• 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!

Loco-Hauled Class 442s?

Status
Not open for further replies.

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
On reflection , I'm not sure how this releases all the 158s as you have the Lymington shuttle plus the Romsey-Salisbury circular (2 sets ?) to deal with.

Further edit : !!!! Also , the Bristol-Salisbury leg of the SWT service Bristol-Waterloo
I didn't suggest that theoretically moving loco-hauled 442s to Waterloo - Exeter would displace SWTs' 158s, just the 159s :) I would hope that once SWT gain the 456s in 2014 that they will see fit to deploy one on the Lymington branch and displace the 158 currently in use there. After that, would the 11 x 2-car 158s be enough to cover everything else that isn't Waterloo - Salisbury/Exeter? I wasn't aware that any of the 159s strayed from that one corridor, so I might suppose that the 158s would be sufficient.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

TEW

Established Member
Joined
16 May 2008
Messages
5,841
There's quite a few diesel diagrams on Portsmouth and Southampton area local services in the peaks as well, a mix of 158s and 159s, but they could be operated by electric traction mainly.
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,837
For less than the cost of locos you could rebuild the motor carriages and add sixth vehicles to the formations, with transformers and pantographs in them.

And before anyone says that adding electrostar or similar carriages to existing formations is impossible.... Southern Region mixed and matched stuff all the time (hence the tadpoles).

It might be possible to do that, but is that cost effective? A loco wouldn't be restricted to use in a unit and could be used elsewhere with little fuss and a loco would be more likely to be taken on by someone else when the 442s are finally withdrawn.

They could, but how many locomotives (diesel or electric) have been ordered by TOCs for passenger work since privatisation? None, so why would they start now to haul 30 year old EMUs about?

21 locos have been rebuilt with passenger use in mind (20 specifically for TOCs), 30 locomotives built since privatisation are capable of and currently see passenger use some or all of the time and another batch of 'mixed traffic' locos have been ordered by DRS recently, granted they are all diesel. That's without considering how many locos capable of passenger work are currently in use, or swapped in and out of store and used on freight work currently.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,636
It might be possible to do that, but is that cost effective? A loco wouldn't be restricted to use in a unit and could be used elsewhere with little fuss and a loco would be more likely to be taken on by someone else when the 442s are finally withdrawn.

But there will be no more passenger stock built after the 442s and the Mark 3s finally go to the depot in the sky.
Hauled passenger stock does not cost significantly less than multiple units, and by purchasing it you commit to using passenger rolling stock for the life of the locomotive or for the life of the rolling stock itself, whichever is longer.

So its a lock-in effect.
You pay £3-5m for each set to get it a locomotive (with 30 years use at best, and another £5m for new rolling stock in 15 years) or you pay £1m for a PTSO tacked onto whichever multiple unit order is convenient (as it has nothing but ordinary coaching stock equipment and the transformer) which gets you 15 years.

21 locos have been rebuilt with passenger use in mind (20 specifically for TOCs), 30 locomotives built since privatisation are capable of and currently see passenger use some or all of the time and another batch of 'mixed traffic' locos have been ordered by DRS recently, granted they are all diesel. That's without considering how many locos capable of passenger work are currently in use, or swapped in and out of store and used on freight work currently.

All of which are in use with passenger rolling stock from the 80s, once it is withdrawn it is highly unlikely there will be new hauled stock ordered to replace it.
So all those locomotives are going to be dumped into the freight market, purchasing more does not sound like a good idea.
 
Last edited:

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,568
Unless, god forbid, the sleeper services are withdrawn, there will be a need of new mark5 LHCS stcok eventually. The sleepers alone probably do not require enough to make decent ecconomies of scale for an order of LHCS stock, and neither do the daytime routes where LHCS is the best option.

However, taken together, I reckon the sleepers and the daytime routes where LHCS is more suitable than units (long distance INTERCITY routes with limited stopping patterns, I'm thinking XC's north-east to south-west corridor plus London - Scotland/Swansea/Devon & Cornwall/Carmarthen/Pembroke Dock) would be enough.

DRS apparently has an option for more of the new locos they have ordered, it doesn't look like they think demand for locos will reduce very much.
 

Pen Mill

Member
Joined
19 Oct 2010
Messages
337
Location
Yeovil Somerset
I didn't suggest that theoretically moving loco-hauled 442s to Waterloo - Exeter would displace SWTs' 158s, just the 159s :) I would hope that once SWT gain the 456s in 2014 that they will see fit to deploy one on the Lymington branch and displace the 158 currently in use there. After that, would the 11 x 2-car 158s be enough to cover everything else that isn't Waterloo - Salisbury/Exeter? I wasn't aware that any of the 159s strayed from that one corridor, so I might suppose that the 158s would be sufficient.
Apologies , I misread what you said ! :oops:
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,636
Unless, god forbid, the sleeper services are withdrawn, there will be a need of new mark5 LHCS stcok eventually.
It is likely that the sleeper services will either be withdrawn completely at the end of life of the existing Mark 3 rolling stock, or they will be replaced with electric multiple units. By then it is likely that Aberdeen will have joined Edinburgh and Glasgow on the list of the all-electric destinations and the remaining trains will either be eliminated or hauled from end of the wires to the destination by attached diesels.
The former is made far more likely if HS2 does reach Scotland, because it cuts two hours or more off the travel time to the Scottish destinations (a late night crack express could probably do it even faster).

The sleepers alone probably do not require enough to make decent ecconomies of scale for an order of LHCS stock, and neither do the daytime routes where LHCS is the best option.
I'm afraid that are not really any routes where LHCS is operationally the "best option", the realities of modern rolling stock with its low maintenance solid state traction packages and such is that the capital cost has come to dominate the cost of operations. Additionally it is now easy to fill seats by flooding the market with yield managed tickets at very low prices (thanks to the electronic economy).

This means that there is every incentive to run the trains as intensively as possible which means the flexibility to change formation lengths according to demand is almost worthless (as every vehicle will be working every service possible). I already posted a calculation along these lines in the HS2 discussion thread about why fixed formation 400m trains are far superior to 200m ones if we accept pairing in the peaks will occur a significant fraction of the time.

However, taken together, I reckon the sleepers and the daytime routes where LHCS is more suitable than units (long distance INTERCITY routes with limited stopping patterns, I'm thinking XC's north-east to south-west corridor plus London - Scotland/Swansea/Devon & Cornwall/Carmarthen/Pembroke Dock) would be enough.

The XC corridor is currently served adequately (from the operators point of view) by the Voyager units that are in play now. Any additional rollnig stock requirements, such as to replace the HSTs, will likely be sourced from those ICWC Voyagers displaced by additional pendolinos and possible extensions to the electrification on the west coast.
Failing that there are the 222s at EMT which will be displaced at some point relatively soon by MML electrification, (likely to be replaced by more units).

In the long term there is the prospect of complete electrification of the core Manchester-South Coast route which would allow dual voltage multiple units to relieve those Voyagers which can then be consolidated onto the remaining NE-SW route, especially if eVoyager goes ahead.

DRS apparently has an option for more of the new locos they have ordered, it doesn't look like they think demand for locos will reduce very much.

DRS is after the market the Class 67 should hold if it was not a dead end, thanks to its obscene axle loading.
As I said the majority of the Class 67's non-freight duties are ones that are going to become obsolete fairly soon once the Mark 3 fleet starts to dwindle.
Remember Freight Operations are not really under government purview, this is simply DRS trying to make a play for market share at the expense of DB/EWS.
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,568
I'm afraid that are not really any routes where LHCS is operationally the "best option"
I beg to differ. I agree that an EMU will win hands down most of the time, but my opinion is that LHCS is still more suitable on a small number of routes. Not enough to justify a new build of LHCS stock on its own, but as I say combine it with sleepers and it may work out. Certainly there are only two rational solutions for maintaining London - Pembroke Dock trains. One is a new EMU with conventionally sized carriges (not 26m long IEP vehicles) with cabs that can drive a diesel loco which is pushing the train (a plain drag won't work, without extending the reversal time at Carmarthen to allow a run-round). The other is an Intercity 225 rake (or similar) with the loco on the London end of the train, with the electric loco exchanged for a TDM-equiped diesel loco at Swansea. I think the LHCS option slightly more suitable.

The XC corridor is currently served adequately (from the operators point of view) by the Voyager units that are in play now. Any additional rollnig stock requirements, such as to replace the HSTs, will likely be sourced from those ICWC Voyagers displaced by additional pendolinos and possible extensions to the electrification on the west coast.
Failing that there are the 222s at EMT which will be displaced at some point relatively soon by MML electrification, (likely to be replaced by more units).
Aye, but DMUs are not suitable for such a long route, or INTERCITY services in general. Anyway, the last 22x units will be 30 years old in around 2040. If you start introducing a fleet of mark 5 coaches to replace mark3s as they are withdrawn in 2030-2035, on a slow delivery schedule, then they can replace the mark 4s and 220s between 2035 and 2040 and move onto replacing 221s and 222s beyond that.
 

starrymarkb

Established Member
Joined
4 Aug 2009
Messages
5,985
Location
Exeter
Regarding 3rd rail electrification to Exeter, why not just extend this to Exeter Central and use Platform 1, surely that platform is long enough to take a 5 or 10 coach 442 and is perfect for stabling a unit or two in between trips without having to go into Exeter St David's and also means a extra path for local services at St David's.

Course this could mean only Platform 1 being electrified or all three platforms at Exeter Central being done.

It's nowhere near long enough. A six car 159 reaches the end of the footbridge ramps. You might fit 5 cars in the bay at a push...
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,837
But there will be no more passenger stock built after the 442s and the Mark 3s finally go to the depot in the sky.
Hauled passenger stock does not cost significantly less than multiple units, and by purchasing it you commit to using passenger rolling stock for the life of the locomotive or for the life of the rolling stock itself, whichever is longer.

So its a lock-in effect.
You pay £3-5m for each set to get it a locomotive (with 30 years use at best, and another £5m for new rolling stock in 15 years) or you pay £1m for a PTSO tacked onto whichever multiple unit order is convenient (as it has nothing but ordinary coaching stock equipment and the transformer) which gets you 15 years....

Why can't they be mixed traffic locos? why does a passenger loco have to be purely a passenger locomotive? 67s haul freight, 47s did for a long time, 90s do too, we don't yet know what DRS' new locos will haul for their life span, but I can't see it just being passenger trains. Not only that, but at some point rescue locos will be needed to replace those already in use.

Two years ago the cost of forty four 377 vehicles (that's 11 units) was around £54m. If you are looking at a smaller number of vehicles (there are only twenty four 442s) to work with the 442 stock I'd suggest the cost per vehicle is higher than £1m per vehicle.

Furthermore, in 15 years the 67s will be approaching 30 years old, the 57s will have been on the railway for 60 years or so, in one form or another, the 90s will have had more than 40 years in service. So, if your estimate of a 30 year life span is correct, all these locos will be retiring or will have already retired.

....All of which are in use with passenger rolling stock from the 80s, once it is withdrawn it is highly unlikely there will be new hauled stock ordered to replace it.
So all those locomotives are going to be dumped into the freight market, purchasing more does not sound like a good idea.

The point made was that no locos had been built for the TOCs, not that they hauled old or new stock.
 

NSEFAN

Established Member
Joined
17 Jun 2007
Messages
3,504
Location
Southampton
hairyhandedfool said:
Why can't they be mixed traffic locos? why does a passenger loco have to be purely a passenger locomotive? 67s haul freight, 47s did for a long time, 90s do too, we don't yet know what DRS' new locos will haul for their life span, but I can't see it just being passenger trains. Not only that, but at some point rescue locos will be needed to replace those already in use.

Freight trains now tend to be a lot heavier than they were 20 years ago, whereas LHCS hasn't changed much. IIRC 67s only work the occasional lighter freight flows and water cannons, as they were originally intended for LHCS and TPOs.

Freight locomotives have to have a more powerful at lower speeds, whereas the passenger locomotives need to haul less at higher speeds. You could probably regear the locos for a different task at a later date, but that just adds more expense.
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,837
Most freight trains I agree, however some freight trains are hauled by 90s or pairs of 86s, some are light enough for one type 5 to be overkill, but require two locos. We don't know what will happen to the royal train or charter trains in the future.
 

NSEFAN

Established Member
Joined
17 Jun 2007
Messages
3,504
Location
Southampton
I suspect there won't be a royal train after the current one. Either way I don't think the needs of the royal family should be a big factor in ordering new rolling stock. :lol:

Charter trains shouldn't be an issue either. These tend to take older stock, of which there will always be some preserved by various enthusiast groups.
 

Wath Yard

Member
Joined
31 Dec 2011
Messages
864
21 locos have been rebuilt with passenger use in mind (20 specifically for TOCs), 30 locomotives built since privatisation are capable of and currently see passenger use some or all of the time and another batch of 'mixed traffic' locos have been ordered by DRS recently, granted they are all diesel. That's without considering how many locos capable of passenger work are currently in use, or swapped in and out of store and used on freight work currently.

16 of the 21 locos were specifically for Thunderbird and WCML upgrade diversion duties, and most have now been discarded, and 1 of the other 5 has been flogged to a charter operator. The 67s were ordered for mail trains by a freight FOC. I strongly suspect the only reason Chiltern are now using some is because their parent company happened to own a large number of loco's with nothing to do. DRS is not a franchised TOC and never will be. The answer to my question is the answer I gave earlier - no new locos have been ordered by TOCs and none will be in the foreseeable future, and certainly not to haul 30 year old EMUs about.
 

jonhewes

Member
Joined
8 Oct 2008
Messages
99
Is there any reason why without appropriate investment and maintenance that Mark III / IV coaches (or Mark III based multiple units) could not continue operating for the next 30-40 years.

Although by no means a barometer of passenger rolling stock excellence, Mark I coaching stock seems to be soldiering on in the charter sector, despite being circa 50 years old.

Having been designed and constructed using more modern and refined techniques, it would not be unreasonable to expect Mark III / IV based coaching stock to have a significantly longer service life than previous generations.

I presume that this is why Chiltern is investing significant capital into modernising their stock with power doors etc.

In a railway environment where there is a short term shortage of diesel multiple unit stock and a surplus of hauled/electric passenger stock and capable locos, it would make great sense to utilise them in push/pull configuration on routes which suffer significant overcrowding.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
Although by no means a barometer of passenger rolling stock excellence, Mark I coaching stock seems to be soldiering on in the charter sector, despite being circa 50 years old.

I think the key word there is charter sector. You don't see many Mk1s covering several hundred miles a day, every day and for most of year as well. Mk3/4s however do this all the time. I suspect if you tried to use a 50 year old Mk1 on some of EC's diagrams it would quickly be spending more time in maintenance than revenue service.
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,837
16 of the 21 locos were specifically for Thunderbird and WCML upgrade diversion duties, and most have now been discarded, and 1 of the other 5 has been flogged to a charter operator. The 67s were ordered for mail trains by a freight FOC. I strongly suspect the only reason Chiltern are now using some is because their parent company happened to own a large number of loco's with nothing to do. DRS is not a franchised TOC and never will be. The answer to my question is the answer I gave earlier - no new locos have been ordered by TOCs and none will be in the foreseeable future, and certainly not to haul 30 year old EMUs about.

Sure no new locos have been built from scratch for use specifically by a TOC, but just because the TOCs haven't ordered them doesn't mean there hasn't been any built (or rebuilt), or put into passenger use. It doesn't mean they can't be built and put into use with a good chance of re-use when that work is no longer available.

57601 may no longer be in use with a TOC, but if it hadn't be made, would Virgin and FGW stayed loyal to the 47s? I think they'd either have taken a gamble on the 57s anyway or leased something like the 67, ofcourse we will never know now.

And talking of the 67s, you mention them as if the only passenger work they have is the Chiltern trains, it isn't, sure they weren't made with that in mind, but that surely must illustrate better than anything else how versatile the locomotive really is. How long have the majority of 460s been in store now?
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,568
Is there any reason why without appropriate investment and maintenance that Mark III / IV coaches (or Mark III based multiple units) could not continue operating for the next 30-40 years.
Tests have been run on mark3s I believe that show they are good until 2035. Given they were built 1975 - 1988 (according to wikipedia) that means they will be 60 - 47 years old. Apply 55 years to the 1989 mark 4 stock you get 2044. Therefore you need to build mark5 coachess from about 2030 to 2045.

DMUs are supposedly only good for 30 years (though a full convertion to EMU might give 22x series units another 30 I suppose). 220s are year 2000 vintage so their time as diesel units is up in 2030 (before mark3s:o). 221s are two years later and 222s go up to 2035.

The same mark 5 construction window therefore could be used to replace some 22xs with LHCS no problem.

In a railway environment where there is a short term shortage of diesel multiple unit stock and a surplus of hauled/electric passenger stock and capable locos, it would make great sense to utilise them in push/pull configuration on routes which suffer significant overcrowding.
The short term is another matter, and my thoughts are similar to yours. Trobble is, no diesel locos have TDM anymore so you either have to fit it or modify both the locos and the DVTs/DBSOs that you are using.
 

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
Tests have been run on mark3s I believe that show they are good until 2035. Given they were built 1975 - 1988 (according to wikipedia) that means they will be 60 - 47 years old. Apply 55 years to the 1989 mark 4 stock you get 2044. Therefore you need to build mark5 coachess from about 2030 to 2045.

DMUs are supposedly only good for 30 years (though a full convertion to EMU might give 22x series units another 30 I suppose). 220s are year 2000 vintage so their time as diesel units is up in 2030 (before mark3s:o). 221s are two years later and 222s go up to 2035.

The same mark 5 construction window therefore could be used to replace some 22xs with LHCS no problem.
I think that you'll find that those figures can at best be referred to as guidelines. It has been suggested that the structural integrity of the mark 3s could take them through to 2035 if required, but I consider it unlikely that any TOCs will actually see fit to continue in service with them up until that date, and even more unlikely that mark 3s will outlive Voyagers on the main line, unfortunately.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top