a tilting IEP ?*

Sure they're mad enough. but there's no plans to do that. 222s don't tilt (do they?) and XC fleet has had tilt disconnected, with no plans to reverse that.

2) Do they think dragging 180 tonnes of dead weight DE power cars is worth while? Okay, a nett 60 to 90 tonnes above DVTs

They plan to with IEP, against all advice, so why not? But with 22X fleets, it isn't so bad, because when they add the pantograph car, they'll almost certainly remove one or two engines as they do it. Plus most will be running on all-electric lines within a few years, allowing the rest of the engines to go too.

Interesting, though irrelevant, when they built the 16X fleets, it was claimed at the time that their engines could be replaced by electrics 'when the wires go up on Chiltern' - chances are, the wires won't go up until it's time to replace that fleet anyway!

3) has the pendo drag experience on the N Welsh coast been so awful'

Not so much awful as inelegant

 

[Nym]

they'll almost certainly remove one or two engines as they do it. Plus most will be running on all-electric lines within a few years, allowing the rest of the engines to go too.

Erm.... No, just no...

You're already screwing the Power to Weight ratios up, take engines out too then it will completely screw power off wires.

Where as if you just add two panto cars to a 4 car formation instead of one then you get more capacity and less 'wasted diesel power' dropping you down to 500hp/car.

Pretty much your lower limit...

 

[heenan73]

Sooo... the 20 diagrams replaced in Lancashire, that allows some extra units to increase capacity...

And the 10 or 15 round Greater Bristol that aren't HSTs being replaced will only cover extra capacity too, proberbly give them a chance to scrap the SE Pacers...

So... even without any additional capacity on diesel diagrams, we still need to find somthing to replace 80 pacers...

Not clear on your maths, I'm afraid. EVERY 319 will release a diesel unit , often two - 319s are four car, as I recall, most DMUs are two or three car, often running in tandem. That alone is a fair number. I don't know how many 16Xs crossrail will release, but it's a fair number ... and, of course, by then GW will be almost electrified to Bristol, Oxford and Cardiff, beginning to shed many more.

But there's no convincing those as doesn't want to be convinced. :roll:

Never mind. You'll see for yourself, then I guess you'll (probably) have to believe it!

Erm.... No, just no...

You're already screwing the Power to Weight ratios up, take engines out too then it will completely screw power off wires.
Where as if you just add two panto cars to a 4 car formation instead of one then you get more capacity and less 'wasted diesel power' dropping you down to 500hp/car. Pretty much your lower limit...

I don't think so. I seem to remember that certainly 222s, and possibly other 22Xs have huge redundancy in power, and with a reducing portion of their time off the wires, that won't be needed. And much cheaper to take an engine off than add a (redundant) 2nd pantocar. They don't come cheap.

All that will depend on how the trains are made up - 4,5,6,7,8,9.10 car, no way to know - and won't be until it's clearer where they'll be used. And clearer when the MML gets more wires.

 

[Zoe]

Why would Hitachi have to build a locomotive anyway? All they would have to do is make their electric multiple units draggable by existing class 67 locomotives.

It wouldn't likely be in the commercial interests of Hitcachi to do this when they can offer a product that doesn't require third party involvement.