Popularity of Loco Hauled vs. Multiple Unit trains?

It has dawned on me that within the rail enthusiast community there is a severe popularity for trains hauled by independent locomotives and carriages as opposed to fixed multiple unit trains with distributed traction. I want to discover the reasons for both this popularity and hatred.

From my personal experiences - and I'm not going to stereotype - it is seemly the older generations of enthusiasts of whom carry this grudge more heavily than the younger generation, the youngers too are are just as interested in chasing loco hauled trains as their elders but are also tolerant and positive towards a passing interest in multiple units. If a loco hauled train is scheduled to replace a multiple unit train (57s vice 175s with ATW, 90s vice 390s with VXC) there is a rush and cheer to travel on it ASAP but in the reverse when multiple units have replaced loco hauled trains (87s vice 390s on the WCML, 220/1s vice HSTs on VXC) there has been lots of squabbling and blue language...

I've gathered some of my experiences and thoughts and want to try and solve the mystery:

- multiple unit operation has historically evolved from traditional loco hauled trains of which the older enthusiasts were acquainted back in the day, therefore when this alien multiple unit concept arrived and killed off all the locos they took for granted a dislike was formed. I doubt this is the case because I have noticed 1st generation multiple units in preservation receive attention far more than the second generation multiple units still in use on the mainline today.

- multiple units have operational advantages for high density, intense, suburban and regional trains and are therefore designed to a much less glamorous quality, whilst loco hauled trains are more suitable for premier intercity trains and are designed with a superior level of comfort and luxury that multiple unit trains lack?

- loco hauled trains are more interesting because all the power is located in a single, beefy, self contained vehicle and creates more noise and subsequently causes more attention, rather than the pathetic small engines distributed across the carriages of a multiple unit? This reason could be a potential suspect because I would be surprised if anyone reading this post has never ever seen a loco hauled train in the UK and not noticed that enthusiasts jostle and fight for the droplight windows closest to the loco.

From my point of view, the differences between loco hauled train and a multiple unit train are minimal A multiple unit is merely just a rake of passenger carriages being propelled without a locomotive - instead that locomotive is amalgamated in to the carriages. Multiple units can (and are!) be just as exciting and interesting as loco hauled trains - just last week I traveling in a 321 on the GEML on the 100mph section between Colchester and Chelmsford and I was sitting in the motor carriage with the power handle wide open approaching warp speed - the sound of the Brush traction motors made the experience fantastic. I couldn't of got this experience if I was in sitting a Mk3 carriage being hauled by a class 90 that operate on the same route, I was in standard class and would of been separated from the loco by a buffet car and first class carriages - instead the traction was directly, inches underneath my feet.

The popularity of the class 37 diesel loco and the hatred for the Voyager multiple units is all too evident, therefore if I took a class 37 diesel loco and a class 220 Voyager DEMU, cut the English Electric engine out of the 37 and sliced it in to four pieces, placed one engine piece underneath each Voyager carriage (replacing the existing Cummings QSK engines) - would this make Voyagers and thus multiple units as a whole any more glamorous to the average spotter?

John

A lot of banter I read is to do with the carriages rather than where the engines are. A lot of enthusiasts (certainly the more vocal ones!) seem to prefer older carriage designs to Pendolino/Voyager designs. I partly think this is a golden-age effect (like when people talk about how wonderful steam trains were, when they really weren't by modern standards!), but then in some cases they do make a valid point. I personally quite like the MK3 design with its large windows, and would prefer it to travelling on a Voyager, but then as a normal passenger I'd rather arrive on time on a newer train than have a greater risk of breaking down on a slower, older train.

The point you made about age is a valid one. The railways have changed dramatically in the past few years, with almost all the diesel classes introduced between 1950 and 1980 being wiped out from the mainline and replaced with a standard design. From an enthusiast point of view this is very boring, even though it is operationally much more efficient. To me, however, any form of locomotive haulage that isn't a 60, 66 or 67 is classic traction, but there was a time when some enthusiasts were desperately looking for, say, class 40 or 50 haulage, then horrified to find themselves behind an evil class 47!

The same thing happened at the end of steam, with a lot of people giving up the hobby because "this new rubbish is boring". There are even people who will do this with individual steam locomotives; to the public a steam train is a steam train, but to a hardcore enthusiast every single one is different. I guess my point is that a younger enthusiast will see the railway in a different way to the older enthusiast, with the focus of interest changing over time. I suppose this means we'll be seeing more hardcore Pacer bashers in the future!

I think NSE fan has hit it on it's head. A lot of rose tinted views and I'm sure in 30 years the young spotters of the day will be saying I'd much rather travel on a pendolino than the 2030 brand new train... In the same way I'm sure when hsts first appeared the older generation at the time turned their noses up at them.

But then it's not confined to train enthusiasts. Ask any computer enthusiast and they'll say "oh, in the olden days the machines were put together to last not like the new plastic crap"



Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

Some good points and some valid views. I think age and nostalgia certainly has something to do with it. But I'd suggest another couple of reasons.

Some enthusiasts have a very narrow focus on what interests them.

Other enthusiasts are steadfastly unwilling to accept that the world (and technology) moves on and that distributed drive MUs are superior in a number of ways to LHCS - which is why operators prefer them.

In that respect it does mirror the steam enthusiasts, some of whom were constantly trying to re-invent the steam engine with technological add-ons because they couldn't accept that steams time had passed.

What is reassuring to hear is that there are more and more young enthusiast who are hidebound in this way and who still enjoy the railways - whatever the trains are.

After all, the future of the hobby belongs to you...

For me units are generally just boring but I do take photos - mainly just to pass time. Of course there's some froth when there are some new ones but to me they are nowhere near as good as HSTs, which to me are the best thing we have left on the railways and are good fun to bash with your head out the window.

BTW I do like units, particularly class 321s (and 322s) and they do sound great when on full power.

I think some of it also has to do with peoples reasons for being an enthusiast in the first place.

I am far more interested in the engineering and have little to no interest in the individual unit/locomotives, unless they are unique in some way. I appreciate the evolution in design, and As such I have a keen interest in MUs and like to keep up to date with new developments.

For some, I think the interest is far more personal. Memories of a bygone age. I don't know how many times I've heard someone say "I remember going (blank) with my (blank) behind (blank), it was amazing" or something to that effect.

I'm sure modern MUs will have their time when more enthusiasts have children/grandchildren and start to connect new cherished memories with modern traction

That's my 5p anway.

The reasons i personally prefer Mk3s over any other multiple-unit are simple...comfort, quietness and space. If they ever design a multiple-unit that is comparable on those levels, then great! The class 444s are extremely close, and if the 175/180s didn't have a throbbing diesel engine under every coach they would probably be perfect.

Although i enjoyed travelling on Mk1/Mk2s, some modern units are much more pleasant to travel on. The 375/377s for instance, much nicer to travel on if you ask me. Class 444s, well above the standards of the old VEPs and CIGs. 450s? Well in the 350 config they definitely would've been... In the case of Mk2s, trains based on the 175/180s could have been more than adequate replacements. But no, they had to go with Voyagers.

I prefer units to locos, because it's just what I'm used to. Being 15, the heyday of locos such as 37s or 56s was over when I was very young, whereas units such as 317s have always been around and I've travelled on them countless times. I do have a disliking for newer units such as Electrostars, because they just have much less character, and are less comfortable if you ask me. As far as nostalgia goes, it's travelling on a 150 that probably has the most, as I remember when Anglia Railways had a fleet of 150s that I used to travel on as a kid. Seeing photos of 317s and 365s in NSE and WAGN liveries brings back memories too.

shaun said:

The reasons i personally prefer Mk3s over any other multiple-unit are simple...comfort, quietness and space.

Click to expand...

Exactly; no claustrophobic high back seats, no solid panel where a window should be, sprung base seats with padding that hasn't gone flat after a few years use, seats that don't have hard plastic eges cutting into your thighs when said padding is worn out.

The 442s were as good before the refurb programme, now the only MUs I don't actively dislike are the 170/180 families.

People are a little larger each year, on the average.
Railway seats and luggage space are a little smaller each year on the average.
So of course people prefer the older stuff, but only if it is in good condition.

In my experience multiple units can travel faster on certain stretches of track in some locations, such as on the South Eastern Mainline between Tonbridge and Ashford + Ashford- Sandling, you can easily come across signs stating 90mph as the speed limit with EMU 100mph above.

Also, I've seen outside Ely that any multiple units can do 35mph just after the level crossing, while other trains can only do 20.

However, I believe there are mainline locations heading north which have signs like 90/ HST 125 used, so there are situations where certain non-multiple units can go faster.

Multiple units as a whole have greater seating capacity potential, as there is no power car adding to train length not offering seats.

brad465 said:

However, I believe there are mainline locations heading north which have signs like 90/ HST 125 used, so there are situations where certain non-multiple units can go faster.

:

Click to expand...

HST when referring to permissible speeds covers more than "HST" (Cl.43 + Mk.3 coaching stock). Most of the trains that fall under HST differentials are in fact, multiple units.

i personally dont mind MUs at all, but if a loco hauled option ie. 1703 BHM - BUT (HST) appears, i'll try to catch that, even if it means tricking my friends into thinking we have to get that one :P

Personally I'm more interested in routes/ services/ timetables than the physical vehicles that provide these.

However I do find it amusing when people criticise DMUs for being far too noisy to sit in, then when they are on loco-hauled stock insist on sitting as close tot he front as possible to hear the noise of the engine... HELLFIRE!

tbtc said:

However I do find it amusing when people criticise DMUs for being far too noisy to sit in, then when they are on loco-hauled stock insist on sitting as close tot he front as possible to hear the noise of the engine... HELLFIRE!

Click to expand...

More noise the better for my personal enjoyment, but that's no way to run a railway

Harbon 1 said:

i personally dont mind MUs at all, but if a loco hauled option ie. 1703 BHM - BUT (HST) appears, i'll try to catch that, even if it means tricking my friends into thinking we have to get that one :P

Click to expand...

*Can of worms*

harz99 said:

Exactly; no claustrophobic high back seats, no solid panel where a window should be, sprung base seats with padding that hasn't gone flat after a few years use, seats that don't have hard plastic eges cutting into your thighs when said padding is worn out.

The 442s were as good before the refurb programme, now the only MUs I don't actively dislike are the 170/180 families.

Click to expand...

Oh yes, I completely love having a non movable arm rest in between my seats. I love having orange juice spilt down me because of the A-M-A-Z-I-N-G ride quality and it makes my day when the seat bottoms decide to fall out when you sit on them or lean forward. These are the things which make me choose the xx28 out of Nottingham to St Pancras every time.


:roll:

harz99 said:

Exactly; no claustrophobic high back seats, no solid panel where a window should be, sprung base seats with padding that hasn't gone flat after a few years use, seats that don't have hard plastic eges cutting into your thighs when said padding is worn out.

The 442s were as good before the refurb programme, now the only MUs I don't actively dislike are the 170/180 families.

Click to expand...

But then I have to say the high back seats whilst claustrophobic make for a more comfortable seat for my neck, also I prefer that they offer more privacy.

And I won't even start on that massive immovable arm rest between the two seats. Worst design ever!

The opportunity to travel on a chiltern railways rover (special offer) for the day, and more unusually on a weekday, meant the coach next to 67012 was mostly full of enthusiasts for the whole day, including me of course, managed 512 miles on that loco for a day.

I suppose as soon as something becomes scarce, you want more of it.
Loco haulage is a novelty and a treat to someone of my age, MUs are (almost) to me know what locos were to my Dad decades ago.

For me, it's about being fit for the job that they do.

Multiple units do an excellent job on many routes, even looking back to the (black and white) days of the first generation DMUs. They allow a quick turnaround time at the end of the route, especially where there is a terminal station. They also allow quicker acceleration and decelleration.

As for Intercity services, I have yet to find an DMU which can carry me with the comfort of IC125 (Class 43) or IC225 (Class 91 + 82 DVT). For this reason, I would like to see more Intercity trains being hauled with a loco at each end, or a loco at one end and a DVT at the other - this is what I think is best suited to Intercity travel, especially on non-electrified routes.

However, despite my dislike of travelling more than 30 minutes on a DMU, I am quite comfortable on many modern EMUs, especially Class 375 and 377 Electrostars and Class 357s.

Of course, with loco-hauled trains, it is much easier to add coaches, etc., or use them for different uses at short notice, but this isn't a main argument.

In short, I like an appopriate train for the job. I'm quite happy travelling from London to Brighton or London to Southend on a comfortable EMU. I'm quite happy travelling from London to Lewisham on a less comfortable EMU. I'm quite happy travelling from Peterborough to March on an less comfortable DMU, but I am quite unhappy travelling from London to Grantham on a DMU - that's an Intercity job!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

60163 said:

I suppose as soon as something becomes scarce, you want more of it.
Loco haulage is a novelty and a treat to someone of my age, MUs are (almost) to me know what locos were to my Dad decades ago.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it's natural to want what is rationed!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

shaun said:

The reasons i personally prefer Mk3s over any other multiple-unit are simple...comfort, quietness and space. If they ever design a multiple-unit that is comparable on those levels, then great! The class 444s are extremely close, and if the 175/180s didn't have a throbbing diesel engine under every coach they would probably be perfect.

Although i enjoyed travelling on Mk1/Mk2s, some modern units are much more pleasant to travel on. The 375/377s for instance, much nicer to travel on if you ask me. Class 444s, well above the standards of the old VEPs and CIGs.

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more! Absolutely!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

brad465 said:

In my experience multiple units can travel faster on certain stretches of track in some locations, such as on the South Eastern Mainline between Tonbridge and Ashford + Ashford- Sandling, you can easily come across signs stating 90mph as the speed limit with EMU 100mph above.

Also, I've seen outside Ely that any multiple units can do 35mph just after the level crossing, while other trains can only do 20.

However, I believe there are mainline locations heading north which have signs like 90/ HST 125 used, so there are situations where certain non-multiple units can go faster.

Multiple units as a whole have greater seating capacity potential, as there is no power car adding to train length not offering seats.

Click to expand...

EMUs can accelerate and decellerate a lot quicker than locos and EMUs, and therefore "The Two-thirds Rule" applies on many lines in the southeast (firmly EMU territory!)

On these dedicated lines, if a sign indicates 60mph, that is for an EMU. Locos and DMUs are limited to two-thirds of that (ie 40mph).

However, this did contribute to a derailment where a 37 derailled and fell off a bridge, where the driver (from Toton) was not trained on the two-thirds rule. (There were other factors in this incident including a faulty speedomoter, damaged line, and overladen and unevenly load.)

Having travelled only on 390s or 350s (with the odd 323 thrown in) for the past 10 years and in this time I've done the Pretendolino twice, I can't really see what all the fuss is about. As long as I get to my location quickly and safely I don't care. These units are good enough for me...

One of the desiding factors of whether I like a type of train is my view of the external appearance of a given train. In that respect, I like some multiple units almost as much as I like some LHCS trains. For example, some of the trains I like the appearance of (and hence am likely to bother photographing if I see one):

• INTERCITY 225s
• INTERCITY 125s
• Class 158 Alphaline / class 159
• Class 442/5-WES
• Class 377
• LM Class 172
• Class 37, 47, 57, 60, 90 and 92 locomotives
• Class 220 & 221 Voyagers

Some in-the-middle trains which I may photograph but am not so keen on as the above:

• Class 150/2, 153 and 156 Sprinters
• Class 67 locomotives
• Class 180
• Class 390
• Class 444

Other trains which I find plain boring or ugly to look at, and hence will rarely, if ever, photograph:

• Class 175
• Class 66 and 70 locos
• Class 170/171/Chiltern 172
• Class 150/1

NOTE: Of all the above examples, there are some classes I have not in fact seen yet, so I'm just going off photos. However, I generally find LHCS more interesting for some reason, not sure why. It isn't just me either, my family aren't rail enthusiasts like me (or they do a good job of hiding it), yet some of them have hinted they perfer to have a loco too. It just 'feels' right to have a loco.

Once on the train however, my opinons on which stock I like change. I may be more likely to photograph a 150/2 or 153 than I am a 175, but I'd probablly rather travel on a 175 than a 150/2 (except on short journeys or ones with plenty of tightly-spaced stops). Voyagers also drop from up near the top right to the bottom, great trains to look at but awful in every other respect.

I agree with ng1980 that trains should be fit for the job that they do, and non-electrified INTERCITY services, in my opinion, should be solely the domain of LHCS.

With electrified INTERCITY routes, particularly routes which do not require speeds of over 110mph and hence can use units like class 444s (with corridor connections between units), then EMUs aren't a bad idea, as long as they are suitably specified for the service.

For trains of only one or two coaches (or which split on-route) which never exceed 100mph then a multiple unit is a must. However, this multiple unit must be appropriate to the job in hand. Class 170s are widely used as regional express units on long trips like Cardiff - Nottingham. I've never been on a 170, but my brother was forced to use the aformentioned XC service (all the way) once and complained the doors were in the wrong place. Now if a non-rail-enthusiast like him complains the doors are in the wrong place then, for a service like that, I expect they are in the wrong place. Going back to the 175 vs 150/2 example, I'd much rather have a 175 (or better yet, since they look better, a 158) on the Fishguard express boat train than the current woefully inappropriate 150. However, for something like a trip down the Pembroke Dock line from Whitland a 150 might not be too bad (I've only done that line on a IC125 myself though, now that was nice).

I kind of have two point of view on this matter...

Firstly, as a rail enthusiast, I like to see locos out and about on passenger duties with LHCS. The rolling stock is normally more spacious, the seating more comfortable and just generally the feeling of being on a 'proper' train and not a mock-bus or mock-airliner style DMU. IMO Mk3s, with original seats, were the best coaches produced and are still going strong, although I have a particularly soft spot for GC's Mk3s One thing worth noting is that there is actually a notable difference between 1st and std on a LH train, unlike many DMUs where the only difference is low density seating instead of high! I've also had my share of loco-hauled passenger trains, Fife Circle, Tall Ships Shuttles and GC Loco Hauled Replacements all came in front of my lens and I also rode on all 3.

However, coming from an operational perspective, the use of Locos and Coaching Stock on the modern railway is almost nonsensical in the conventional sense: a loco and a rake of coaching stock. The need for run-rounds at the terminating point adds to the time needed to turn the set round, older loco's reliability is lower, there is additional staffing costs associated with running a loco hauled service, slam doors aren't ideal and there is a notable increase in time lost when LHCS is dispatched compared to a DMU with power-operated doors. Take for example the Fife Circle, involving some sharply curved platforms. One station (can't remember which) saw the guard lock the CDL from the BSO, but then walk down to three seperate vestibule windows before she had a clear line of sight to give the driver the tip - all this after the carry on of ensuring that all the doors are secure and there isn't one on the latch. With a DMU it's a lot faster, close doors, close local door, 2-2 and away you go (in theory). The slam door problem is also evident with HSTs and Mk3 push-pull sets. However, these semi-permanent formations iron out a lot of the loco hauled problems pointed out above, such as the need for run round. In a way the NEXA sets and current HST fleet combine the best of both worlds: passenger comfort and some stock with a bit of history to it, with operational flexibility able to keep up on the 21st Century network.

So, I think what I've said there is that loco hauled is nice for the enthusiast, but isn't practical to the hard nosed businessmen of today's railway.

MCR247 said:

Oh yes, I completely love having a non movable arm rest in between my seats. I love having orange juice spilt down me because of the A-M-A-Z-I-N-G ride quality and it makes my day when the seat bottoms decide to fall out when you sit on them or lean forward. These are the things which make me choose the xx28 out of Nottingham to St Pancras every time.


:roll:

Click to expand...

Im afraid this is a case of different peoples preferences and standard of stock, and nowt to do with rolling eyes.
You may prefer an armrest you can move. I prefer an armrest i can rest my arm on. I have yet to come across a moving armrest that I can comfortably rest my arm on. Usually it rolls off of the armrest.
As for spilling drinks. Ive done that on MUs more so than on Mk3s. As for moving seat bottoms. Happened to me on MUs as well. These last 2 are down to the state of track and the state of stock.

junglejames said:

You may prefer an armrest you can move. I prefer an armrest i can rest my arm on. I have yet to come across a moving armrest that I can comfortably rest my arm on. Usually it rolls off of the armrest.

Click to expand...

Ah you're falling for the polite naming of the "armrest" - it's real title is an "obestity deflector".

To me it's an 'Age' thing, I (43 years old) grew up spotting loco hauled stock, but HST's aside, it's also to do with comfort, and when passengers were passengers not customers, but it doesn't take much imagination to why the move to fixed formations happened, just more thought should have been put into the length of them!

Locos every time.

For me, it may be part of an age thing (I have been bashing now for 27 years), but this does not mean that I think any less of newer locos, like the 66s or 70s, as I do the old guard like the 33s or 37s. I do have a friend who seems to have a phobia of new engines, he says it is to do with their "plastic" design, so he has a very "retro" approach. He would far sooner do a 101 on a preserved railway than a 67 because of it. I think it probably comes down to your appreciation of the design, not just your age.

Locos, simply, have far more character. Many of us have favourite engines, and for some reason, some locos were just always more interesting than others. Certain Peak Bashers used to have favourites, I can't see how anybody could get excited about 150002 or something similar. 33116 was always more of a favourite Crompton to me than any other 33, simply because I used to end up travelling on it without specifically trying - I think I had it 25 times before it got preserved, and most of those moves were by accident rather than design! So, you start to get an attachment to certain locos, and certain classes. Stratford 47's, with their "special" treatment, were the same. I loved ones like 47581 and 47583, they just had something about them that other 47's didn't.

How anybody can claim a 170 or a 390 is even in the same class as a 31 or a 40, sorry, but it's beyond me.

As regards putting a 37 engine into a Voyager - no. It doesn't work like that. I happily did all the 37/9's for haulage in their day, because a 37 with a Mirlees engine in is still, to all intents and purposes, a 37 as far as I am concerned. However, 47 bashers refuse to do 57's even though they look the same, simply because they don't sound the same. Each to their own, is probably the phrase here.

I don't care for the thoughts that MU's are more operationally "easy" to use - at the end of the day, the railways used to be a public service, and the old loco hauled trains very much represented the way the railway used to operate, so whilst MU's may well do their job, they simply slot into how the modern railway works. It doesn't mean they are superior, mechanically, to a Deltic or a Western.

I was sitting on a DMU at Par station in the 70's, and a lady asked the Guard if they could turn off the engines, as she had a thumping headache!!
He replied that he didn't know how we would get to Newquay without the engines!!

Going back in time, Multiple Units were a cheap and simple solution to the need for high capacity, often peak-dependent local services where comfort was not a primary factor, and on lines where the operating costs would not support conventional LHCS working. They therefore had none of the frills that came with LHCS.

Insofar as the UK was concerned this remained the situation until the HSTs, which were a form of hybrid LHCS/DMU in the public eye.

The benefits of MU operation are well known and need no discussion on here, although it is ironic that the one purpose for which MUs were originally introduced (being able to multiple up to match demand) is now a much harder situation to achieve than with a LHCS set.

With regards to locomotive operations, it is unarguable that despite being theoretically built to a standard design with standards components, for some reason mainly still unknown, individual locomotives tend to display individual properties.

To use an easy example from Ireland, the 071 class consists of 18 locomotives yet pretty much each of those has its own "character". 077 for example was a racehorse, who gave some of the best runs I have ever experienced, indeed it was with her that I managed to break to Cork to Heuston running time with the old 1730 high speed service from Cork. She was however a little light of foot on wet rail, especialy at speed and you could exceed the wheelslip limit if not careful.

083 was a workhorse and would always turn in a splendid performance. She was the one that you wanted on the 0730 Cork to Heuston because that was the first train out through the tunnel and the rail would be wet and slippery. She would hold the rail like a limpet and give you a smashing performance to Blarney. Similarly with a heavy train starting out of Ballybrophy, this was the loco you wanted. She also excelled on the switchback railway on the Westport line where I saw her in action again last year.

075 however (the Buttevant disaster loco) was a real pig. She was hard work, didnt run "well" and had a tendency to a sort of lozenge-shaped "roll" at speed. She was also the most unreliable with a record for breaking down in the worst places at the worst times.

085 would take her time to reach maximum speed but would then hold that and did not suffer from 077s ballerina-style light foot at speed.

Similar stories can be told about locomotives in the UK and indeed elsewhere.

MUs by comparison tend to be much more similar and in my experience do not exhibit the same strange qualities which made each run behind a locomotive something of a "lottery" in some ways. get the right loco on a good day, in the right conditions, and a clear run and you would see some cracking performances, get the opposite and it was real hard work for the Driver. To me it was that uncertainty that made loco-hauled travel that much more interesting, added to of course by the restaurant car experience.

Much of this is lost now with modern operations such as the Pendolinos which I treat in the same way as one would a bus, I couldn't even tell which units I have and haven't been on, let alone what the last one was. My recent travel over to Sweden was highly memorable for the amount of loco-hauled workings I was able to achieve.

Quite. Like MCR247 I'm towards the younger end of the age spectrum. I have no interest in HSTs or LHCS - It's not what I grew up with and I prefer the technology/operational side of railways to 'hellfire' thrash.

All the relevant factors have been covered already I feel. The only one I would emphasise is that the proportion of rose-tinted spectacles on t'internets is decreasing (other than on WNXX!) and generally more enthusiasts who will chase a 37 over a chain of rare track begrudgingly accept that the future is MU operation, not even Intercity will remains LHCS.