Why oh why....

[Flywaver]

Most threads on here are banging on about multiple units,gangways,25kv etc..
Im not tarring everyone with the same brush but in the last decade Trains are becoming really dull....
I was lucky to start out on 47s..ok as a trainman but i learnt to drive on them.
Most of Europe are still reliant on Loco hauled and sticking to Push-pull such as Railjet.
Gangways reduce the visuals and give the cab a claustrophobic feel..
Everyone banging on about Electrification.. I have failed more times working on Electrics than i have Diesel. Electrics are reliant on fossil fuels via Power Stations...
Locos are more fitter friendly as can be worked on en-route...
Feel free to kick me in the nuts but the DLR may as well be everywhere...

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Electrics are reliant on fossil fuels via Power Stations...

Diesels are reliant on fossil fuels as well...

 

[Flywaver]

Diesels are reliant on fossil fuels as well...

Thats my argument. Why pay out on electrification when its doing the same job on the enviroment....

 

[Class172]

To be honest the electricity for the network also comes from fossil fuels mostly but electric units/MUs have the benefit of having more power/acceleration and don't produce as much CO2 (even when compared to the burning of the fuels required).

 

[Eagle]

Thats my argument. Why pay out on electrification when its doing the same job on the enviroment....

Because not all electricity is generated from fossil fuels. A significant amount comes from nuclear and renewable sources. And that amount is going to increase rapidly in the coming decades.

Gangways reduce the visuals and give the cab a claustrophobic feel..

Gangways improve the ability for trains to work in multiple, increasing flexibility. Given that loco rakes are only remarshalled when in the depot nowadays, MUs are more flexible.

Most of Europe are still reliant on Loco hauled and sticking to Push-pull such as Railjet

I think that's only really true of InterCity routes on the continent; most local and interregional services have gone over to MUs.

 

[SS4]

Think of just how much diesel a DMU/Loco has to carry. This mass of fuel has a weight and needs more fuel to move it. An EMU gets power when it needs it.

Power Stations are generally easier to keep clean than trains (by clean I mean in terms of soot and other particulates that come from burning fossil fuel)

 

[Darandio]

Im not tarring everyone with the same brush but in the last decade Trains are becoming really dull....

This has nothing whatsoever to do with any flawed arguments about the use of fossil fuels, but with your perception above.

As was said in RAIL a few weeks ago.......

Maybe some readers secretly feel that the rail network is an oversized train set whose purpose is to fulfil nostalgic fantasties, and therefore RAIL should be full of rose-tinted stories of sleepy branch lines and wistful recreations of "God's Wonderful Railway"

 

[Flywaver]

Im not convinced. Nuclear waste has to go somewhere.. There are major dangers. Look at recent Tsunami in Japan. I know we are not on a major Earthquake fault line but you can never say never...
I am also on about practicality.. Forget the rose tinted nonsense.. Our units cannot handle more than two bikes.If more than one wheelchair turns up its a delay...If we had a DVT it would be perfect.I work through a major bike capital.. Loco Hauled sets can be divided easily.
Class 379s are a headache to couple.. 7 doors to deal with for the gangway..
A flexible Unit should be able to couple to anything too....:roll:

 

[Eagle]

Loco Hauled sets can be divided easily.

Where? At the extensive shunting yards at major stations, with many pilot locos to hand? Oh no wait...

 

[Schnellzug]

Most threads on here are banging on about multiple units,gangways,25kv etc..
Im not tarring everyone with the same brush but in the last decade Trains are becoming really dull....
I was lucky to start out on 47s..ok as a trainman but i learnt to drive on them.
Most of Europe are still reliant on Loco hauled and sticking to Push-pull such as Railjet. ..

Not sure about that; TGVs and both generations of ICE are MUs, and DB have new MU stock on order to replace loco hauled ICs; I would agree that loco haulage would be preferable for diesels in terms of quietness & so on, but you do get the advantage of redundancy (if one engine fails you've got three or four others, etc.)

Everyone banging on about Electrification.. I have failed more times working on Electrics than i have Diesel. Electrics are reliant on fossil fuels via Power Stations...

That, though, is a good point, and one that I've rarely seen anyone really answer; for all these electrification schemes that people are always urging, where will the power come from?

 

[Hydro]

Im not convinced. Nuclear waste has to go somewhere.. There are major dangers. Look at recent Tsunami in Japan.

Nowt wrong with nuclear energy. Just manage it right and it'll be the gift that keeps on giving.

Thankfully these new reactors seem to have been given the green light.

 

[Eagle]

Im not convinced. Nuclear waste has to go somewhere.. There are major dangers. Look at recent Tsunami in Japan.

No. The death toll associated with the Fukushima nuclear disaster was zero. Two workers were hospitalized, and 37 had minor injuries. And a once-in-a-century seismic tsunami isn't really a threat to Sellafield.

And what about renewable energy?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

What a load of absolute rubbish the pro arguments are in this thread; agree with RAIL quote.

 

[Flywaver]

I can see hydrogen fuel cells as a valid point. A source that should be directly to the traction not the unreliable OHL....

 

[Schnellzug]

Because not all electricity is generated from fossil fuels. A significant amount comes from nuclear and renewable sources. And that amount is going to increase rapidly in the coming decades.



Gangways improve the ability for trains to work in multiple, increasing flexibility. Given that loco rakes are only remarshalled when in the depot nowadays, MUs are more flexible.



I think that's only really true of InterCity routes on the continent; most local and interregional services have gone over to MUs.

But there's the thing; nucular generating capacity has been run down steadily for a long time, because people are afraid of it. To build a new generation from scratch, even if they've already been given the Green light, would take a very, very long time, and be very, very, very, very expensive. And not to mention that it would probably not be very popular, whether rightly or wrongly. I don't know whether it'd be technically possible for renewables to take the place of fossil fuels, but I rather suspect that that wouldn't be very popular politically either, given the fuss people make about wind turbines.

 

[Flywaver]

Im not a Chuffer Nutt.....But BR had alot of things right

 

[mallard]

Im not convinced. Nuclear waste has to go somewhere.

Yes, Sellafield. Where it's turned into a glass-like substance and stored deep underground. Most "nuclear waste" (a good 90% or more) is in fact less radioactive than Cornish rocks.

Look at recent Tsunami in Japan. I know we are not on a major Earthquake fault line but you can never say never.

If you look more closely at the Japanese event, it (at least for me) actually increases confidence in nuclear power.

Look at it this way: The reactor was hit with an earthquake much stronger than what it was designed to withstand, followed by a huge tsunami. The major issue was that the power supply and purified water supply to the cooling system was lost, the reactors themselves remained completely intact. The use of unpurified water and then seawater as an emergency measure (the cooling system was never supposed to be used with seawater) lead to a build up of (explosive) hydrogen gas, as well as radioactive byproducts. Even then, with multiple hydrogen explosions, the released radioactivity was kept to an extremely low level.

It was a one-in-a-billion incident that, thanks to lessons learned from it, is extremely unlikely to reoccur.

 

[Darandio]

agree with RAIL quote.

Glad somone does but it is completely true today.

Reminds me of when Grand Central made the decision to re-engine their powercars, a decision they had to make. Cue the quotes all over t'internet from clueless numpties saying how they would now use alternative operators, or how Grand Central had "sold out", or that they had "gone down in estimation".

Some enthusiasts would honestly rather companies went out of business and jobs lost to preserve their "train set". After all, it doesn't provide a service does it? :roll:

 

[Flywaver]

At least GC kept on a great design that keeps it going for many years to come..

 

[Schnellzug]

Glad somone does but it is completely true today.

Reminds me of when Grand Central made the decision to re-engine their powercars, a decision they had to make. Cue the quotes all over t'internet from clueless numpties saying how they would now use alternative operators, or how Grand Central had "sold out", or that they had "gone down in estimation".

Some enthusiasts would honestly rather companies went out of business and jobs lost to preserve their "train set". After all, it doesn't provide a service does it? :roll:

However, that can also give rise to the "New trains are always better" mentaility, which gave us the Voyagers were know and love, and gave rise to a classic quote in the same RAIL Magazine that "Passengers might look wistfully out of the windows of an overcrowded Voyager at the old trains in the sidings at Derby, but these slow-moving relics of an earlier age have no place in the bright, shiny future" or some such PR drivel. New is not necessarily a synonym for Better.

 

[chris89]

Im not convinced. Nuclear waste has to go somewhere.

As others have said it is deposed of safely, transported safely and not any more radioactive then the background.

There are major dangers. Look at recent Tsunami in Japan. I know we are not on a major Earthquake fault line but you can never say never.

Some major dangers, The even in Japan has given me greater confidence in Nuclear power as shows how save it is only some countries have gone completely paranoid.

Chernobyl happened due to various reasons, mostly due to the lack of training and the reactors used (Which were lucky it happened in 4) as if 1 or 2 would have been even bigger.

I Lived near Hinkley for 15 years and never bothered me at all, a nuclear plant was near by, i personly think it is great the goverment has greenlighted the Nuclear project for more plants.

Also renewable energy isn't a brillant long term subsitute to anything and Hydrogen is currently massivly out the reach and won't be in the public demain for a long time due to oil companies etc.

Also i don't think Modern trains are boring a lot of them look cool to myself and for passenger more practical in some ways and less so in others.

 

[HSTEd]

Hydrogen has far more important uses than being burned as traction fuel, fertilisers, oil upgrading, advanced steelmaking and so on.

Electric is the future for a variety of reasons include regenerative braking and higher power to weight ratios that diesels or fuel cell trains can never match.

As to loco hauled being easier to reform than multiple units, this has been shown not to really be true several times over the life of BR, especially with 4REPs effectively acting as locomotives for trailing vehicles, in theory the train could have been split in half with the addition of a class 33 or a second 4REP unit quite easily.

 

[jopsuk]

Most of Europe are still reliant on Loco hauled and sticking to Push-pull such as Railjet.

RailJet is not a good example. Railjet only really happened because they had a load of newish fast mixed-traffic locos sitting around. They run in fixed formation, and even run in double formations that have two locos, with one in the middle of the formation- the locos used though are powerful enough that they should be able to cope with the long formation solo.

 

[Flywaver]

Are any of you Drivers? These are my views doing my job.

 

[Eagle]

Are any of you Drivers? These are my views doing my job.

You're perfectly entitled to your views, as are we to ours. That's why it's called a discussion.

 

[43021HST]

Most threads on here are banging on about multiple units,gangways,25kv etc..
Im not tarring everyone with the same brush but in the last decade Trains are becoming really dull....

Agree with you there, once HSTs are off the mainline I'm not going to bother with the UK modern railway scene again, I'll just stick to preserved railways and railtours.

Even on a passenger quality side of things, trains have become more cramped, a good example is an FGW MK3. Another example is a thameslink 377, I would rather travel on a 319, the seating layout is not so claustrophobic, wheres the progress? The railway seems to be run by accountants rather than railwaymen.

I think the words of Lux Interior from the Cramps describe rail enthusiasts at the moment: "I want the most but I'll take the least"
These words were passing through my head as a found myself drooling over a class 67.

 

[SS4]

Are any of you Drivers? These are my views doing my job.

Since I'm not a driver I must know nothing about electricity or nuclear power

 

[chris89]

Are any of you Drivers? These are my views doing my job.

I am not a driver.

My view on Nuclear power are my own, and living in perfect safety and confidence near one for 15 so years.

But since a discussion anyone can comment what their views are though

 

[GearJammer]

Im not a driver (of trains anyway) but i think i see where Flywaver is coming from, i think modern DMU/EMU's are a backward step and BR did have a lot of things right, the case about cycles is good one, a lot of modern stock can't take more than a couple. Most of them won't couple together easily...or at all unless adaptors are fitted, look at coaches of old MK1, MK2, Mk3's and i think Mk4's can all be coupled together with relative ease.
I'm not saying EMU's and DMU's don't have there place but id like to see more use of loco's (idealy new build with simple basic engineering) and stock (again new build, a MK5 carriage) in push pull mode with DVT's that can take the cycles/luggage etc, have standard couplings so failures etc can be rescued by whatever is closest.
I think somebody somewhere needs to stop, look at the class 47/37 (Diesel) and class 86/87 and the class 43/HST and realise that while they are all old and tired (debateable with the HST i know) realise they have stood the test of time and that new build should be based around there engineering so that future trains are more adaptable and flexable and easier to work with.

 

[WestCoast]

However, that can also give rise to the "New trains are always better" mentaility, which gave us the Voyagers were know and love, and gave rise to a classic quote in the same RAIL Magazine that "Passengers might look wistfully out of the windows of an overcrowded Voyager at the old trains in the sidings at Derby, but these slow-moving relics of an earlier age have no place in the bright, shiny future" or some such PR drivel. New is not necessarily a synonym for Better.

No, new isn't always better. It can be though, if done properly.

However, we all like different things, it doesn't make you any less of a 'rail enthusiast' if you like certain modern EMUs/DMUs or whatever. So what? I think you can't live in the past!

Personally, I like continental high speed trains, TGVs, ICEs and Eurostar class 373s are what interest me. I find them confortable, sleek and very futuristic. Do I expect the 'my lordz' lot to enjoy this kind of rolling stock? No.

That said, I think loco-hauled stock does have a future too! It works really well on the double decker Regional Express services in Germany. The number of coaches can be altered to the needs of the route and the travelling experience is most enjoyable.