Popularity of Loco Hauled vs. Multiple Unit trains?

[37705]

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...

Well, of course it's a loaded question - the original question by the original poster asked for Loco Hauled V MU operation, and the fact is, Virgin misjudged the changeover from 47's to Voyagers badly by operating single units on services previously operated by longer loco hauled trains.

It happened in BR days as well, when the Harwich - Manchester boat train was Sprinterised in 88. I remember well the reports of 2 car units turning up, full and standing, with people unable to board. These are examples of why I think the use of MU's on what were traditionally InterCity routes have never improved on the quality of services operated as loco hauled services.

 

[MCR247]

It happened in BR days as well, when the Harwich - Manchester boat train was Sprinterised in 88. I remember well the reports of 2 car units turning up, full and standing, with people unable to board. These are examples of why I think the use of MU's on what were traditionally InterCity routes have never improved on the quality of services operated as loco hauled services.

So going by what happened on the 11.43 on 23rd June 1989, MUs can never improve on the quality of services provided by LHCS?

Well, hate to say it, but IMO 390s ruin that..

 

[37705]

And IMO, the 390s are the worst trains I have ever travelled on!

As has already been mentioned earlier in this forum, the hardcore MU fans who have been posting here aren't going to change their minds, however much the rest of us can to try to convince them. I personally don't see how - quality wise in terms of stock, and character wise in terms of the traction - anybody can prefer a Pendolino over a 90, or a 158 over a 31, etc, etc. That's just my answer to the original question.

 

[ainsworth74]

As has already been mentioned earlier in this forum, the hardcore MU fans who have been posting here aren't going to change their minds, however much the rest of us can to try to convince them.

Surely that's just the pot calling the kettle black?

 

[tbtc]

Well, of course it's a loaded question - the original question by the original poster asked for Loco Hauled V MU operation, and the fact is, Virgin misjudged the changeover from 47's to Voyagers badly by operating single units on services previously operated by longer loco hauled trains

But you're not comparing apples with apples.

The XC change was broadly speaking:

• A six/seven/eight coach train roughly every hour (but with some random timings/gaps) using old unreliable stock
• A four/five coach train every half hour using very reliable DMUs that have acceleration as good as an EMU

The fact that passenger numbers shot up on XC suggests that people were happier with the second option, sorry. Single units, yes, but running twice as often on the XC core. And the average pre-Princess length wasn't nine coaches, in the way that not all Voyagers are four coaches, but don't let the facts get in the way of your argument...

 

[jopsuk]

(a pedant who otherwise agrees with you writes) All Voyagers are 4-car, it's the Super Voyagers that are 4/5 car (and even then, only one is currently 4-car)

Your point is good though- there seem to be many that have this odd idea that XC services were all running Class 47 + 9 coaches, on all routes, all year round. The Voyagers/Super Voyagers could though have done with all being ideally 5 car or more.

 

[SouthEastern-465]

Since my interest started in railways I've always been interested in EMUs in particular. I feel it because of the way I was brought up on the southern, I remember as a kid watching the 'Slamdoor EMUs and Cl465s in there distinctive NSE livery and preferred them over locos almost instantly as EMUs were the 'normal trains'.

Over the past couple of years my interest has grown even more, and I've still not changed my mind. But on the other hand I do like locos, just I like MUs better. I feel they have a lot my character and the things they pass, see and carry and the stories they could tell (if that makes sense!) adds to that character!

I do feel some of the loco hauled fans are your 'typical enthusiast' (no offence intended) and don't like EMUs as they represent the modern day. Although leave it about 30 years or so and I bet they'll change there mind when even newer EMU/DMUs replace the current ones... "Oh I remember those 365s I always thought they were brilliant units..." :P

 

[sprinterguy]

Overall I would prefer loco hauled coaching stock on long distance Intercity services, and I assure you that that is speaking from a practical passengers' perspective rather than a rose-tinted glasses wearing enthusiasts' one.

This may not be because of any inherent problem with multiple units in general, but because of inherent problems with the multiple units that have been delivered in recent years. Even with Pendolinos and Meridians which have been amongst the best of the Intercity MUs, the general trend when multiple units have replaced older loco hauled coaching stock, stretching back to the days of Sprinterisation, is for the new trains to have fewer carriages, fewer seats around tables and a lot less luggage space. As I say, this is not necessarily an inherent problem with multiple units in general, but rather an issue of poor train specification, which probably could still have been made if new generation LHCS had been specified instead.

I like the faster journey times, more frequent services and vastly increased reliabilty that I can now enjoy on the West Coast and Crosscountry network since the introduction of Pendolinos and Voyagers, but it has to be asked, could these attributes and rapid rates of passenger growth still have been acheived if new generation LHCS had been built instead? What if Virgin XC had stuck to its original plan of building thirty four loco hauled rakes with class 68 locomotives (Which surely would have been more than four carriages long, but I haven't been able to find any hard figures on that), would the effects of Operation Princess still have been the same?

I am not saying that "loco hauled = good, multiple units = bad". For regional, suburban and commuter services there is in my mind no better option than multiple unit operation with all the advantages of flexibility and distributed power that it brings. But for the longest distance Intercity services, I would just like to see trains that are a bit better appointed with appropriate facilities for their passengers.

Of course, this is only considering the argument from a passengers' perspective, rather than an operational or mechanical one.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I do feel some of the loco hauled fans are your 'typical enthusiast' (no offence intended) and don't like EMUs as they represent the modern day. Although leave it about 30 years or so and I bet they'll change there mind when even newer EMU/DMUs replace the current ones... "Oh I remember those 365s I always thought they were brilliant units..." :P

It's how the world works, people are always resistant to change. In the late seventies and early eighties it seems that the majority of enthusiasts were not at all keen on the then-new Intercity 125s for them being cheap, plastic multiple unit type things. Thirty-odd years down the line, and the self same trains are now being upheld by many as shining beacons of all that is best in British train design!

 

[43021HST]

Since my interest started in railways I've always been interested in EMUs in particular. I feel it because of the way I was brought up on the southern, I remember as a kid watching the 'Slamdoor EMUs and Cl465s in there distinctive NSE livery and preferred them over locos almost instantly as EMUs were the 'normal trains'.

Over the past couple of years my interest has grown even more, and I've still not changed my mind. But on the other hand I do like locos, just I like MUs better. I feel they have a lot my character and the things they pass, see and carry and the stories they could tell (if that makes sense!) adds to that character!

I do feel some of the loco hauled fans are your 'typical enthusiast' (no offence intended) and don't like EMUs as they represent the modern day. Although leave it about 30 years or so and I bet they'll change there mind when even newer EMU/DMUs replace the current ones... "Oh I remember those 365s I always thought they were brilliant units..." :P

I think that ride behind the class 56 at Swanage diesel gala and the Class 40 at Severn Valley have made you friendlier to diesels.

The majority of my first railway experiences were at Preserved railways and diesel galas, despite being 17 I much prefer a first gen diesels over anything else. I will take pictures of units, but if I hear of something better that is close by like a steam railtour I would prefer to see that.

I think I was bitten by the railway bug due to being around valanta HSTs at Reading; the loud screaming from the engine made such an impression on me in a way that units couldnt.
For me trains are all about the noise, and units lack that spine tingling, primordial, soul rattling growl that all old diesels seem to possess.

Rail hobby for me now is aptly summed up by Lux Interior from the Cramps "I want the most but I'll take the least".

 

[tbtc]

(a pedant who otherwise agrees with you writes) All Voyagers are 4-car, it's the Super Voyagers that are 4/5 car (and even then, only one is currently 4-car)

Your point is good though- there seem to be many that have this odd idea that XC services were all running Class 47 + 9 coaches, on all routes, all year round. The Voyagers/Super Voyagers could though have done with all being ideally 5 car or more.

You're right, I should have worded my post more carefully re Voyagers/ Super Voyagers.

I agree that Voyagers (and Super Voyagers!) should have been longer - presumably they were long enough at the time for the increased frequency based on passenger numbers at the Millennium - I just thought that the "would you prefer a four coach train or a nine coach train" question needed picking up on...

 

[Hydro]

• A six/seven/eight coach train roughly every hour (but with some random timings/gaps) using old unreliable stock
• A four/five coach train every half hour using very reliable DMUs that have acceleration as good as an EMU

The XC network really should now not be a toss up between the two, but both; a reliable, fast accelerating train every half hour/hour that is six/seven/eight coaches long.

 

[Yew]

The XC network really should now not be a toss up between the two, but both; a reliable, fast accelerating train every half hour/hour that is six/seven/eight coaches long.

Or maybe both? Refurbish the LHCS, and run them as 'fast' services that only stop at major stations , and have the MU's running stoppers? Like on the MML?

 

[Nym]

With all LDPE services needing to be rather long now, I personally don't see the problem with ordering a new series of LDPE LHCS stock, especially since we now know we can get enough power in a UK Gauge locomotive to haul diesels up to 100, probably push to 110.

Passenger space benifits btw, kick in at about 6 or 7 coaches, thanks to the equipment cabs at either end of an MU. It's also something you can produce at a steady flow to accomadate passenger growth, and like I said before, if you have standards written, you can have whoever you like build the carriges, locomotives, dbsos etc

 

[ainsworth74]

The XC network really should now not be a toss up between the two, but both; a reliable, fast accelerating train every half hour/hour that is six/seven/eight coaches long.

Indeed, BR's idea of short trains more frequently was the right idea for the 1980s but now it really is a case of needing long trains and frequently as well.

 

[The Planner]

Or maybe both? Refurbish the LHCS, and run them as 'fast' services that only stop at major stations , and have the MU's running stoppers? Like on the MML?

Define "major" though ?? Take a Bournemouth to Manchester as an example, stops at Macclesfield, Stoke, Stafford, Wolves, New St, Cov, Leamington, Banbury, Oxford, Reading, Basingstoke, Winchester, Soton Airport, Soton, Brockenhurst, Bournemouth. Without offending people from Macclesfield and the New Forest, and possibly Leamington and Banbury to a smaller extent, all of the conurbations there seem pretty "major" to me.

 

[chris89]

As has already been mentioned earlier in this forum, the hardcore MU fans who have been posting here aren't going to change their minds.

Leave people for what they like? Perhaps loco' hauled stock falls outside their age range or only seen it on Preserved railway.

Only noteable 'Locomotive' hauled stock i have been behind is HSTs being VT XC, FGW/ Great Western, GNER but that on its own note is questionable if it can count (Yes i know the Class 43 is classified as a locomotive)

Apart from plently of preserved railway haulage only other mainline haulage i've had must have been either a 31 or a 37 to Weymouth from Castle Cary.

Myself im not fussed what is more popular really. I like the Super Voyagers and Pendo's as they have improved the WCML a lot (IMO) and apart from the obvious disadvantages with them being to short or over the top 1st class acommendation at the moment. All are fine.

Other MU's i personly like are 150s all subtypes, 158's, LM 172s then 350s and 334s.

Overal doesn't matter what you prefer as long as it gets you to were you want to be and in a speedy method as well. Also is reliable. On that note last week had my first 'get kicked of a service' due to 334 breaking down (Failing to pick up speed) on the Bathgate - Airdrie line.

Chris

 

[Tomonthetrain]

I'll happily have a MU however I'll happily have LHCS just the same. As long as I get what I'm after that day (eg if I'm after a HST, I'll hunt one down) then I'm happy to get what's on offer.

Sometimes I'm dead against some things, but in time I get used to them (eg 150s being replaced by 172s) but that's the way the cookie crumbles!

 

[Flywaver]

Having driven a poxy two car 158 from Norwich to Birmingham in a tad under 4 hours...
My thoughts were with all those lucky gits in nice cabs on there small 2 hour journey... Yeah locos will always be better from a Drivers view if Driver has knowledge of Mus and Locos. At least the fitter could get in the engine room and not rely on a platform where access might be the wrong side...Downside of Mus is the Driver is sitting with the passengers more or less. I never got disturbed my mobile phones and music and shouting on a Loco. On a 170 especially it's very irritating.... Push Pull on long distance is best suited. Mus are definitely not designed for Cycles between Ely & Cambridge....

 

[SouthEastern-465]

Leave people for what they like? Perhaps loco' hauled stock falls outside their age range or only seen it on Preserved railway.

Only noteable 'Locomotive' hauled stock i have been behind is HSTs being VT XC, FGW/ Great Western, GNER but that on its own note is questionable if it can count (Yes i know the Class 43 is classified as a locomotive)

Apart from plently of preserved railway haulage only other mainline haulage i've had must have been either a 31 or a 37 to Weymouth from Castle Cary.

Myself im not fussed what is more popular really. I like the Super Voyagers and Pendo's as they have improved the WCML a lot (IMO) and apart from the obvious disadvantages with them being to short or over the top 1st class acommendation at the moment. All are fine.

Other MU's i personly like are 150s all subtypes, 158's, LM 172s then 350s and 334s.

Overal doesn't matter what you prefer as long as it gets you to were you want to be and in a speedy method as well. Also is reliable. On that note last week had my first 'get kicked of a service' due to 334 breaking down (Failing to pick up speed) on the Bathgate - Airdrie line.

Chris

Absolutely spot on, couldn't of put it better myself!

 

[Chafford1]

I kind of have two point of view on this matter...

Firstly, as a rail enthusiast, I like to see locos out and about on passenger duties with LHCS. The rolling stock is normally more spacious, the seating more comfortable and just generally the feeling of being on a 'proper' train and not a mock-bus or mock-airliner style DMU. IMO Mk3s, with original seats, were the best coaches produced and are still going strong, although I have a particularly soft spot for GC's Mk3s 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've also had my share of loco-hauled passenger trains, Fife Circle, Tall Ships Shuttles and GC Loco Hauled Replacements all came in front of my lens and I also rode on all 3.

However, coming from an operational perspective, the use of Locos and Coaching Stock on the modern railway is almost nonsensical in the conventional sense: a loco and a rake of coaching stock. The need for run-rounds at the terminating point adds to the time needed to turn the set round, older loco's reliability is lower, there is additional staffing costs associated with running a loco hauled service, slam doors aren't ideal and there is a notable increase in time lost when LHCS is dispatched compared to a DMU with power-operated doors. Take for example the Fife Circle, involving some sharply curved platforms. One station (can't remember which) saw the guard lock the CDL from the BSO, but then walk down to three seperate vestibule windows before she had a clear line of sight to give the driver the tip - all this after the carry on of ensuring that all the doors are secure and there isn't one on the latch. With a DMU it's a lot faster, close doors, close local door, 2-2 and away you go (in theory). The slam door problem is also evident with HSTs and Mk3 push-pull sets. However, these semi-permanent formations iron out a lot of the loco hauled problems pointed out above, such as the need for run round. In a way the NEXA sets and current HST fleet combine the best of both worlds: passenger comfort and some stock with a bit of history to it, with operational flexibility able to keep up on the 21st Century network.

So, I think what I've said there is that loco hauled is nice for the enthusiast, but isn't practical to the hard nosed businessmen of today's railway.

That just about hits the nail on the head.

Mind you, as an enthusiast, MUs are no substitute for:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsYdtQfkzdA&feature=BFa&list=FL7_Em1AAXPAtMDuDBtPuadw&lf=plpp_video

or:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xECylBBnAtw&list=FL7_Em1AAXPAtMDuDBtPuadw&index=25&feature=plpp_video