The future for DMU's

[Dave1987]

I have recently learnt the reason that chiltern have gone back to a loco and coaches with dvt sets rather than dmu's. This due to emissions regulations that apply to all new trains. When trying to abide by emissions in a dmu the fuel efficiency drops dramatically and actually makes a loco and coaches more cost effective as it is easier to comply with emissions regulations with a loco and still get the fuel efficiency. I thought this was quite intriguing!

 

[O L Leigh]

You're making a leap too far in the logic.

The problem at the moment is that no-one makes a suitable diesel engine for use in DMUs capable of meeting existing emissions legislation. You can get around this by using an older engine and fitting it with particulate filters to clean the exhaust before it's vented to atmosphere. This the reason why Cl172s have all the bulky exhaust trunking around the bogies at the inner end of the cars. Unfortunately this means that the engines can't breathe properly due to the increased back-pressure that the filters introduce into the exhaust, so they have to work that bit harder in order and consequently they do use more fuel. If someone came along with a clean engine suitable for DMU usage they would clear up.

I think that there are other issues at play too. Chiltern did receive Cl172s to increase their DMU fleet, but there are restrictions on the construction of new trains. The easiest way of expanding the fleet is to absorb surplus stock from elsewhere and, in the absence of other suitable DMUs, that means locos, coaches and DVTs.

O L Leigh

 

[tbtc]

I have recently learnt the reason that chiltern have gone back to a loco and coaches with dvt sets rather than dmu's. This due to emissions regulations that apply to all new trains

...not because the 67s were sitting around unused (since the demise of WSMR) and it was easier/ cheaper than getting their hands on a tiny order of brand new DMUs?

Obviously there's a tipping point where a loco and coaches are more cost effective than a multiple unit (which some loco hauled enthusiasts claim is quite low), but this specific example of Chiltern and their 67s doesn't seem to have been as a result of this.

 

[The Ham]

If you look at the track access charges (only one part of the cost of running trains) then the cost of running a loco and coaches is fairly expensive compared to most MU trains:

http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/cp4-pl-track_usage_181208.pdf

Even if you take the most expensive MU which is the class 180 and compare it to the Chiltern train the costs are as follows:

- 5 coach class 180 @ 14.03 ppm is 70.15 ppm
- 4 mark 3 coaches @6.53 ppm plus 1 class 67 @ 43.72 ppm is 69.84 ppm

So for a comparable track access charge you can run the most expensive (in terms of track access charges) MU with out the problems of moving the loco from one end of the train to the other, if you ran a DVT it would add at least 10.60 ppm to the above cost.

If you were to have a 5 coach class 221 it drops to 60.45 ppm (9.39 ppm may not sound a lot but if it is on a train is doing 600 miles a day that's about £55 per day)

 

[starrymarkb]

I have recently learnt the reason that chiltern have gone back to a loco and coaches with dvt sets rather than dmu's. This due to emissions regulations that apply to all new trains. When trying to abide by emissions in a dmu the fuel efficiency drops dramatically and actually makes a loco and coaches more cost effective as it is easier to comply with emissions regulations with a loco and still get the fuel efficiency. I thought this was quite intriguing!

I think it's more to do with Chiltern's Parent Co having a few 67s and Mk3s doing very little at the time Chiltern were looking for more stock..

Are there any emission compliant locomotives out there yet. I know MTU's 4000V version that does comply won't fit in UK stock?

 

[jopsuk]

Dave1987: do you have a reliable source for your fact? Not someone's frothing "MUS ARE BAD" blog; ideally a statement or direct quote from Chiltern management.

 

[Dave1987]

Dave1987: do you have a reliable source for your fact? Not someone's frothing "MUS ARE BAD" blog; ideally a statement or direct quote from Chiltern management.

Actually my father who is senior management at a TOC (not the one I work for by the way). He has said with the wires going up at an increased rate he didn't see a reason why any new dmu's would be build as it is so difficult to abide by emissions legislation with them. Current built stock all have grandfather rights but I have seen in the railway press that chiltern are looking into having new locos build to replace their 67's so don't think the arguement of they had some lying around stands up really. Especially as I think they are leased from DB. Brand new build locos can abide by emmisions legislation easily and still provide the required fuel efficiency.

 

[starrymarkb]

DB own Chiltern so any leasing cost is staying in the business

 

[Dave1987]

DB own Chiltern so any leasing cost is staying in the business

Aha my bad then I wasn't aware of this!

 

[jopsuk]

With all due respect to your father, unless he is a descion maker at Chiltern his views are little more than (well educated) opinion. After all, as well as the loco+stock sets Chiltern have also recently introduced a small fleet of new-build Class 172, a (relatively) new design.

 

[Dave1987]

With all due respect to your father, unless he is a descion maker at Chiltern his views are little more than (well educated) opinion. After all, as well as the loco+stock sets Chiltern have also recently introduced a small fleet of new-build Class 172, a (relatively) new design.

Yes he has said that they will prob be the last new dmu's introduced as they meet the emissions rules but are awful on fuel economy. Loco and coaches above a certain length of train, I.e intercity services, are much more cost effective. I don't know what the design of the IEP programme is that will replace the hst though are they a similar design to the voyager?

 

[RAGNARØKR]

if you ran a DVT it would add at least 10.60 ppm to the above cost.

If you were to have a 5 coach class 221 it drops to 60.45 ppm (9.39 ppm may not sound a lot but if it is on a train is doing 600 miles a day that's about £55 per day)

That is surely peanuts in the overall turnover, is it not? It is less than the ticket price for the distance covered! A DVT is an inefficient way of providing a driving position at the trailer end of a push-pull unit. Unless it could be utilised eg to run a parcels service. Or filled up with luggage lockers so that space did not need to be provided on shelves in all the other vehicles. Or put most of the toilets in them, simplifying the tasks associated with servicing. Or a buffet counter.

Have a brainstorming session on all the possible ways a DVT could be used to release space in the rest of the train which could then provide extra seating.

 

[route:oxford]

That is surely peanuts in the overall turnover, is it not? It is less than the ticket price for the distance covered! A DVT is an inefficient way of providing a driving position at the trailer end of a push-pull unit. Unless it could be utilised eg to run a parcels service. Or filled up with luggage lockers so that space did not need to be provided on shelves in all the other vehicles. Or put most of the toilets in them, simplifying the tasks associated with servicing. Or a buffet counter.

Have a brainstorming session on all the possible ways a DVT could be used to release space in the rest of the train which could then provide extra seating.

That's not so hard really.

All you do is wait until there is an order for EMU and place an order for an non-powered Driving Vehicle Trailer that is compatible with the AAR control system for class 67s (and potentially for legacy systems too).

Make it 1/3, 2/3rd doors and use the first 3rd for a well designed generator unit and 125mph crumple zone. Centre section for 2+2 seating & accommodation for 4 wheelchairs. Final 3rd section for Mega-loo & standard loo (so no loo required in adjacent Mk3).

 

[Eagle]

Or filled up with luggage lockers so that space did not need to be provided on shelves in all the other vehicles.

East Coast DVTs are already used for this.

 

[jopsuk]

The only reason DVTs are suggested is because they're what we have- there's no reason that (in the unlikely event that new build loco hauled happens in this country) a new build driving trailer couldn't be a passenger carrying one instead of a van. The mark 3/mark4 DVTs were the result of an over-reaction to the Polmont disaster. There's plenty of 100mph stock with passenger carrying driving trailers.

East Coast use the DVT extensively for luggage, bikes and non-perishable catering supplies- though as far as I'm aware the crew cannot access the van other than at stations.

 

[Metrailway]

Comparison of the fuel consumption of diesel passenger trains in the UK has been done: http://www.rssb.co.uk/SiteCollectio...search/T618_traction-energy-metrics_final.pdf

Fuel consumption is measured by litres/100 seat km. I've compiled a list below:

Class type - Fuel Consumption

Cl 221 5 car - 1.20

Cl 220 4 car - 1.20

Cl 222 9 car - 0.98

Cl 180 5 car - 0.98

Cl 170 3 car - 0.83

Cl 170 2 car - 0.79

HST - 0.85 (avg)​

 

[RAGNARØKR]

East Coast use the DVT extensively for luggage, bikes and non-perishable catering supplies- though as far as I'm aware the crew cannot access the van other than at stations.

They would have been good for Red Star parcels in the days when that service was provided. What happened to it?

 

[Eagle]

What happened to it?

(a) declining usage due to the fact that rail isn't actually the most cost-efficient means of door-to-door delivery and (b) privatization.

The corpse of Red Star is now wholly owned by UPS.

 

[The Ham]

(a) declining usage due to the fact that rail isn't actually the most cost-efficient means of door-to-door delivery and (b) privatization.

The corpse of Red Star is now wholly owned by UPS.

Although there could now be an argument, with the rise of internet shopping, to use train stations as collection points for items ordered online. Then if you are doing that, then it could also be argued that it makes sense to use guards and station staff to transfer the packages to the collection points, rather than paying other staff to drive around in vans.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

And lose out on those sweet delivery charges? Dont hold your breath mate.

 

[tbtc]

Actually my father who is senior management at a TOC (not the one I work for by the way). He has said with the wires going up at an increased rate he didn't see a reason why any new dmu's would be build

Yes he has said that they will prob be the last new dmu's introduced

We will need more DMUs in the next ten years - we aren't electrifying enough to replace all Pacers by then - nobody has convinced me otherwise of this.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Although there could now be an argument, with the rise of internet shopping, to use train stations as collection points for items ordered online. Then if you are doing that, then it could also be argued that it makes sense to use guards and station staff to transfer the packages to the collection points, rather than paying other staff to drive around in vans.

I like that idea. Better than having to wait in all day for things to be delivered.

 

[Eagle]

I like that idea. Better than having to wait in all day for things to be delivered.

Amazon Locker. (Of which many are indeed in train stations.)

 

[Dave1987]

We will need more DMUs in the next ten years - we aren't electrifying enough to replace all Pacers by then - nobody has convinced me otherwise of this.

Pacers will be replaced by current dmu's as they get displaced by emu's where the wires have gone up.

 

[Eagle]

Pacers will be replaced by current dmu's as they get displaced by emu's where the wires have gone up.

Read what you quoted. There aren't enough routes being electrified (in the next eight to ten years) to do that.

 

[tbtc]

Pacers will be replaced by current dmu's as they get displaced by emu's where the wires have gone up.

Read what you quoted. There aren't enough routes being electrified (in the next eight to ten years) to do that.

Yeah - we're not electrifying the right kind of routes to replace Pacers - apart from the Valley Lines most of the electrification happening in CP5 is going to replace HSTs/ Voyagers/ Meridians/ 185s - none of which are exactly suitable replacements on 75mph stopping services. 165/166s are going to be freed up in reasonable number, but have restricted route availability due to their size, so probably won't get far from the GWML.

Plus if we have even a small number of all the "wishlist" schemes that people have for new services (Portishead, Denton...) and frequency increases to keep up with demand, we've got even less chance of stretching our DMUs to allow Pacer withdrawal.

And, no, we're not going to see loco hauled services replacing Pacers...

 

[Dave1987]

Read what you quoted. There aren't enough routes being electrified (in the next eight to ten years) to do that.

I think that the govt/rail industry has finally figured out that the cost of diesel is going to make diesel powered traction very expensive to operate so I wouldn't be surprised to see the wires going up more and more quickly in the years to come.

 

[tbtc]

I think you will find that the govt/rail industry has finally figured out that the cost of diesel is going to make diesel powered traction very expensive to operate so I wouldn't be surprised to see the wires going up more and more quickly in the years to come.

We're already committing to hundreds of miles of electrification around Britain, from Swansea to Sheffield, from Blackpool to Basingstoke - just delivering that will be a huge test - I really can't believe that there's scope for much more before the end of 2019 (when DDA rules make Pacers unviable).

It'd be lovely, but I can't believe you.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think that the govt/rail industry has finally figured out that the cost of diesel is going to make diesel powered traction very expensive to operate so I wouldn't be surprised to see the wires going up more and more quickly in the years to come.

What more than the nine hundred miles we're already doing out to 2019?

 

[Dave1987]

I know that various projects are being considered. Like I said I think it has got to the point where fuel costs are getting that high that TOC's want the wires up if they can.