• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

End of the line for locos?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
3 Jan 2011
Messages
27
It seems that with the new Hitachi Super Express replacing Intercity 125 and 225 stock there will be no more locomotive drawn trains in regular service in Britain (ie not on heritage or railtour railways). Is this progress, and if so why are loco trains still so common in France, Switzerland, the USA and elsewhere?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
At the end of the day a multiple unit will always be a superior option to locomotive hauled stock so there would be no logical reason for a new build of loco and stock.
 
Last edited:

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
Uh oh, here comes another locos versus units debate *dives for cover*

Multiple units offer greater efficiencies as the increased tractive effort offered through the use of distributed power offers quicker acceleration than a loco hauled formation, and there is a lot less space in the train formation wasted by having a large power unit at the front. The operation of terminal stations can also be made more efficient as there is no need for facilities to be provided for locos to run round a train or be stabled, although of course this issue has been negated through the use of DVTs.

However, these benefits are not as great for lengthy, long distance train services, where the proportion of space wasted by having a loco counts for less of the total train length and there are fewer station stops. Comfort is a much bigger concern on long distance services, which is something that is compromised when sitting above a noisy, rattling diesel engine on a DMU.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
At the end of the day a multiple unit will always be a superior option to locomotive hauled stock so there would be not logical reason for a new build of loco and stock.

Not really. Where a train service runs under the wires for part of its’ journey, it would be more efficient to change over from an electric loco to a diesel loco at a convenient station stop at the limit of electrification than it would to have a diesel engine expending fuel running under the wires, or to have a diesel loco hauling an EMU with all its’ heavy electrical equipment on board when not under the wires, or to have a bi-mode train running off the OHLE when under the wires yet still lugging around heavy diesel engines and fuel.
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
Comfort is a much bigger concern on long distance services, which is something that is compromised when sitting above a noisy, rattling diesel engine on a DMU.
In the case of XC though it's basically a regional DMU service that also provides some long distance journey opportunities. With the number of stops XC services make these days it wouldn't be practical to use a locomotive. I also doubt the majority of the general public care if the engines are underfloor or not.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
Yeah most of the travelling public couldn’t give a stuff whether the train they’re on has an engine under the carriage or not, as long as the train is on time and fairly tidy internally. A lot of the time I’m not bothered either, but the fact that the intrusion is there at all means that it’s a step down from a quiet, unpowered carriage. Modern EMUs don’t have that same problem of course.

In my opinion, train design should aim to offer a reasonable level of comfort for those making the longest journeys, rather than just being acceptable for the “average” trip length.
 

ACE1888

Member
Joined
2 Apr 2011
Messages
823
Location
Penzance, Cornwall
Fair point well put, the 'enthusiast' loves 'proper trains' (I certainly do!) but the modern world doesn't, and the 'travelling' public just want clean, modern, and punctual ones!
 

fairlie

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2010
Messages
104
I agree that travelling public don't notice or care whether it's a multiple unit or loco-hauled, but I do think they care about noise and vibration. I don't mind loco vs. MU when it's electric traction but DMUs for long distances are miserable.
 

junglejames

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2010
Messages
2,069
Then youve also got the problem that DMUs of a decent length use more fuel than a loco hauled train. Also if one coach is knackered, at least on a loco hauled train, you just have to take this coach out of the rake (easier if in the depot at the beginning of the day), whereas with MUs, you would have to take the whole train out of service, and possibly end up cancelling trains.

MUs are obviously cheaper to purchase in the short term, and so thats why our privatised railways go for them. Unfortunately in the long term, they are probably going to end up more expensive to maintain (7 engines versus 1 or 2 engines).
Theres also the problem that quite often MUs dont last as long as locos and coaches.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Yeah most of the travelling public couldn’t give a stuff whether the train they’re on has an engine under the carriage or not, as long as the train is on time and fairly tidy internally. A lot of the time I’m not bothered either, but the fact that the intrusion is there at all means that it’s a step down from a quiet, unpowered carriage. Modern EMUs don’t have that same problem of course.

In my opinion, train design should aim to offer a reasonable level of comfort for those making the longest journeys, rather than just being acceptable for the “average” trip length.

How do we know what the majority of the travelling public prefer? Just because we dont hear them complain, doesnt mean they dont care about underfloor engines. They may prefer unpowered coaches, but just have to put up with underfloor engines.
Also, theres probably a fair few people that dont know any different, and so have never experienced the quietness of a loco hauled train.

Its well known if enthusiasts dont like underfloor engines, because they come on these forums and complain none stop, but the everyday passenger doesnt come on here and complain. So we dont know whether they like them or not.
 
Last edited:

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
Then youve also got the problem that DMUs of a decent length use more fuel than a loco hauled train. Also if one coach is knackered, at least on a loco hauled train, you just have to take this coach out of the rake (easier if in the depot at the beginning of the day), whereas with MUs, you would have to take the whole train out of service, and possibly end up cancelling trains.
In the present day where loco hauled rakes are often considered as just as much a fixed formation as a multiple unit, the ability to remove a carriage from a rake due to a fault has less relevance than it once did, although undoubtedly it is much easier to do, and still does happen, than the same procedure with a multiple unit. However it is a very useful feature when there is a problem with the traction package: With a loco hauled formation, the “traction package” is the big lump of metal at the front of the train, which can easily be uncoupled from the carriage rake and replaced with a working example, so that the carriage rake stays in service while work can still be carried out on a loco. This happens often with HSTs, class 90s and 91s. If something goes awry with the traction package on a multiple unit, then once again, the whole unit is stuffed and out of service!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Theres also the problem that quite often MUs dont last as long as locos and coaches.

Yep, with locos and coaches you can replace either the locos or the carriages at different points in their life depending on when they become life expired, rather than renewing the whole lot at once. If there’s fresh horses available but the carriage is still in good nick, then all you need to do is change the horses, and vice versa!
 

Drsatan

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
1,884
Location
Land of the Sprinters
I agree that travelling public don't notice or care whether it's a multiple unit or loco-hauled, but I do think they care about noise and vibration. I don't mind loco vs. MU when it's electric traction but DMUs for long distances are miserable.

For example, if traveling between Southampton and Reading, or anywhere else on the XC network, I think the vast majority of passengers would rather travel on a loco hauled service or an HST than a Voyager, simply because the first two options are better suited for long distance travel than a Voyager. This is because the engine noise of a Voyager gets very intrusive after a while, and Voyagers have too little luggage space (although the same can be said for lots of trains these days, including 158s).

Another reason why operators prefer MUs is that they tend to accelerate more quickly than loco-hauled services which means they're easier to path. But I think the main reason why TOCs prefer MUs is because track access charges are lower.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
I agree that travelling public don't notice or care whether it's a multiple unit or loco-hauled, but I do think they care about noise and vibration. I don't mind loco vs. MU when it's electric traction but DMUs for long distances are miserable.

But they do! IF they know there is a deferent option. Look at the Pretendolino. People prefer the space and comfort of the MKIII to the Pendo WHEN they get a choice.

now i am not saying we should use MKIII coaches all the time. They can be cold, noisy and drafty if people leave the drop lights open BUT it should be possible to design a decent modern coach that meets standards and has a similar level of space and comfort. With seats that line up to the windows have all the modern requirements (charging points lap top plugs, ipod docks etc) without looking and feeling like you are travelling on a piece of cardboard in a cave like you do with the pendos.

Bang a decent MODERN loco on the front, fixed formation trains and get the cleaning and watering between turns sorted out and you will be away!

Keep DECENT (!) units for local and regional trains, use proper trains on cross country, inter regional, inter city and long distance trains.

Easy :D
 

Drsatan

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
1,884
Location
Land of the Sprinters
Yep, with locos and coaches you can replace either the locos or the carriages at different points in their life depending on when they become life expired, rather than renewing the whole lot at once. If there’s fresh horses available but the carriage is still in good nick, then all you need to do is change the horses, and vice versa!

Just look at the ex BR Mk2 coaches enjoying a new lease of life in New Zealand: despite being over 30 years old they've been comprehensively rebuilt and are as good as new.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
How do we know what the majority of the travelling public prefer? Just because we dont hear them complain, doesnt mean they dont care about underfloor engines. They may prefer unpowered coaches, but just have to put up with underfloor engines.
Also, theres probably a fair few people that dont know any different, and so have never experienced the quietness of a loco hauled train.

Its well known if enthusiasts dont like underfloor engines, because they come on these forums and complain none stop, but the everyday passenger doesnt come on here and complain. So we dont know whether they like them or not.

Really, how a train is powered doesn’t matter to most people. It’s just a means of getting from A to B when it is convenient. Whatever is quickest, convenient and clean does the job. If I’m on, say, a twenty minute “jaunt” from New Street to Wolverhampton, I don’t care what sort of train is providing the power. It’s only when the time taken to get from A to B is in the region of four hours or so that I seriously dislike being vibrated about for the duration of the journey.
 
Joined
3 Jan 2011
Messages
27
Am I mistaken in thinking that the only regular loco-hauled services are the HSTs and the Intercity 225s? (I'm excluding what I consider exceptional circumstances like the pretendolino etc.)
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
Am I mistaken in thinking that the only regular loco-hauled services are the HSTs and the Intercity 225s? (I'm excluding what I consider exceptional circumstances like the pretendolino etc.)

There’s also class 90s+mark 3s on the Liverpool Street to Norwich route.

Everything else is just one or two diagrams: The Pretendolino, Chilterns’ London to Birmingham loco hauled, the WAG Express and the Fife Circle loco hauled in the peak.
 

TDK

Established Member
Joined
19 Apr 2008
Messages
4,155
Location
Crewe
It seems that with the new Hitachi Super Express replacing Intercity 125 and 225 stock there will be no more locomotive drawn trains in regular service in Britain (ie not on heritage or railtour railways). Is this progress, and if so why are loco trains still so common in France, Switzerland, the USA and elsewhere?

CTRL are running loco hauled and it seems that they are proposing to incerease the amount run and also ATW are running Loco hauled on the WAG express and this is increasing as well in December. So, not the end of loco hauled yet.
 

SouthEastern-465

Established Member
Joined
24 May 2009
Messages
1,657
Location
Greater London
It seems that with the new Hitachi Super Express replacing Intercity 125 and 225 stock there will be no more locomotive drawn trains in regular service in Britain (ie not on heritage or railtour railways). Is this progress, and if so why are loco trains still so common in France, Switzerland, the USA and elsewhere?

I might be wrong but from what I have read the IC225s are not going to be replaced by the IEP only the HST fleets will be. But aparently the HSTs have got another 15 - 20 years left in the west of England. :)

As for the Multiple Unit debate, I'm with the MUs thanks! :D
 

mallard

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2009
Messages
1,304
Basically, apart from East Coast's 91s and NXEA's 90s, loco-hauled services are standing in for lack of units, except for the Welsh vanity services.
 

starrymarkb

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2009
Messages
5,985
Location
Exeter
Locos are used in the US because of the way EMUs are certified, each motor coach is classed as a locomotive.

In Switzerland SBB has just ordered 50 tilting double deck IC EMUs to replace older loco hauled stock. Zentralbahn are replacing their loco hauled trains with new Stadler railcars from 2013.
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
Would it be possible in theory to fit engines underneath the Mark 3 coaches and add driving cabs? You wouldn't need the power cars then.
 

SouthEastern-465

Established Member
Joined
24 May 2009
Messages
1,657
Location
Greater London
Would it be possible in theory to fit engines underneath the Mark 3 coaches and add driving cabs? You wouldn't need the power cars then.

Although it was along time ago I seem to remeber BR doing somthing similar to loco hauled Mk1 stock and converting them into REP EMUs.
 
Last edited:

starrymarkb

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2009
Messages
5,985
Location
Exeter
Mk3s don't have the strength. for the 442's MBLS they used the shell of a IE generator van to give the strength

REPs were new build motor coaches with recycled trailers
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
8,677
I am in the middle with this, for say a leeds sheffield stopper loco hauled is impossibly woeful as an option id rather have a pacer.
XC well i think if they were all 8 car meridans there wouldnt be much of a problem. I really rate them.
IC well i think IEP should be EMU's with loco off wires. EMU's work fine on long distance IC services but not DMU's
I think bi mode is a disaster waiting to happen.
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,568
Going from the other posts on this thread, advantages of Multiple Units:
  • Distributed power offers quicker acceleration (for diesel anyway, how does a NXEA class 90 hauled train compare to a comparable EMU?)
  • Distributed power offers increased tractive effort Counter Point: cuts both ways, a higher weight over the powered axles in a loco probably has a similar effect
  • No loss of platform space by having a large power unit at the front/back
  • Short trains are possibly lighter and more fuel/energy efficient than LHCS due to heavy, powerful locomotive

and advantages of Loco-Hauled Coaching Stock:
  • Long trains are possibly lighter and more fuel/energy efficient than a multiple unit with a motor under every coach
  • Much quieter for passengers than a DMU
  • Possible vibration from engines/motors that you might get with a multiple unit avoided
  • Much easier to change the formation at quiet/busy times of year, or to remove broken cars or replace broken power units without taking the whole train out of service
  • Where a train service runs under the wires for part of its’ journey, swapping the loco on a LHCS train would remove the weight of diesel engines and fuel under the wires, AND the weight of the pantograph and associated gear when on diesel power this is the big one


In the case of XC though it's basically a regional DMU service that also provides some long distance journey opportunities. With the number of stops XC services make these days it wouldn't be practical to use a locomotive. I also doubt the majority of the general public care if the engines are underfloor or not.

How do we know what the majority of the travelling public prefer? Just because we dont hear them complain, doesnt mean they dont care about underfloor engines. They may prefer unpowered coaches, but just have to put up with underfloor engines.

My grandmother was with me on a bus today. She was constantly complaining about the indicator beep every time the bus stopped the music other passengers were playing and a supposed rattle of the exhaust pipe. If she's anything to go by, general passengers DO CARE about a noisy environment, such as underfloor engines for long distance journeys.

Passengers that notice a named locomotive might appreciate the loco, without being rail enthusiasts. However as you say, most would probably not really notice there's a loco (they probably would if it is something like a large logo 37 on one end only (not top-and-tail) with completely contrasting coaching stock (ie. virgin trains liveried stock) but they probably wouldn't care). This majority would probably think, if they used a loco-hauled service "TOC X has nice quiet trains" or "the trains between A and B are nice and quiet". They might not realize it is quiet because they have a loco-hauled train.

For example, if traveling between Southampton and Reading, or anywhere else on the XC network, I think the vast majority of passengers would rather travel on a loco hauled service or an HST than a Voyager, simply because the first two options are better suited for long distance travel than a Voyager. This is because the engine noise of a Voyager gets very intrusive after a while, and Voyagers have too little luggage space (although the same can be said for lots of trains these days, including 158s).
Voyagers have another problem in addition to their underfloor diesel engines and abysmal fuel economy, they are cramped and claustrophobic.

From what I've read on this forum, IEP will have the same engines as Voyagers. They, and any other Intercity DMUs that may be built in the future are going to have worse fuel economy than Intercity 125s, the railway today demands the acceleration of electric trains from a diesel. That's one reason why no more Intercity trains should be built with diesel engines. The woodland trust overturned a government plan that threaten to allow private companies to take over swathes of woodland, which could have resulted in those woods being cut down. That may not be as bad as cutting down rain-forest, but it is along the same lines. Anyway, my point is a environmentally poor government plan was overturned by public rebellion, and I remember Nick Clegg saying "we got this one wrong". We need the government to realize they have got IEP wrong, and stop the environmentally very bad idea of building new diesel Intercity trains.
 

junglejames

Established Member
Joined
8 Dec 2010
Messages
2,069
Really, how a train is powered doesn’t matter to most people. It’s just a means of getting from A to B when it is convenient. Whatever is quickest, convenient and clean does the job. If I’m on, say, a twenty minute “jaunt” from New Street to Wolverhampton, I don’t care what sort of train is providing the power. It’s only when the time taken to get from A to B is in the region of four hours or so that I seriously dislike being vibrated about for the duration of the journey.

Which is what im saying in a sense. On these long journeys (XC), everyday passengers may also dislike the underfloor engines, but we just dont hear them complain, and they just put up with it.
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,771
It seems that with the new Hitachi Super Express replacing Intercity 125 and 225 stock there will be no more locomotive drawn trains in regular service in Britain (ie not on heritage or railtour railways). Is this progress, and if so why are loco trains still so common in France, Switzerland, the USA and elsewhere?

France has long been reducing the use of locos- they're now on little more than "secondary" intercity routes (non high speed).

Switzerland has some odd loco-hauled/unit hybrids- fixed formation rakes with a single cab loco, that couple in full to other sets if needed.

The rest of Europe is the same. Very little new-build loco hauled stock- Austria's "Railjet" is an anomaly caused by a lack of demand for high speed freight- they had surplus locos.

The US? Not been much in the way of new non-metro rolling stock in rather a while. If and when any of the proposed High-Speed systems are built, they'll use units (like all modern High Speed= even TGV, ICE etc power cars aren't properly locos).

Basically, most places you find loco hauled services, you'll find somewhat elderly stock- and often, running slower services.

Not as if MUs are anything new here. The Southern started going MU en-mass as it started electrifying.
 

NXEA!

Member
Joined
22 Oct 2009
Messages
482
With regard to Rhydgaled's post, on the Great Eastern the 360's are the fastest accelerator's, and certainly in my experience, the 90's and the 321's accelerate at almost the same rate by my reckoning, with the 90 maybe being slightly slower of the mark, but not by much, which is quite admirable for a locomotive + 10 vehicles. If you were to compare the 90's with other Intercity stock, the 390's have got to be the fastest to accelerate surely. But as far as locomotives go, the 90's are the fastest to accelerate in my experience. But I suppose the 390's are always going to accelerate the fastest as 8 out of 9 vehicles are motor coaches and so the traction is spread more evenly around the train. Also may I add in that one thing you get with Locomotive hauled services is the jolt when your leaving stations, and I've heard passengers complain about this. Compare this to a Pendo leaving the station and its just plain smooth. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top