Sleeper train multiple unit?

[Waddon]

I think the title says it all, but as the government is considering various future options for the sleeper service, would such a thing as a DMU sleeper unit be possible, or even practical?

I know the initial costs would be higher but as it's a political football anyway that might not be so much of a problem... also who builds stand alone carriages these days anyway? might reduce long term costs due to less loco haulage and shunting, especially if the type of unit chosen was a fairly standard type?

Or am I talking total nonsense?

 

[MCR247]

I think it would be a great idea to have a HST type set up like this:

<Power Car | Sleeper Carriages | Lounge Car | First & Standard class seated | (Small crew area?) Electric PC>

 

[tbtc]

Using an order for other DMUs/EMUs to "piggy back" onto makes some sense, if you could fit different interiors.

A 325 is mechanically a 319 with the cabs of a 365 but with specialist interior (for mail sorting) - no reason why you couldn't do the same if there were an order for more 380s (say). Modular interiors should be possible - you can build the same frame and then decide whether to put "longitudinal" seating (like a 378) in or 2+1 seating or 2+2 seating or 3+2 seating, no reason why you can't use that body to fit beds.

Ignoring the issue of the long term viability of the Sleeper (which we've argued enough recently on other threads), I guess the problem if whether you'd go for DMUs (which have the underfloor engines) or EMUs (which couldn't run to Aberdeen/Inverness/Fort William in the short/medium term).

 

[Schnellzug]

The main advantage of multiple Units is quick turnrounds, which is hardly important for Sleepers; otherwise they're inflexible, and I doubt if the development cost could ever be recouped by using them for just one journey in one direction a night. Besides, as I think we all know by now, manufacturers' claims that they've managed to reduce interior noise to no more than a whisper rarely seem to be 100% truthful. How would the sleepers north of Glasgow/Edinburgh be operated? Would they be using DMUs all the way from London?

 

[Yew]

I can see dmu's being used for sleepers, or the body and frame at least, then being loco hauled and modified to have cabins.

 

[HSTEd]

The main advantage of multiple Units is quick turnrounds, which is hardly important for Sleepers; otherwise they're inflexible, and I doubt if the development cost could ever be recouped by using them for just one journey in one direction a night. Besides, as I think we all know by now, manufacturers' claims that they've managed to reduce interior noise to no more than a whisper rarely seem to be 100% truthful. How would the sleepers north of Glasgow/Edinburgh be operated? Would they be using DMUs all the way from London?

The primary advantage of multiple units is they dispense with the insane number of shunting operations required for conventional loco hauled stock, especially when the train must be split/joined on route.


Look at the list of the number of locomotives required for the sleeper, including ones required to drag the arrived trains out of the stations in the morning.

If you used EMUs on the southern portions of the sleepers you would need only the Cl67s neccesary to drag the sets up and down in the Highlands, reducing the locomotive demand drastically at a time when there appears to be a shortage of locomotives available for other tasks. This becomes even more extreme if the Cl67 is fitted to enable it to work push-pull with the sleeper set.


Also: there will likely never be another order for large numbers of locomotive hauled stock, in contrast there will be multitudes of multiple unit orders to tack this requirement onto, resulting in a significantly reduced capital cost.

 

[sprinterguy]

also who builds stand alone carriages these days anyway?

Siemens produce the Viaggio Comfort design, as used on the Railjet services:
http://www.nwe.siemens.com/denmark/...nts/Viaggio_Comfort_passenger_coaches_eng.pdf

And I don't suppose that it would be beyond the wit of Alstom to produce, say, an unpowered version of the carriages used for the 180s, if there was a demand for it.

However with that said, I think that the future of the sleeper, if it has a future at all beyond the life expectancy of the current mark 2/mark 3 stock, is with fixed multiple unit formations. I believe that Peter Mugridge has a very good idea for such a bi-mode trainset, where there are no diesel engines beneath sleeper carriages, which is awaiting imminent publication in one of the railway magazines.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Personally I think it's fine as it is. LHCS for the sleeper provides operational flexibility and passenger comfort. I don't see any reason to change it.

 

[Schnellzug]

The primary advantage of multiple units is they dispense with the insane number of shunting operations required for conventional loco hauled stock, especially when the train must be split/joined on route.


Look at the list of the number of locomotives required for the sleeper, including ones required to drag the arrived trains out of the stations in the morning.

If you used EMUs on the southern portions of the sleepers you would need only the Cl67s neccesary to drag the sets up and down in the Highlands, reducing the locomotive demand drastically at a time when there appears to be a shortage of locomotives available for other tasks. This becomes even more extreme if the Cl67 is fitted to enable it to work push-pull with the sleeper set.


Also: there will likely never be another order for large numbers of locomotive hauled stock, in contrast there will be multitudes of multiple unit orders to tack this requirement onto, resulting in a significantly reduced capital cost.

Question is, though, would you have all sorts of different lengths of Sleeper MU, one of however many it is, five or six coaches for the Glasgow/Edinburgh portion, three coaches for Ft William and so on, plus seating coaches, or would you have have a standard version (say, three sleepers + a seating coach), and have to double up (i.e. having, probably, excess capacity) for some destinations and too many for others? With the old school methods, you can have as many coaches as you need for any particular destination.

Which type of current or hypothetical MU would people consider might be most suitable? i suppose that 100 mph would be sufficient, so would something like a Desiro provide adequate sound insulation and smoothness of Ride?

As regards no one building loco hauled coaches anymore, why couldn't they just build non-powered trailer coaches based on standard MU designs, which would if anything be cheaper than the MU version, I'd have thought?

 

[HSTEd]

Question is, though, would you have all sorts of different lengths of Sleeper MU, one of however many it is, five or six coaches for the Glasgow/Edinburgh portion, three coaches for Ft William and so on, plus seating coaches, or would you have have a standard version (say, three sleepers + a seating coach), and have to double up (i.e. having, probably, excess capacity) for some destinations and too many for others? With the old school methods, you can have as many coaches as you need for any particular destination.

Which type of current or hypothetical MU would people consider might be most suitable? i suppose that 100 mph would be sufficient, so would something like a Desiro provide adequate sound insulation and smoothness of Ride?

As regards no one building loco hauled coaches anymore, why couldn't they just build non-powered trailer coaches based on standard MU designs, which would if anything be cheaper than the MU version, I'd have thought?

Well the tiny production run would seem to indicate you could tailor the sets to the route they will be running with a full length set kept in reserve to cover for failures.
The flexibility of the "old school" method is bought at the expense of drastically increased labour costs and costs associated with acquiring the locomotives used in the shunting operations, all of which have to be removed if the sleeper is to have any sort of future at all.

I would think the design would be some form of Desiro or electrostar with personal preference being for the latter, however it could simply be attached to whatever order is convenient at the time.

Removing all the traction equipment from an MU is unlikely to significantly reduce the price (especially for such a small production run) once the design costs associated with this are factored in, unless you want to leave space for all this equipment which would tend to remove the entire advantage of hauled stock over modern EMUs.

At most we are looking at seven "long" sets (Caledonian, Night Riviera and one backup) and six "short" sets (Highland Sleeper) so the entire order will certainly be less than 200 vehicles.

 

[Watto1990]

How about a couple of these?

http://www.fictitiousliveries.co.uk/photo.php?dmu153908_nightstar.jpg

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Yes, I've posted this before elsewhere...

Four of these coupled together = the length of one 16 car + 90 Caledonian rake.

 

[MCR247]

Don't think that'd work, as Inverness and Aberdeen would require more than 4, I'd say 5 car ones, but the MUs should be easy to reform, so maybe 5 or so spare carriages could be built and added in during busy periods to certain sets