1st Gen DMUs as mixed trains?

[ainsworth74]

Ooops sorry, I forgot - privatised railways and common sense are rarely good bedfellows!

What you mean using the common sense that such a service would be unlikely to be used (it ain't going to compete with a lorry) and would add complexity and expense to their operations?

 

[Masboroughlad]

What you mean using the common sense that such a service would be unlikely to be used (it ain't going to compete with a lorry) and would add complexity and expense to their operations?

No the common sense that would make it work - bigger picture thinking needed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

On a related note here is a picture of a 121 bing used to shunt mark 3 stock - on one engne too!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rpmarks/3995276923/

Love it!!!

 

[ainsworth74]

No the common sense that would make it work - bigger picture thinking needed.

Oh so you mean reintroducing the entire parcels/newspaper trains network? That network that moved to lorries because it was easier and cheaper to use lorries than trains?

 

[Masboroughlad]

Oh so you mean reintroducing the entire parcels/newspaper trains network? That network that moved to lorries because it was easier and cheaper to use lorries than trains?

No I don't mean that. I mean something bigger and more radical like legislation on permitted lengths of journey for large lorries. It won't happen, I know.

Or a railway system that didn't have so many built in costs that it wasn't any cheaper to go by road. Again, won't happen!

 

[IanXC]

Its a pity that six carriage fixed formation diesel multiple units with proper buffets will never be seen on secondary routes again. I think there are several places that could benefit from them.
Especially with the SP differentials and acceleration benefits that woudl come from being (almost certainly) a derivative of the Cl172.

Am I right in thinking that the 4 Hull Trains 170s with buffet counters would be the last stock built to fit the description?

 

[ainsworth74]

No I don't mean that. I mean something bigger and more radical like legislation on permitted lengths of journey for large lorries. It won't happen, I know.

Well no it won't because it'd cripple the entire economy!

Or a railway system that didn't have so many built in costs that it wasn't any cheaper to go by road. Again, won't happen!

Wagon load freight had been dead for a very long time before privatization (I seem to recall reading somewhere or other that of the freight sectors BR ran very few actually made any money and wagon load was definitely not one of the sectors that made money) so I'm not sure how you'd reduce what built in costs there are in order to enable it to compete with road if even BR couldn't do it without losing money hand over fist.

The only rail freight (of the none bulk goods type) that can be competitive are the container type trains where you're moving big numbers from one fixed point to another fixed point. Taking wagons (either in full trains or on the back of MUs) isn't going to approach covering it's costs.

Am I right in thinking that the 4 Hull Trains 170s with buffet counters would be the last stock built to fit the description?

I have them down as being built in 2004 so unless you count the 222s that were built at the same time (and I wouldn't as 222s are clearly full inter-city style units rather than the more inter-regional style of the 170s) then yes I'd say so.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Very frequently - and the odd milk tanker. In my day the 05xx Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth carried an inward van from York with mail and parcels , and the last departure at 19xx returned the van (having been shunted off by another DMU during the day) - this was a considerable economy , as up to 1975 or so , there was a Aberystwyth - York train formed of a class 25 to Salop , MK1's and a string of vans.

This train attached and detached at Salop a van from / to Swansea via the Heart of Wales line , it was not unknown for mail bags to overflow into the passenger area approaching Christmas - not that there were many passengers on the 05xx from Shrewsbury to Swansea to worry about.

 

[route:oxford]

It's very unlikely, but the only way I can see it happening again would be if the Scottish Government were to take an open minded view of NOP services (if electrification gets that far).

An order for super-powerful passenger 6 car DMUs to drag say 5 specially adapted container wagons (or 4 sleeper coaches) from Perth Northwards could potentially work.

This would mean that fewer freight paths would be required on the HML - thus releasing more for passenger services at the same time. Each of which additional paths would have the capability of dragging 5 container wagons...

 

[IanBanks-Jones]

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2320/2304155117_b29ca0c4e4_m.jpg

Have a little look at this. (not mine, and not very clear, but still)

 

[sprinterguy]

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2320/2304155117_b29ca0c4e4_m.jpg

Have a little look at this. (not mine, and not very clear, but still)

Here's the original version: http://www.flickr.com/photos/blue-diesels/2304155117/in/set-72157604142616475

A four carriage 124 with a four wheel van in tow. Now that is quite something. Nice find

 

[scarby]

Here's another - a parcels DMU hauling... parcels:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63797212@N02/6814346038/

 

[HSTEd]

Wagon load freight had been dead for a very long time before privatization (I seem to recall reading somewhere or other that of the freight sectors BR ran very few actually made any money and wagon load was definitely not one of the sectors that made money) so I'm not sure how you'd reduce what built in costs there are in order to enable it to compete with road if even BR couldn't do it without losing money hand over fist.

As I understand it Speedlink did not loose money.

It simply did not make enough money to be commercially viable, there is a major difference between not covering costs and not providing sufficient return on investment to encourage private businessses to do it.

You could make an argument for wagonload freight on the basis of the social good it does (by reducing the number of road accidents caused by HGVs).

 

[RichmondCommu]

Its a pity that six carriage fixed formation diesel multiple units with proper buffets will never be seen on secondary routes again. I think there are several places that could benefit from them.
Especially with the SP differentials and acceleration benefits that woudl come from being (almost certainly) a derivative of the Cl172.

Either that or have the good sense to buy food before getting on the train. And save yourself a lot of money.

 

[matchmaker]

Anyone any pics of these old DMUs with buffets?

Link here............

http://www.srpsmuseum.org.uk/10088.htm

 

[sprinterguy]

Link here............

http://www.srpsmuseum.org.uk/10088.htm

There's no picture there of the buffet car though, or of the set with the buffet car in the formation, as the buffet car is still undergoing restoration, as seen here:
http://www.cs.vintagecarriagestrust.org/se/CarriageInfo.asp?Ref=2067

 

[ChiefPlanner]

As I understand it Speedlink did not loose money.

It simply did not make enough money to be commercially viable, there is a major difference between not covering costs and not providing sufficient return on investment to encourage private businessses to do it.

You could make an argument for wagonload freight on the basis of the social good it does (by reducing the number of road accidents caused by HGVs).

Speedlink , lost a bucket of money (but was cross-subsidised by the trainload operation - especially MGR coal) - once the freight sector was split internally - the true losses were exposed , hence the end began before RFD came along. A great shame , but the wagon and loco productivity was poor (1 trip a week for many air braked vehicles with high local yard costs) - efforts were obviously made to regroup much of the better flows.

The train ferry element was the very worst earner when you put in the crippling costs of Dover port and the ferry.

 

[HSTEd]

Speedlink , lost a bucket of money (but was cross-subsidised by the trainload operation - especially MGR coal) - once the freight sector was split internally - the true losses were exposed , hence the end began before RFD came along. A great shame , but the wagon and loco productivity was poor (1 trip a week for many air braked vehicles with high local yard costs) - efforts were obviously made to regroup much of the better flows.

The train ferry element was the very worst earner when you put in the crippling costs of Dover port and the ferry.

You could just do "wagonload" freight using swap bodies or containers, then you could probably get considerably better utilisation of the expensive parts of the stock (ie. the part of it below the solebar) since any significant users would have access to a straddle crane or one of those big forklift things (they are suprisingly cheap these days).
Indeed, it appears that you could build a swap body that you could just leave in a siding by deploying its "legs" and pulling the wagon out from under it.

Then you would still have the benefits of being able to serve anyone with a siding (by leaving a short four wheel conflat with swap body/container on in the siding) but you could tranship from trip workings onto longer workings using a crane without time consuming shunting movements.

If you did go that route then a marshalling yard would just be a pair of parallel lines with straddle cranes and mainline workings could use CargoSprinters or M250 series type EMUs. Indeed, freightliner workings could be similarily operated as I understand that they run the same rake of conflats every day even if it only has one container on it to avoid shunting moves.

You might not be able to reach commercially viable rates, but you might be able to cut costs (especially time consuming and labour intensive shunting moves) sufficiently to stand a good chance of atleast being self funding.

As for the trainferry issues... are the costs for sending a freight train through the Channel Tunnel now pretty much the marginal costs of doing so? As I understand it is far from full so they should jump at the extra income from more train paths surely?

 

[1X00]

This is a picture of a 111 Met Cam unit in service http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianews/5808808267/in/set-72157626627223211