Popularity of Loco Hauled vs. Multiple Unit trains?

[jopsuk]

Old Timer, do the comments about the "similarity" of MUs apply just to modern day ones or to to all, including the likes of Southern slammers and 1st gen DMUs? Are modern locos (66s for example, or European ones) rather more "much of a muchness"?
I'd rather suspect that modern day manufacturing, with its general emphasis of "Quality" (with the capital Q) and such things as Lean Manufacturing and related process systems leaves much less room for individual locos and units to have "personality". The Japanese tend to be rather more advanced in this sort of thing that Europe, though things can and do go wrong nontheless (cf the Toyota accelerator pedal problem)

 

[Old Timer]

Old Timer, do the comments about the "similarity" of MUs apply just to modern day ones or to to all, including the likes of Southern slammers and 1st gen DMUs? Are modern locos (66s for example, or European ones) rather more "much of a muchness"?
I'd rather suspect that modern day manufacturing, with its general emphasis of "Quality" (with the capital Q) and such things as Lean Manufacturing and related process systems leaves much less room for individual locos and units to have "personality". The Japanese tend to be rather more advanced in this sort of thing that Europe, though things can and do go wrong nontheless (cf the Toyota accelerator pedal problem)

To be honest I do not really know the answer to that one fully, although I do know that some of the early DMUs would be commented on for having "weak" engines. I am sure that there will be an old BR Driver about somewhere who will be better qualified to comment than me, although remember that with the exception of some of the Swindon Cross-Country sets, and the old Bedford St Pancras Class 127s, most DMUs simply toddled around on suburban services without many long sections where speed could be built up so I am not sure if any of the characteristics I related to locomotives would be evident.

 

[TheJRB]

For me as a teenager of course, multiple units take up most of my experience of the railway. I like the 375s that work most of the services out of Ashford as they're perfectly suited to the work they do. I think they're comfortable enough and fast with the 395s being almost faultless in terms of passenger experience.

I do enjoy seeing the 67s working the VSOE as I definitely feel there is something special about locomotive hauled trains (and I like 67s). When there was rumour that DRS 37s might haul a shuttle service on the Marshlink during the Ore Tunnel closure, I was rather hoping it would happen and very much would have gone out of my way to have a ride.

However, imagine for a minute that instead of an order for Electrostars, an order for a batch of Class 92s and coaches had been made instead. Would anybody take any more interest in travelling on that if it was a regular thing and you rarely saw anything else? In this regard, I definitely believe in what has already been said here: something that is relatively scarce is desired even more.

One thing worth noting is that there is actually a notable difference between 1st and std on a LH train, unlike many DMUs where the only difference is low density seating instead of high!

I had the pleasure of travelling first class from Stratford to Ipswich back in November and was impressed with it (even if the NXEA rolling stock is looking a little dated now). First class in a 375 (where there's not even a dividing door) simply does not compare in any stretch of the imagination to it.

But surely that is something that hypothetically could be fixed and is rather more to do with the coaches than the locomotive or traction. A whole car of a long distance EMU/DMU could be fitted with equivalent first class features, could it not?

 

[junglejames]

All the relevant factors have been covered already I feel. The only one I would emphasise is that the proportion of rose-tinted spectacles on t'internets is decreasing (other than on WNXX!) and generally more enthusiasts who will chase a 37 over a chain of rare track begrudgingly accept that the future is MU operation, not even Intercity will remains LHCS.

Actually I havent found these rose tinted spectacles decreasing at all. Plus in my opinion (and in fact you are helping to add to my opinion), you have the spectacles on the wrong heads.
People who prefer LHCS have as far as I can see, always accepted when MUs are better. However, there are plenty of MU lovers that cannot accept when an MU is not the correct solution, and cannot accept that on certain routes, LHCS (or HSTs) are definitely the way forward.
Im not saying LHCS will stay, but there are definitely routes on which they should. In fact, there are routes which should see MUs replaced by LHCS/ HSTs.

I do find it quite amazing how MU lovers keep on about 'the other side' having rose tinted specs, but refuse to see the ones they are also wearing.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However, imagine for a minute that instead of an order for Electrostars, an order for a batch of Class 92s and coaches had been made instead. Would anybody take any more interest in travelling on that if it was a regular thing and you rarely saw anything else? In this regard, I definitely believe in what has already been said here: something that is relatively scarce is desired even more.

I think this is just an illusion.
Think about it. If something is scarce, that means people have less choice, and so you see more people on say, 1 train. If however they werent scarce, people could spread out over say 10 trains (just using easy figures here).
The number of people travelling on them however, would end up being about the same. Also, if a certain train is only going to run once, then people need to all head to that 1 train (if it interests you obviously). Whereas if it runs everyday, you can decide which day to travel. Over a period of a week though, will there be much difference in numbers?

Along similar lines, if you saw a railtour empty itself at its final station, you'd think railtours were more popular than scheduled trains. But its just because people have been forced onto that 1 train, instead of being able to choose.

Either way, the popularity of LHCS doesnt increase or decrease. Its an illusion based on the number of trains available.

A couple of examples from my perspective.

Your 92s and coaches. Id travel more frequently up to London than I do now. Id constantly be buying Kent Rovers and travelling all around Kent. It would make the passing of the slammers seem bearable, and SET would certainly get more money from me than they do now.

Also, when the WCML was full of LHCS, I would go for a trip just because i felt like it. My excuse was the train. It didnt matter where I went. Crikey I even took a day trip from Southampton to Wolverhampton and back once, just because I had nothing to do that day. Out via London, back via XC and the 47s! At the time Voyagers were only jus starting to arrive I think, and pendys were still on the drawing board. My frequency of travel had nothing to do with scarce LHCS.

Nowadays, I never travel on the WCML unless im on the sleeper. Even the sole Mk3 set rarely gets me out because the odd day on Birminghams is no good. I think ive been on it about 2 days out of everyday its been on the Brums.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I like the 375s that work most of the services out of Ashford as they're perfectly suited to the work they do. I think they're comfortable enough and fast

Agree the 375s are very pleasant units, and are perfectly suited for what they do. Unless of course you end up on a 375/9. Nobody else can understand why I start moaning just by looking at the number on the cab, or why I turn round and head up to the front unit as soon as i see the number of the rear unit!!! lol

with the 395s being almost faultless in terms of passenger experience.

This is where I disagree wholeheartedly!! Cant stand the things. I only use them because they are fast, and dawdling up the main line via Tonbridge is starting to lose its appeal. Bring back the slammers and id never use the 395s. Uncomfortable seats, too hard, horrible backs to them (there is something about the shape of those seats that stops me getting comfortable). Awful ride quality. The slammers sometimes offered a better ride. Windows that are too short and with too large a pillars (this is nothing new with Hitachi stuff).
They are much worse than the 375s.
If they were refurbished inside, then that would make up for a lot, but they are still poor.

 

[Snapper]

Quite. Like MCR247 I'm towards the younger end of the age spectrum. I have no interest in HSTs or LHCS - It's not what I grew up with and I prefer the technology/operational side of railways to 'hellfire' thrash.

All the relevant factors have been covered already I feel. The only one I would emphasise is that the proportion of rose-tinted spectacles on t'internets is decreasing (other than on WNXX!) and generally more enthusiasts who will chase a 37 over a chain of rare track begrudgingly accept that the future is MU operation, not even Intercity will remains LHCS.

Indeed. The 'benefits' of LHCS is largely illusory on the modern railway.Oh, they're certainly suitable on some systems (like India where you have 22 car trains), but not in most countries - which is why they're in decline and why that decline will continue. The railways are having to cast an eye over their shoulders at the competition and pay attention to the green agenda in a modern world. Distributed drive traction with regenerative brakes has real advantages over LHCS, for acceleration, energy consumption, noise and weight.

No doubt some people will cling on to their rose tints. The railways however won't - as we can see already. So, enjoy loco-hauled in places like East Anglia and the ECML whilst you can - because before long it will be gone.

 

[wensley]

I had the pleasure of travelling first class from Stratford to Ipswich back in November and was impressed with it (even if the NXEA rolling stock is looking a little dated now). First class in a 375 (where there's not even a dividing door) simply does not compare in any stretch of the imagination to it.

But surely that is something that hypothetically could be fixed and is rather more to do with the coaches than the locomotive or traction. A whole car of a long distance EMU/DMU could be fitted with equivalent first class features, could it not?

I've done it as well from Liverpool St to Ipswich, I wasn't impressed with the interiors, very shabby and dated, however there is still a level of spaciousness and grandeur that I don't think can be attained on an MU. That said, GC's 1st class on a 180 is perfectly nice, I like it almost as much as a HST, only criticism, as it the case on many MUs, is that not all the seats have tables

 

[MCR247]

I had the pleasure of travelling first class from Stratford to Ipswich back in November and was impressed with it (even if the NXEA rolling stock is looking a little dated now). First class in a 375 (where there's not even a dividing door) simply does not compare in any stretch of the imagination to it.

Well you would imagine that when comparing a London commuter EMU with a stock that was designed to work the likes of Aberdeen - Penzance?!

Hardly a fair comparison between LHCS & MUs...?

 

[gordonthemoron]

it depends, commuter MUs are rather boring, whereas Pendolinos, ICE3s, AVEs etc are very nice trains (with the exception of the Pendo driving coach)

 

[Rhydgaled]

Indeed. The 'benefits' of LHCS is largely illusory on the modern railway.Oh, they're certainly suitable on some systems (like India where you have 22 car trains), but not in most countries - which is why they're in decline and why that decline will continue.

It depends which benifits you go for. With 22 car trains, there is the weight and fuel ecconomy to consider (which LHCS is perhaps likely to win on in that suituation) but then there is also a lot of potential for regenerative braking over many powered axles if you have a 22-car EMU and, since I doubt Indian trains exceed 100mph, a 5-car EMU with corridor connections between units would be more flexible (I think MUs will always win on flexibility if they have corridor connections between units, but exceed 110mph and you can't have that so LHCS wins on flexibility above that speed). Also, LHCS will always beat a non-gangwayed MU in terms of flexibility, but the EMU might still be better than the LHCS for other reasons. In other words: for any given suituation, LHCS may trump an MU in some regards but the EMU is better in other aspects in the same suituation.

The railways are having to cast an eye over their shoulders at the competition and pay attention to the green agenda in a modern world. Distributed drive traction with regenerative brakes has real advantages over LHCS, for acceleration, energy consumption, noise and weight.

Multiple units aren't necessarily better at all those aspects:

• Regenerative brakes - yes EMUs win on that, LHCS not very good at it
• Acceleration - I think I read on here once that, while an EMU gets off the mark quicker, a Class 90 reaches a certain speed (somewhere between 60 and 100mph) and every speed above that just as fast as EMUs of similar age.
• Energy consumption / weight - 20-year old INTERCITY 225 consumes less power than a 10-year old Class 390 (although the 390 makes up for that with regenerative breaking at actualy has about equal net energy consumption per seat km and would likely be slightly better than the IC225 in this regard if the tilting gear was taken out). However, if you replaced the IC225's DVTs with seated ones and built the loco with more efficent, more modern (10-year old rather than 20-year old) equipement and regenerative braking (still helps, even though it can't be done as well as on an EMU) it'd beat a Pendo, maybe even a tilt-less Pendo. That obviously won't happen, but it shows LHCS CAN be more energy efficient per seat km than an EMU if new ones of each were built.
• Noise - I see no reason why one would be noiser than the other outside (although most electric locos are noiser than EMUs for some reason), and LHCS is definately quieter than a DMU inside.

So, it is really down to which benifits are most needed for a given service. In many cases, multiple units offer more of the benifits that a wanted more, but not necessarily in all cases.

 

[ChrisCooper]

To be honest I'd like to see the facts that say that regeneration requires distributed power. It's perfectly possible to set up a loco to do the majority of the braking through electric braking. Many locos outside the UK have seperate rarther than blended dynamic brakes and these are used for the majority of braking, with the air brakes only being used at quite low speed. If you go on a Eurostar you can very clearly hear when the disk brakes go on, yet in most cases this will not be until fairly low speed, the rest of the braking from 300kph will have been done using the rheostatic. Even with distributed traction the regeneration rate is still only quite small, so it's not a massive deal anyway. Also with long distance services, which is what loco haulage is usually advocated for, there will be less braking, particularly to a stand, so the difference in regeneration should be much smaller.

 

[TheJRB]

Agree the 375s are very pleasant units, and are perfectly suited for what they do. Unless of course you end up on a 375/9. Nobody else can understand why I start moaning just by looking at the number on the cab, or why I turn round and head up to the front unit as soon as i see the number of the rear unit!!! lol

Absolutely agree with you about the 375/9s!

This is where I disagree wholeheartedly!! Cant stand the things. I only use them because they are fast, and dawdling up the main line via Tonbridge is starting to lose its appeal. Bring back the slammers and id never use the 395s. Uncomfortable seats, too hard, horrible backs to them (there is something about the shape of those seats that stops me getting comfortable). Awful ride quality. The slammers sometimes offered a better ride. Windows that are too short and with too large a pillars (this is nothing new with Hitachi stuff).
They are much worse than the 375s.
If they were refurbished inside, then that would make up for a lot, but they are still poor.

I know what you mean about the ride quality. In the tunnels, it can be very shaky and bouncy, more so than I've seen with other stock.

Well you would imagine that when comparing a London commuter EMU with a stock that was designed to work the likes of Aberdeen - Penzance?!

Hardly a fair comparison between LHCS & MUs...?

OK. I know it's not a fair comparison, but I just don't think there's a MU (long distance or otherwise) out there with first class as good. However as I said, I think that could be fixed.

 

[MCR247]

As good as a NXEA MK3? You clearly haven't been on very many trains outside of the SE...

 

[Pumbaa]

People who prefer LHCS have as far as I can see, always accepted when MUs are better. However, there are plenty of MU lovers that cannot accept when an MU is not the correct solution, and cannot accept that on certain routes, LHCS (or HSTs) are definitely the way forward.
Im not saying LHCS will stay, but there are definitely routes on which they should. In fact, there are routes which should see MUs replaced by LHCS/ HSTs.

I do find it quite amazing how MU lovers keep on about 'the other side' having rose tinted specs, but refuse to see the ones they are also wearing.

I disagree with you. LHCS has no place in the railway today, and the operators and the people who run the railway agree. Nostalgically yes, but operationally LHCS falls down on the points which matter most.

For further proof, consider today that two IC operators of LHCS are talking to manufacturers about new MU operation.

I cannot (personally) think of any route in the UK where LHCS should remain as it is and is operationally superior to MU operation. I can only think of two where it will remain for the time being due to its current form (Sleepers).

But I appreciate you and I have done this point to death at least three times now!

 

[Rhydgaled]

I cannot (personally) think of any route in the UK where LHCS should remain as it is operationally superior to MU operation. I can only think of two where it will remain for the time being due to its current form (Sleepers).

LHCS is far superior for sleepers. For this reason alone, it makes sence to have some other LHCS (or at least MUs that use trailer coaches almost identical to hauled stock) so there is some ecconomy of scale for LHCS vehicles that are needed for sleeper stock. Suitable routes for LHCS would include Euston - Manchester/Glasgow (although the HS2 plans and need for tilt means a bespoke LHCS train would be needed, which kills the economy of scale argument, and, since the route is electrified, EMUs aren't that far off ideal for the route). That does leave only very few routes where LHCS might be more suitable than an MU:

• Kings Cross - Edinbrough/Newcastle/York/Aberdeen/Inverness fasts
• Paddington - Bristol fasts, and all GW fast INTERCITY services beyond Cardiff, Bristol and Taunton/Exeter (on the route via Westbury)
• INTERCITY services on non-electrified routes, inc. WAG Express (if some more stops are taken out northbound to make it a true express) and perhaps Swansea - Manchester (although my desire for LHCS on that service is more down to shortage of suitable DMUs (a DMU version of a 5-WES could be good)).

 

[TheJRB]

As good as a NXEA MK3? You clearly haven't been on very many trains outside of the SE...

Hey! Okay, I admit it's true.

But my point wasn't really about NXEA's first class specifically, I was rather referring to first class on loco hauled services in general. Plus I did say 'think' rather than know. I don't know, is there a MU with a first class that differs incredibly from standard class?

 

[MCR247]

Pendolinos, Meridians...

Not trying to have a go, but you can't really come to the conclusion the LHCS has better first class than MUs, having sampled a 375 & NXEA MK3s..

 

[junglejames]

Distributed drive traction with regenerative brakes has real advantages over LHCS, for acceleration, energy consumption, noise and weight.

Acceleration? Yes, but not doubt if new locomotives were built, this difference would decrease, and anyway, for Intercity stock, this is less of a worry.

Energy consumption? Only for electrics. For diesel trains of a decent number of coaches, LHCS uses less fuel. Oh, and dont try and add an extra light engine movement into the mix because the LHCS is supposedly going to break down everytime.

Noise? Incorrect on every count. LHCS always wins. When in a station the noise is away from where the passengers board, and anyway, certainly with diesels, 1 or 2 large engines will make less noise than say 7, 8, or 9 smaller engines. Crikey, a single 22x engine isnt far off a single HST power car. Also, internal noise when underway, it is obvious that an unpowered coach will always win. Remember its unfair to compare new against old. Crikey, even a Mk4 is quiter internally than a pendy, and when compared with any DMU, well, there is no comparison.

Weight? Electric wise EMUs probably do win, but diesel wise im not convinced there is much in it. Does anyone know the weight of a Mk4 (If i tried to use a Mk3 Id get complaints that you couldnt build something that light anymore), and also the weights of the class 222 coaches?

So sorry, but your points only really stand up for electrics, and then not all of the points are valid even then.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I cannot (personally) think of any route in the UK where LHCS should remain as it is and is operationally superior to MU operation. I can only think of two where it will remain for the time being due to its current form (Sleepers).

Well considering I said LHCS (or HSTs), then you have Great Western and Midland Mainline where it should be kept, and on the East Coast you either drag an EMU off the wires, or HSTs should also be kept there (yes, I am suggesting that if you dont want to drag an EMU off the wires, then a HST should run 393 plus miles under the wires like they do now).

You then also have CrossCountry where LHCS (or HSTs) should be brought back.
There are so many advantages. Noise, pollution, interior comfort (remember interior comfort takes many forms so dont think im just on about seats), probably flexibility to an extent, as a break down doesnt require a whole unit to be replaced, but just a single powercar/ loco, and even on HSTs, if you had suitably powerful powercars, extra coaches can be added as necessary without needing to attach a whole extra unit on the back, and all the inflexibility and nuisances that brings in service (although admittedly this rarely happens on todays railway). You then have maintenance costs, as 7, 8 or 9 small engines are going to be more expensive to maintain than a couple of powercars.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hey! Okay, I admit it's true.

But my point wasn't really about NXEA's first class specifically, I was rather referring to first class on loco hauled services in general. Plus I did say 'think' rather than know. I don't know, is there a MU with a first class that differs incredibly from standard class?

NXEAs first class coaches are not as bad as a lot of people make out. True they havent been refreshed much, but the comments some people make are slightly exagerated. The main problem is the lack of any first class service, but I stopped blaming that on the coaches when the last Mk3 clobbered me round the head and told me to stop blaming them for everything!!!

As for first class on MUs. Those funny bendy things probably have the best first class, but even that is only comparable to some standard class coaches.
I find EMTs HSTs in standard more pleasant and comfortable than the pendys in first.
The difference between first and standard on a pendy is massive, but thats got little to do with how good first class is, and more to do with how bad standard class is.
Oh, and before anyone moans, I had better add that this has next to nothing to do with the fact Pendys are MUs, and more to do with the interior design.
So you could put an amazing first class into an MU.

 

[sprinterguy]

Does anyone know the weight of a Mk4 (If i tried to use a Mk3 Id get complaints that you couldnt build something that light anymore), and also the weights of the class 222 coaches?

Mark 4 TSO: 40.8t
Class 222 MS: 47.0t

And, just for comparison:
Class 390 TS: 45.5t or 49.2t
Class 390 MS: 50t - 52t.

Though of course the weight benefits of distributed traction are more to do with eliminating the need for a hefty great lump of locomotive with 21t axle loadings over four axles taking its' toll on the track.

 

[ChrisCooper]

Mark 4 TSO: 40.8t
Class 222 MS: 47.0t

And, just for comparison:
Class 390 TS: 45.5t or 49.2t
Class 390 MS: 50t - 52t.

Though of course the weight benefits of distributed traction are more to do with eliminating the need for a hefty great lump of locomotive with 21t axle loadings over four axles taking its' toll on the track.

Then again as pointed out on a discussion about the 185, it's not just the maximum axle weight but the total weight also plays a part. That's why a 21t maximum axle load 91+Mk4 set can run at HST differentials wheras a 185 with lower maximum axle weight but more evenly distributed can't.

 

[tbtc]

For diesel trains of a decent number of coaches, LHCS uses less fuel

I agree that this is the case, but nobody seems to know what the "tipping point" is (where extending a train by another coach means that it'd be more efficient to have it loco hauled), which makes this argument a bit problamatic.

Maybe a ten coach train is more efficient to have loco hauled (than DMU), but most trains are a lot shorter than this. Can anyone suggest whether a six coach train is more efficient by one way or the other?

(plus of course loco hauled means the weight of the loco, but that's another argument)

 

[ChrisCooper]

I agree that this is the case, but nobody seems to know what the "tipping point" is (where extending a train by another coach means that it'd be more efficient to have it loco hauled), which makes this argument a bit problamatic.

Maybe a ten coach train is more efficient to have loco hauled (than DMU), but most trains are a lot shorter than this. Can anyone suggest whether a six coach train is more efficient by one way or the other?

(plus of course loco hauled means the weight of the loco, but that's another argument)

I don't think there are specific figures. Then again it's another example where when loco fans bring it up the unit fans all say "prove it" and want figures, but the unit fans often can't back up there points with figures either. A particular pet hate of mine is regenerative braking. Can anyone come up with conclusive figures that show distributed traction is important for regenerative braking? Very few trains use regenerative braking and most of these are metro units where the start stop nature means that regeneration plays a big roll. It's like hybrids, great in the city but bad over long distances. Then again the first trains to have regenerative braking were locos, including the 76s and 77s on the Woodhead route (wonder if there are figures for how much energy they could regenerate?).
To be honest a lot of claims from both sides are based on myth or speculation rarther than fact. Sadly we've seen how this can even invade the minds of those running the railways, such as the idea that coupling locos to stock takes up to 15mins, wheras coupling units is much faster (based on real life, but pretty much worst case rarther than what could be managed). Really many problems do come from the fact that passenger loco technology hasn't really kept up with unit technology. Often it's comparing 50s and 60s technology with 21st century technology so not a level playing field. It works both ways though, many advantages of hauled stock also are more down to the time it was built in rarther than a pure hauled vs. units argument, in the same way many advantages of units are the same.

 

[37705]

I disagree with you. LHCS has no place in the railway today, and the operators and the people who run the railway agree. Nostalgically yes, but operationally LHCS falls down on the points which matter most.

Interesting quote - is that why Chiltern have introduced MORE loco hauled sets since their original "peak hours only" turn? They did this following a passenger survey early last year, so this quote is somewhat off the mark.

It is also no surprise that the now defunct Wrexham & Shropshire, during it's existence, was top of the "passenger satisfaction" tables - a service operated entirely by loco hauled services, with a much loved restaurant car service. Something that can't be done on, say, a 170.

I am amazed at the number of people here who have claimed not just to love units, but to even prefer them to the locos they were designed to replace. Again, somebody explain to me - how can you honestly claim a 4 car Voyager is in any way an improvement, quality wise, over a 9 coach Mark 2 47-hauled train?

Claiming you prefer MUs to Locos, is a bit like a Car enthusiast claiming a Skoda or a Lada is better than a Rolls Royce or a Jaguar. Indeed, I wonder how many of the MU fans here are also interested in Buses - Pacer's were nothing more than Buses on rails.

Furthemore, simply stating that you prefer units to locos, because that's what you grew up with...no no no. The first thing I did when I started to become interested in railways was to research the past. I thus did my first steam loco for haulage only a month after my first ever loco. Should the youngsters here bashing 172s not be out indulging in the delights of 50s instead? Of course they should!

 

[The Planner]

Interesting quote - is that why Chiltern have introduced MORE loco hauled sets since their original "peak hours only" turn? They did this following a passenger survey early last year, so this quote is somewhat off the mark.

They would struggle to run their timetable without them, that's part of it and if they couldn't match the 168 runs they wouldn't be using more of them either.

how can you honestly claim a 4 car Voyager is in any way an improvement, quality wise, over a 9 coach Mark 2 47-hauled train?

Nice caveat in there, but i've never spent 2½ hours in Fenny Compton up loop on a Voyager as I did on an old XC 47 service which sat on it's arse once waiting to be rescued.

 

[jopsuk]

Interesting quote - is that why Chiltern have introduced MORE loco hauled sets since their original "peak hours only" turn? They did this following a passenger survey early last year, so this quote is somewhat off the mark.

Because it was cheaper for them to do this, with mainly refurbished stock (that they're admittedly modifying further) than to buy a small fleet of brand new intercity-spec DMUs.

 

[ainsworth74]

Iwith a much loved restaurant car service. Something that can't be done on, say, a 170.

I'm sure if a TOC wanted a full kitchen fitted to a future order of 170 type units that could certainly be accommodated (after all 390s and 222s all have full kitchens so MUs obviously can have them). Indeed I seem to recall some NXEA 170s used to have buffets some years ago (though they didn't have kitchens).

 

[shaun]

I am amazed at the number of people here who have claimed not just to love units, but to even prefer them to the locos they were designed to replace. Again, somebody explain to me - how can you honestly claim a 4 car Voyager is in any way an improvement, quality wise, over a 9 coach Mark 2 47-hauled train?

Well the Mk2s were noisy, however i still would prefer them over a voyager. If offered the choice between a Mk2 train or an 175/180 though, i'd opt for the MUs every time as even with the underfloor engines they are quieter than the Mk2s...and they have nicer seats! The Mk2s did need replacing, but the HSTs should've stayed with XC.

How anyone can claim a Voyager or any MU is a better travelling experience than a Mk3/Mk4...now that is beyond me.

 

[Rhydgaled]

the weight benefits of distributed traction are more to do with eliminating the need for a hefty great lump of locomotive with 21t axle loadings over four axles taking its' toll on the track.

A little something from the August 2011 issue of Modern Railways to add to the argument:

We now have a means of calculating track access charges which means we can escape the 'units good - locos bad' mantra of the last few years. In fact, keeping the Mk 3 coaches - even with four heavy (25-tonne) axles hauling them - would be the best Network Rail could hope for.

Also, the WAG Express costings seem to suggest (although there are some on here who think the subsidy isn't actually the full cost of running the service, while others think it is) that the class 67 + mrk3s + DVT contract actually works out cheaper per year than a 3-car 175. I doubt the cost of that particular LHCS train would stand as well against a 3-158 though (cheaper to run than a 175).

I personally think it comes down to the specific design of the train and the duties it needs to perform as to whether LHCS or MU is better. In the majority of cases, but certainly not all, MU is probably the way to go. However, LHCS is more interesting, even to some (like my family) who are not really enthusiats.

 

[MCR247]

- a service operated entirely by loco hauled services, with a much loved restaurant car service. Something that can't be done on, say, a 170.

Thats like me saying, I want a restaurant service, like I can get on a 390, but I can't get it on a rake of 6 MK3 TSOs.... :roll:

 

[tbtc]

I don't think there are specific figures. Then again it's another example where when loco fans bring it up the unit fans all say "prove it" and want figures, but the unit fans often can't back up there points with figures either...

...To be honest a lot of claims from both sides are based on myth or speculation rarther than fact

I agree, it's just frustrating to see it used as a justification for people's preference when they have no idea of what the tipping point is.

A shame nobody on here knows the answer, because it would silence a few hypothetical arguments!

Interesting quote - is that why Chiltern have introduced MORE loco hauled sets since their original "peak hours only" turn? They did this following a passenger survey early last year, so this quote is somewhat off the mark

...because there was nothing else they could use - all DMUs and all EMUs are currently snapped up by TOCs (with the exception of a few rusting 508s from the 1970s).

The only option (if they wanted to enhance Moor Street services, and extend other Marylebone services to Oxford) was some mk3s. What else were they supposed to use?

It is also no surprise that the now defunct Wrexham & Shropshire, during it's existence, was top of the "passenger satisfaction" tables - a service operated entirely by loco hauled services, with a much loved restaurant car service. Something that can't be done on, say, a 170

A completely irrelevant stat, which some people love to quote. WSMR operated a direct London service to towns that previously lacked one, they employed fifty five staff whilst operating three return journeys a day, they aimed for leisure passengers (with plush food etc) rather than everyday commuters... there's no way that you can use their "passenger satisfaction" stats to compare with any normal TOC. It's like comparing a Farmers Market to TESCO.

I am amazed at the number of people here who have claimed not just to love units, but to even prefer them to the locos they were designed to replace. Again, somebody explain to me - how can you honestly claim a 4 car Voyager is in any way an improvement, quality wise, over a 9 coach Mark 2 47-hauled train?

Well, there's a fair question - would you like a four coach train or a nine coach train? I wonder what preference most people would have?

If you need to use loaded questions like that to get people to agree with your point then I think you are struggling. Just my opinion...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Thats like me saying, I want a restaurant service, like I can get on a 390, but I can't get it on a rake of 6 MK3 TSOs.... :roll:

...or that "Voyagers are better than Mk3s because Voyagers can have shops on them selling magazines, which Mk3s don't sell"

 

[jopsuk]

I'm sure if a TOC wanted a full kitchen fitted to a future order of 170 type units that could certainly be accommodated (after all 390s and 222s all have full kitchens so MUs obviously can have them). Indeed I seem to recall some NXEA 170s used to have buffets some years ago (though they didn't have kitchens).

Quite. Just imagine if MML had ordered 6-9 car Turbostars! Doors from the saloons to the vestibules (at least for 1st class), a catering car, 100mph is enough for the MML