Multiple Unit vs HST, 225, LHCS

[MCR247]

Just curious, which would you choose, please explain.

I'd choose MU because...
You can make it longer, as when you have LHCS, (ie VT 90 set, or 225 set), you could have an extra two coaches instead of a DVT & loco.

 

[SouthEastern-465]

I got to say EMU,DMUS,DEMUs,as I like them more and to me (and probaly only me)they have more of a personality,and I could say plenty more about them,but I aint got allday!
Regards

 

[Oswyntail]

LHCS - because you are not having to build in redundant features if you extend the train.

 

[gordonthemoron]

225 as (at least in theory), you could run two coupled together

 

[Tugzrule]

Loco hauled, mainly because they are more flexible, especially if they fail unlike voyagers which need either a sister or a 57 to drag them, whereas with a loco nearly anything could (and has) been used, including 08s.

 

[johnb]

Oswyntail: err, what? If the MU has an adequate power/weight ratio, you can build a trailer coach; if it doesn't, then the new motors aren't redundant. It's exactly the same as LHCS in that sense (either you're starting with a loco that's got 'redundant' power, or your trains become too slow when you add the extra coaches).

Tugzrule: err, what? Pretty much anything can push pretty much anything in an emergency. Voyagers can only multiple work in service with 57s, other Voyagers or Pendolinos - but I'm fairly sure 08s have never been used on a revenue service LHCS train...!

 

[mumrar]

but I'm fairly sure 08s have never been used on a revenue service LHCS train...!

Although a moot point, an 08 still regularly 'hauls' the Night Riviera at Plymouth so the passengers can remain sleeping.

 

[Oswyntail]

Oswyntail: err, what? If the MU has an adequate power/weight ratio, you can build a trailer coach; if it doesn't, then the new motors aren't redundant. It's exactly the same as LHCS in that sense (either you're starting with a loco that's got 'redundant' power, or your trains become too slow when you add the extra coaches)....

Yes, not one of my better written posts. I meant that when you use the flexibility inherent in multiple units you have redundant aspects, particularly the cabs, which reduce the benefit of the flexibility. Whereas tagging an extra coach or two in a rake does essentially add the full capacity provided by the length taken up - though I agree it does add to the load on the engine. Adding a trailer coach to an MU is NOT an instance of flexibility, as it would take several years to achieve
And I do remember a picture in MRP in the 80's of an 08 hauling what I seem to remember was a well-passengered Norwich express the last couple of miles after the train engine broke down

 

[O L Leigh]

The problem is that you can't just "tag on" a couple of extra coaches to a LHCS, where it is the work of but a moment to add (or remove) additional coaches from a train formed with MU stock. To add coaches to LHCS would take some time and require both stabling and shunting facilities at each location, all of which costs money. The only services that regularly do this are the sleepers, but that's only because they have all night to get to their destination.

The other LHCS myth that stands busting is what happens when you get a defective vehicle. Although, as with adding or removing vehicles, it is theoretically possible to remove a defective vehicle, you will still need the self-same stabling and shunting facilities and incur the same time penalties to achieve this. Therefore, as LHCS is generally now formed up into semi-permanent sets, the entire train would require removal from service.

In operational terms, virtually all surviving LHCS services and all HST services effectively use the same principles as MU operation. You have a fixed or semi-permanent formation of vehicles with a traction unit and a cab at each end. Within certain parameters at least (e.g. removal and changing of a loco), you just treat the entire train as a single unit.

O L Leigh

 

[37401]

I vote LHCS if the loco fails, slap another one on also I like the way they just glide along silently (unless your behind a beasty loco)

 

[jopsuk]

From what I've picked up the carriage rakes as used even have a sort of "set number" identifier of their own, yes?

 

[O L Leigh]

Yes.

O L Leigh

 

[yorkie]

Although a moot point, an 08 still regularly 'hauls' the Night Riviera at Plymouth so the passengers can remain sleeping.

I thought that ended about 2 years ago?

 

[asylumxl]

I prefer multiple units. Regarding the redundant features post, talking about cabs and loss of capacity, I do believe that the 22x family do infact have longer lengths than the other carriages to make up for this shortfall. I believe a Voyagers driving carriage is 2m longer than the others.

 

[The Planner]

In operational terms, virtually all surviving LHCS services and all HST services effectively use the same principles as MU operation. You have a fixed or semi-permanent formation of vehicles with a traction unit and a cab at each end. Within certain parameters at least (e.g. removal and changing of a loco), you just treat the entire train as a single unit.

This is the only way LHCS can survive, there is no way you could go back the the 47 and coaches set up of yonder years. Loco swaps and running round eats capacity. MU's also have better operational charactarisitcs too, acceleration, no need for extra station staff to close doors and longer dwells. So from an operational point of view it is MU for me.

 

[Turbostar]

I thought that ended about 2 years ago?

It did, there's no extra coaches added at Plymouth no more, can't rem when it spped but it was quite a while ago. All the train originates from Penzance, arrives at Plymouth & hangs around for a bit, then goes on it's merry way, nothing extra is added, not at Plymouth, not en-route.

 

[Mojo]

I believe that was one of the "concessions" granted to FGW in return for them to continue to operate the sleeper which was proposed for withdrawal. http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1490

 

[poshbakerloo]

LHCS, HSTs, 225s etc are much better for long distance routes...

EMUs and particularity DMUs are real bad on long distance routes!

 

[krus_aragon]

I'm fairly sure 08s have never been used on a revenue service LHCS train...!

I read about a Class 09 standing in on a passenger train for lack of the booked Class 33. This is from the gospel of Wikipedia, but a book is cited, so there may well be truth in it.

I second O L Leigh's comments about LHCS being operated as MU. (Is that a HST or a Class 253?) I find DMUs to be noisy, and the few EMUs I encounter (mainly Merseyrail) are offputting with their high pitched whining - likewise Voyager/Pendolinos with rheostatic braking. Give me something with the engines far away and I'll be happy.