Up_Tilt_390
Member
- Joined
- 10 Oct 2015
- Messages
- 923
No. Trains have used driving van trailers, or passenger carrying vehicles with a driving cab at one end, for decades!
Of course we have used them for decades, but that doesn't mean it's practical does it? We used steam engines for a long time too, so you can argue to bring them back surely on the basis of that argument, right? I mean it's still a loco-hauled piece of stock, it's just the unit on the front is powered by steam rather than electricity or diesel (note to steam lovers, this is not a genuine advocacy, so don't get your hopes up. Bringing back steam on a wide-scale is not happening). There was obviously a reason that we started to phase them out in favour of more technologically advanced rolling stock in terms of traction power.
The advantage of loco-hauled units is more for capacity reasons if anything, which though is desperately needed on the network, especially with CrossCountry, it is negated by the lack of platform length and space, and so you really need more frequent services to make up for it. Then you need stock with better acceleration to make space for other trains behind it so you can squeeze more onto the network, then you need a quick turnaround time at terminus station to get the train ready for another journey as well as make space for more services. On a busy network like the UK's, loco-hauled stock being on a widespread scale would probably not do much good these days just because of the sheer number of people using the trains.
This is incorrect. Chiltern's Class 68 hauled trains have better performance than their Class 168 units!
Does Chiltern Railways have to tackle unforgiving gradients though? This is ultimately what I was thinking of when I mention better performance. What I've always seen listed as an advantage with a multiple unit was that it has no theoretical limit when it comes to climbing tough hills and has overall better traction (though to be fair I've heard even an eleven-coach Class 390 with 5.95mW (7,980 horsepower) needs to be in at least notch two or three when going up Shap and Beattock Summit, something a Class 86/87 tackled very well with similar or less power output).
A twenty-coach multiple unit would probably handle those respective gradients better than loco-hauled stock of a similar length unless you were to increase the power output of the front loco, which would consume more fuel or electricity, and need more expensive gear inside it to handle such power. Additionally you would probably need higher voltage of the overhead line equipment or greater torque in a diesel engine, and though we are not likely to get such long trains, the fact is more coaches on a loco-hauled unit needs more power at the front, whereas a DMU/EMU would pull itself up along the majority of the train and distribute traction all along.
Not quite, and it is very common on the continent (e.g. Switzerland are far better than us at running railways)
Doesn't strictly mean there is a correlation between use of loco-hauled units and better railway operation. Switzerland runs trains better than us, obviously, but I'd put that more down to the different and clearly superior management staff and infrastructure. Japan manages to run a railway on par with the Swiss, yet they have a significant amount of multiple units, and in fact I'm pretty sure there aren't any loco-hauled express trains left over there.
Surely this has been done to death before? Ordering additional carriages to extend Voyagers is no longer viable. Also Voyagers probably have only a relatively limited life left in them now anyway.
Had no clue it'd been done to death at all.