Chiltern Railways train stuck for 5 hours

[Irascible]

I don't see why a 68 couldn't be 'dead' on the rear of the formation but again, a 68 arriving at the buffer stops at Marylebone is less than ideal. I'd imagine a loco on each end may also cause problems for fuelling and maintenance at certain locations.

Ignoring whether the concept as a whole is a good idea or no, can you MU control through a 68 to one behind it? ie could you stick two on the same end & still control the outer one from the DVT?

 

[Topological]

Some bizarre arguments here. The idea that loco hauled trains have been running for years being a reason to continue with single point of failure services is madness.

The internal combustion engine has been going a long time, and still is. Coal-fired power stations have been going a long time and still are. Cigarette smoking has been happening much longer and still does. Are all of these reasons to continue?

They may not be as appealing from an enthusiast perspective, but there is a good reason why multiple units are more popular now (likewise electric cars, renewable energy and healthy lifestyles).

 

[12LDA28C]

Ignoring whether the concept as a whole is a good idea or no, can you MU control through a 68 to one behind it? ie could you stick two on the same end & still control the outer one from the DVT?

I don't see why not, but why would you need to?

Some bizarre arguments here. The idea that loco hauled trains have been running for years being a reason to continue with single point of failure services is madness.

The internal combustion engine has been going a long time, and still is. Coal-fired power stations have been going a long time and still are. Cigarette smoking has been happening much longer and still does. Are all of these reasons to continue?

They may not be as appealing from an enthusiast perspective, but there is a good reason why multiple units are more popular now (likewise electric cars, renewable energy and healthy lifestyles).

The argument that one failure that causes a few hours of disruption is reason to do away with all loco-hauled services is madness. Comparisons with power stations and smoking are irrelevant.

 

[43066]

Some bizarre arguments here. The idea that loco hauled trains have been running for years being a reason to continue with single point of failure services is madness.

The idea that loco hauled trains are intrinsically less reliable than multiple units is bizarre to say the least. Some units also have single points of failure when not running in multiple; for example only having one compressor per unit.

The internal combustion engine has been going a long time, and still is. Coal-fired power stations have been going a long time and still are. Cigarette smoking has been happening much longer and still does. Are all of these reasons to continue?

They may not be as appealing from an enthusiast perspective, but there is a good reason why multiple units are more popular now (likewise electric cars, renewable energy and healthy lifestyles).

And it has very little to do with reliability. I haven’t got the foggiest idea why cigarette smoking or coal fired power stations are being brought into the discussion!

 

[Bletchleyite]

The idea that loco hauled trains are intrinsically less reliable than multiple units is bizarre to say the least. Some units also have single points of failure when not running in multiple; for example only having one compressor per unit.

Some DMUs have that sort of flaw, yes, but not all of them. And a loco only typically has one of everything (unless it's that odd Stadler design you get in Germany which is more like a FLIRT in concept, i.e. a loco body with multiple DMU style engines inside it).

Locos are more resilient if everything is loco-worked because you can easily get a spare in and continue the service. But if you're mostly a DMU railway, as Chiltern is, a 165/168 can lose an engine and just lose time (and with Chiltern running longer trains than say Northern it won't lose *that* much time) whereas if your loco conks out you get what happened in this thread. Particularly as "Sprinter" type DMUs, which 16x are, have each coach as a completely independent thing. OK, a failure in the cab still knackers you, but anything to do with powering the unit still works with an engine out, just slower, and so in almost every case you're at least going to get it to the next platform to tip out then into a suitable siding out of the way.

 

[Topological]

The idea that loco hauled trains are intrinsically less reliable than multiple units is bizarre to say the least. Some units also have single points of failure when not running in multiple; for example only having one compressor per unit.



And it has very little to do with reliability. I haven’t got the foggiest idea why cigarette smoking or coal fired power stations are being brought into the discussion!

I think it is pretty clear that the only argument put forwards for loco-hauled is that it has been done that way for a long time and other countries have loco-hauled. My point is simple. There are a lot of things that have been "done that way for a long time" and "other countries have" which also need to go.

@Bletchleyite has again made the point clearly about the key differences that favour DMU.

Passengers want quicker recovery, not 5 hours of a failed train blocking the line.

 

[dooton]

Maybe the critical question here is why was a loco that seemed to have a history of intermittent issues be allowed into service? Also why had the issues not been rectified? I say this more from a learning aspect rather than criticism. It may be the loco was required to avoid otherwise cancelling services, may be spares were not immediately available, maybe a full issue investigation would take a long time adding to any loco shortage issues or with age or bad design manufacture the loco requires almost complete rebuilding and critical part renewal.

All trains have had issues at some point - 68010's failure on Sunday was not related to any other failures or issues with the loco.

Ignoring whether the concept as a whole is a good idea or no, can you MU control through a 68 to one behind it? ie could you stick two on the same end & still control the outer one from the DVT?

Yes you can

 

[43066]

Some DMUs have that sort of flaw, yes, but not all of them. And a loco only typically has one of everything (unless it's that odd Stadler design you get in Germany which is more like a FLIRT in concept, i.e. a loco body with multiple DMU style engines inside it).

Locos are more resilient if everything is loco-worked because you can easily get a spare in and continue the service. But if you're mostly a DMU railway, as Chiltern is, a 165/168 can lose an engine and just lose time (and with Chiltern running longer trains than say Northern it won't lose *that* much time) whereas if your loco conks out you get what happened in this thread. Particularly as "Sprinter" type DMUs, which 16x are, have each coach as a completely independent thing. OK, a failure in the cab still knackers you, but anything to do with powering the unit still works with an engine out, just slower, and so in almost every case you're at least going to get it to the next platform to tip out then into a suitable siding out of the way.

And EMUs! 465s and Desiros only have one compressor per unit, for example. Chiltern’s 165s, which are based on networkers, will presumably be the same (I can’t say for sure). So there’s still “a single point of failure” on many MU fleets currently operating when they run as single units. It doesn’t matter how many engines or motors you have if the compressor dies!

@Bletchleyite has again made the point clearly about the key differences that favour DMU.

If the argument against loco hauled is that it’s a single point of failure, well that can also be the case with multiple units, as I’ve pointed out above. There are obviously good operational reasons favouring MUs, but those aren’t to do with reliability.

Passengers want quicker recovery, not 5 hours of a failed train blocking the line.

Those same passengers probably don’t want to pay higher taxes/fares for thunderbird locos and crews stationed every few miles.

 

[najaB]

I think it is pretty clear that the only argument put forwards for loco-hauled is that it has been done that way for a long time and other countries have loco-hauled.

Well, for one thing, loco hauled coaching stock has a lower capital cost and can be 'converted' from diesel to electric easily as the railway is electrified.

 

[BanburyBlue]

Yes a train-to-train evacuation ramp is normally used.

Is this stored on the unit, or does it have to brought to site?

 

[Topological]

And EMUs! 465s and Desiros only have one compressor per unit, for example. Chiltern’s 165s, which are based on networkers, will presumably be the same (I can’t say for sure). So there’s still “a single point of failure” on many MU fleets currently operating when they run as single units. It doesn’t matter how many engines or motors you have if the compressor dies!



If the argument against loco hauled is that it’s a single point of failure, well that can also be the case with multiple units, as I’ve pointed out above. There are obviously good operational reasons favouring MUs, but those aren’t to do with reliability.



Those same passengers probably don’t want to pay higher taxes/fares for thunderbird locos and crews stationed every few miles.

They do not need to pay for thunderbird locos, they just need the DfT to implement rolling stock procurement strategies that do not create as high a proportion of services run by loco-hauled stock with their higher likelihood of failure relative to DMUs.

In the case of Chiltern there is even a cascade which works and can eliminate loco-hauled. The tenders are out and so there is little stopping a 175 to GWR, 16x from GWR to Chiltern move.

It seems to me that the arguments for preserving these small fleets of loco hauled sets are more about the fact that enthusiasts like loco-hauled.

 

[12LDA28C]

And EMUs! 465s and Desiros only have one compressor per unit, for example. Chiltern’s 165s, which are based on networkers, will presumably be the same (I can’t say for sure). So there’s still “a single point of failure” on many MU fleets currently operating when they run as single units. It doesn’t matter how many engines or motors you have if the compressor dies!

Chiltern's 165s and 168s have a compressor on every vehicle, driven from the engine. This is not the case with all DMUs, some of which have a limited number of electrically-driven compressors per unit.

 

[Nym]

Highlights the problems with locomotive hauled trains - a single point of failure.

Units have plenty of single point failures…

 

[12LDA28C]

In the case of Chiltern there is even a cascade which works and can eliminate loco-hauled. The tenders are out and so there is little stopping a 175 to GWR, 16x from GWR to Chiltern move.

165s are pretty much life expired, why on earth would Chiltern want more of them from GWR? And given the rumours about ex-TPE 68s and stock possibly heading to Chiltern, clearly someone is in favour of LHCS. I'm fairly sure these decisions are not governed by whether enthusiasts like loco-hauled trains or not.

 

[BrianW]

They do not need to pay for thunderbird locos, they just need the DfT to implement rolling stock procurement strategies that do not create as high a proportion of services run by loco-hauled stock with their higher likelihood of failure relative to DMUs.

In the case of Chiltern there is even a cascade which works and can eliminate loco-hauled. The tenders are out and so there is little stopping a 175 to GWR, 16x from GWR to Chiltern move.

It seems to me that the arguments for preserving these small fleets of loco hauled sets are more about the fact that enthusiasts like loco-hauled.

I am reminded of the mistakes made when diesels came in- an unnecessary 'range' of differing, and incompatible, designs! Is there not scope for more standardisation/ variety reduction-given the political will? Might Great British Railways mean anything?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, for one thing, loco hauled coaching stock has a lower capital cost and can be 'converted' from diesel to electric easily as the railway is electrified.

The Mk3s are ancient and ready for scrap, so this doesn't really apply here.

 

[najaB]

The Mk3s are ancient and ready for scrap, so this doesn't really apply here.

The post I was responding to was about loco-hauled in general.

 

[Irascible]

I don't see why not, but why would you need to?

Because you can stick your spare 68 at the same end as the live one, which makes arguments about being the wrong end at Marylebone moot.

Still not exactly a great use of resources.

 

[12LDA28C]

Because you can stick your spare 68 at the same end as the live one, which makes arguments about being the wrong end at Marylebone moot.

Still not exactly a great use of resources.

Indeed, although I was replying to the suggestion that trains could be top-and-tailed. Adding 90-odd tons of dead weight into a passenger train would lead to quite an increase in fuel usage by the powering loco.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think it is pretty clear that the only argument put forwards for loco-hauled is that it has been done that way for a long time and other countries have loco-hauled. My point is simple. There are a lot of things that have been "done that way for a long time" and "other countries have" which also need to go.

@Bletchleyite has again made the point clearly about the key differences that favour DMU.

Passengers want quicker recovery, not 5 hours of a failed train blocking the line.

The problem is not loco hauled per se, but a small fleet, with a single point of failure, and lack of good options to recover a failed locomotive.

If every train on Chiltern was loco hauled you'd have loads of compatible locos available to perform a rescue. As it is, we have to send a Thunderbird miles and miles, hope that too doesn't fail, and end up with a completely destroyed service between the UK's two largest cities for five hours.

Those same passengers probably don’t want to pay higher taxes/fares for thunderbird locos and crews stationed every few miles.

"All the money the railway gets at the moment is being used in the best possible way" fallacy. Not everything has to result in fare or tax increases; we really do need to look quite a bit beyond the immediate picture. Nobody is going to post on here that no passenger can expect the railway to have better or more efficient ways of working. Many of the solutions are political but it doesn't mean they can't be advocated for.

As for how many people affected won’t return to the railway, almost certainly all of them will return. How many people permanently abandon any mode of transport due to a one off delay?

Perhaps not permanently, but Schedule 8 payments for example recognise that disruption has a flattening commercial effect on passengers' willingness to return and spend money. This sort of incident can cause huge reputational damage.

 

[Wilts Wanderer]

There are notable benefits of loco-haulage over multiple units, including a better passenger experience (no underfloor engines) and usually being easier to add/remove vehicles to better match demand. Locos and coaching sets can also be on different maintenance cycles, so for instance if engines need to be swapped out you don’t need to take the passenger accommodation out of service, you just swap the locos.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are notable benefits of loco-haulage over multiple units, including a better passenger experience (no underfloor engines) and usually being easier to add/remove vehicles to better match demand. Locos and coaching sets can also be on different maintenance cycles, so for instance if engines need to be swapped out you don’t need to take the passenger accommodation out of service, you just swap the locos.

Replied here: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/locomotive-haulage-vs-multiple-units.267371/

 

[TPO]

Network Rail is responsible for clearing the line when a train fails, and I have purloined resources from other operators in such a situation, but it depends on not just having a loco available but also a Driver with the necessary route knowledge, and time to carry out the assistance; And the effect on other services, including those of the purloined-from company, has to be taken into account.

In this incident, bearing in mind that it occurred on a Sunday, were there actually any other resources available which could have cleared the line any more quickly?

Also relies on traction compatibility. Even if the couplers match, there's issues of electrical power, air pipes, train wire power..... etc. The complexity of Translators (vehicles which interface otherwise incompatible traction units) can be rather high. Think: one end coupled with screw coupler, air pipes and an aux connection to a freight loco, the other end to a unit with a Dellner, train wire for brakes, air for doors. Even without needing to provide hotel power for Aircon, lighting, USB charging etc it can get complicated.

Back in time if nothing nearer there would be locomotives and crew at Reading available to set off at short notice assist failures. Prior to HST AFAIK the only compatibility requirement was air or vacuum brakes and planning would have a dual braked loco available.
If 90 minutes to arrive on the scene then 30 minutes to hook up the passengers stranded would have been at Banbury within 2h30 mins to transfer to the next Marylebone service and the line would be clear.
Better than a train to train transfer then taken in the wrong direction to Leamington to transfer to a southbound service that had to take turn to pass the failure.

While the thread emphasis is on Marylebone <> Birmingham disruption XC services must have been affected too.

As above.

TPO

 

[43096]

The idea that loco hauled trains are intrinsically less reliable than multiple units is bizarre to say the least. Some units also have single points of failure when not running in multiple; for example only having one compressor per unit.

Good point. Or one transformer, or one pantograph or…

 

[66701GBRF]

Isn’t potential fault transferring a thing too?

 

[greaterwest]

Isn’t potential fault transferring a thing too?

This is the reason it took SWR 5 hours to rescue a 12 car 450 formation at Fleet station on Wednesday evening - there was a risk the fault might transfer to the rescue train. I'm a little surprised that incident wasn't mentioned here. Perhaps because the train thankfully failed at the station platform.

Multiple units are not immune to this sort of problem.

 

[12LDA28C]

Isn’t potential fault transferring a thing too?

Yes but not in this particular incident although there was an issue gaining brake release after the assisting loco arrived (unrelated to the original fault). Transfer of faults is much more likely on MU stock when coupling electrically.

 

[Driverme10]

If every train on Chiltern was loco hauled you'd have loads of compatible locos available to perform a rescue. As it is, we have to send a Thunderbird miles and miles,

Even though the next 2 services waiting at Moor Street at the time of breakdown were also locos. However rather than send one to push/pull failed train to nearest loop they took them out of service and got a stourbridge driver to drive them both empty back to stourbridge. Maybe bad fuel or something?

 

[12LDA28C]

Even though the next 2 services waiting at Moor Street at the time of breakdown were also locos. However rather than send one to push/pull failed train to nearest loop they took them out of service and got a stourbridge driver to drive them both empty back to stourbridge. Maybe bad fuel or something?

Bad fuel? The failure of the loco on the stranded train was not fuel related.

 

[deltic8]

You have hit the nail on the head - a locomotive hauled train has always had a single point of failure: the locomotive.

In the case of this weekends failure the engine was overheating and shut down, total failure. In the case of a Diesel Multiple Unit they have more than one engine so total failure is less common and they are more likely to be able to limp on at a reduced speed to the most appropriate place to be taken out of traffic in an organised manner.

This is why the HST was cleverer.