• 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 for Crosscountry?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Up_Tilt_390

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2015
Messages
923
No. Trains have used driving van trailers, or passenger carrying vehicles with a driving cab at one end, for decades!

Of course we have used them for decades, but that doesn't mean it's practical does it? We used steam engines for a long time too, so you can argue to bring them back surely on the basis of that argument, right? I mean it's still a loco-hauled piece of stock, it's just the unit on the front is powered by steam rather than electricity or diesel (note to steam lovers, this is not a genuine advocacy, so don't get your hopes up. Bringing back steam on a wide-scale is not happening). There was obviously a reason that we started to phase them out in favour of more technologically advanced rolling stock in terms of traction power.

The advantage of loco-hauled units is more for capacity reasons if anything, which though is desperately needed on the network, especially with CrossCountry, it is negated by the lack of platform length and space, and so you really need more frequent services to make up for it. Then you need stock with better acceleration to make space for other trains behind it so you can squeeze more onto the network, then you need a quick turnaround time at terminus station to get the train ready for another journey as well as make space for more services. On a busy network like the UK's, loco-hauled stock being on a widespread scale would probably not do much good these days just because of the sheer number of people using the trains.

This is incorrect. Chiltern's Class 68 hauled trains have better performance than their Class 168 units!

Does Chiltern Railways have to tackle unforgiving gradients though? This is ultimately what I was thinking of when I mention better performance. What I've always seen listed as an advantage with a multiple unit was that it has no theoretical limit when it comes to climbing tough hills and has overall better traction (though to be fair I've heard even an eleven-coach Class 390 with 5.95mW (7,980 horsepower) needs to be in at least notch two or three when going up Shap and Beattock Summit, something a Class 86/87 tackled very well with similar or less power output).

A twenty-coach multiple unit would probably handle those respective gradients better than loco-hauled stock of a similar length unless you were to increase the power output of the front loco, which would consume more fuel or electricity, and need more expensive gear inside it to handle such power. Additionally you would probably need higher voltage of the overhead line equipment or greater torque in a diesel engine, and though we are not likely to get such long trains, the fact is more coaches on a loco-hauled unit needs more power at the front, whereas a DMU/EMU would pull itself up along the majority of the train and distribute traction all along.

Not quite, and it is very common on the continent (e.g. Switzerland are far better than us at running railways)

Doesn't strictly mean there is a correlation between use of loco-hauled units and better railway operation. Switzerland runs trains better than us, obviously, but I'd put that more down to the different and clearly superior management staff and infrastructure. Japan manages to run a railway on par with the Swiss, yet they have a significant amount of multiple units, and in fact I'm pretty sure there aren't any loco-hauled express trains left over there.

Surely this has been done to death before? Ordering additional carriages to extend Voyagers is no longer viable. Also Voyagers probably have only a relatively limited life left in them now anyway.

Had no clue it'd been done to death at all.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Jonny

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,562
Another option would be to convert the Mk IV buffets to brake coaches, and have through wiring, perhaps AAR. After all, the Class 67s have AAR and a theoretical maximum of 125 mph, which might be viable in a both-working top-and-tail on 8 coaches.

Edit: with the option of changing to new-build coaches and/or locomotives later if required.
 
Last edited:

gsnedders

Established Member
Joined
6 Sep 2015
Messages
1,472
Another option would be to convert the Mk IV buffets to brake coaches, and have through wiring, perhaps AAR. After all, the Class 67s have AAR and a theoretical maximum of 125 mph, which might be viable in a both-working top-and-tail on 8 coaches.

Edit: with the option of changing to new-build coaches and/or locomotives later if required.
The question about doing any work like that is always going to be "how much does it cost versus going to CAF and buying new coaches"?
 

61653 HTAFC

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Dec 2012
Messages
17,624
Location
Another planet...
As I said elsewhere, the CAF Mk5 (perhaps stretched to 26m) is a shoe-in. Don't be deflected by talk about Mk4's.

Loco-wise, its bound to be class 68's to start with. There will almost certainly be emissions compliant engines available, remember how a few years ago they in turn predicted the demise of underfloor engines due to emissions, which never came to pass. In the July Modern Railways "Pan Up" Ian Walmsley talks about a revival of the VP185 lump used in a few of the class 43 power cars. Perhaps a new batch of class 68 design could use those - a British rather than American (Caterpillar) product as used presently?
A few posters have suggested a 26m version of mk5s, but my question has to be... Why bother? The existing 22m design is fine, why does it need to be stretched? All you're doing is introducing extra cost in both design and clearance. You'd lose width at the vehicle ends with extra tapering for very little gain. The bodyshells would have to be redesigned to the point that what you'd have wouldn't really be a Mk5a any more... Mk5b? Mk6 maybe?

Regarding Mk4 comfort, yes, they're lovely and comfortable... until they get up to any sort of speed and then the roughness of the ride really shows. If I'm going up or down the ECML I'll always try to get a HST if possible as they're far smoother at 125mph.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,433
Location
Yorkshire
Birmingham - Manchester
I'd expect they'd be used on the ECML route, as with the HSTs, but of course anything is possible.
Of course we have used them for decades, but that doesn't mean it's practical does it?
It is practical.
We used steam engines for a long time too, so you can argue to bring them back surely on the basis of that argument, right?
Wrong.
I mean it's still a loco-hauled piece of stock, it's just the unit on the front is powered by steam rather than electricity or diesel (note to steam lovers, this is not a genuine advocacy, so don't get your hopes up. Bringing back steam on a wide-scale is not happening).
If that's the basis of your argument, then it is not a sensible argument.
There was obviously a reason that we started to phase them out in favour of more technologically advanced rolling stock in terms of traction power
Irrelevant to this discussion.
The advantage of loco-hauled units is more for capacity reasons if anything, which though is desperately needed on the network, especially with CrossCountry, it is negated by the lack of platform length and space, and so you really need more frequent services to make up for it.
The HSTs are 2+7, so clearly the core route can take decent length trains. So a loco plus 6 coaches (one of which could potentially be a driving vehicle, as with Nova 3) should be viable. This would have significantly greater capacity than a 5 car Voyager. Don't forget a Voyager does have a lot of wasted space; if you are arguing that 5 loco hauled coaches have the same capacity as a 5 car Voyager you're way off the mark.
Then you need stock with better acceleration to make space for other trains behind it so you can squeeze more onto the network
This is absurd; for capacity you want decent length trains for a start. Running 4 or 5 car Voyagers is not efficient in terms of capacity.

For pathing purposes, then ideally you want similar acceleration and stopping patterns to other services, but you are never going to realistically get an exact match on lines that are used by mixed local, long distance and freight traffic anyway.

Also as stated above, Chiltern's loco hauled trains accelerate faster than their Class 168 multiple units.

As for Voyagers acceleration, in this day and age you have to say they are extremely inefficient in terms of fuel consumption and to argue that you need future stock to be so fuel inefficient would also be an absurd argument to make.

We need longer trains and it's generally accepted that for train lengths of around 6 carriages or more, a loco plus coaches is more efficient. Multiple units are more efficient for train lengths of up to around 5 carriages.

then you need a quick turnaround time at terminus station to get the train ready for another journey as well as make space for more services. On a busy network like the UK's, loco-hauled stock being on a widespread scale would probably not do much good these days just because of the sheer number of people using the trains.
I do not see how any train with a cab at each end (such as a Chiltern loco hauled train, or a TPE Nova 3), is going to take any longer to turnaround than a multiple unit of the same length. Repeating the same flawed argument does not make it valid.
Does Chiltern Railways have to tackle unforgiving gradients though? This is ultimately what I was thinking of when I mention better performance. What I've always seen listed as an advantage with a multiple unit was that it has no theoretical limit when it comes to climbing tough hills and has overall better traction (though to be fair I've heard even an eleven-coach Class 390 with 5.95mW (7,980 horsepower) needs to be in at least notch two or three when going up Shap and Beattock Summit, something a Class 86/87 tackled very well with similar or less power output).
I'm sure Class 68s can tackle unforgiving gradients without any problem. Compare a HST vs a Class 170 going up the Lickey!
A twenty-coach multiple unit would probably handle those respective gradients better than loco-hauled stock of a similar length unless you were to increase the power output of the front loco, which would consume more fuel or electricity, and need more expensive gear inside it to handle such power.
A 20 coach multiple unit would be insanely inefficient.
Switzerland runs trains better than us, obviously...
So why do you not accept that they have a sensible policy in this area?
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
I'm not entirely sure how new build CAF LHCS comes into it? Compared to a new bi modal multiple unit they will have no time advantage in terms of getting them into service as there won't be m(any) locos to haul them, especially at 125mph, and they have all of the downsides of LHCS when compared to multiple units (loss of usable platform space, single point of failure, etc). When you also consider that there is at least one high speed bi-mode design already out there, with potential for a second design from Bombardier, any bi-mode MU will be far cheaper than the cost to develop a bi-modal 125mph capable loco for the UK loading gauge
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,433
Location
Yorkshire
Another option would be to convert the Mk IV buffets to brake coaches, and have through wiring, perhaps AAR. After all, the Class 67s have AAR and a theoretical maximum of 125 mph, which might be viable in a both-working top-and-tail on 8 coaches.

Edit: with the option of changing to new-build coaches and/or locomotives later if required.
I don't think Class 67s are viable; back in the Summer of 2004 XC did have some additional Class 67 hauled services and they had many severe speed restrictions due to their weight, plus they are underpowered. The trains were given awful paths and it didn't happen again.
 

trainplan1

Member
Joined
6 Dec 2010
Messages
115
Can't remember where it was but I think it was found that a DMU over 5/6 carriages becomes extremely inefficient in both track access charges and fuel consumption. Not a huge penalty for some peak hour combinations and empty coaching stock moves but running all day up and down the country is a different matter.
I'll believe loco hauled again on cross country when I see it but with TPE's order and MK5's in production it certainly could happen. Clearing newer MK5's gauging wise will certainly be more beneficial in the long term than cascaded MK4's (if GWR want to replace the night riviera MK3's etc)
 

a_c_skinner

Established Member
Joined
21 Jun 2013
Messages
1,576
XC's Super Voyagers were tilt fitted of course and had tilt isolated to save costs and because (IIRC) after they lost north of Manchester there was little advantage to it. XC overcrowding is dreadful and if there are a good number of PRM compliant coaches coming available it seems reasonable to explore if they might be used, even if this means operational sacrifices. It won't be bi-modal locos though, but it might show that DRS taking a punt on Class 68s was astute. 68s are Euro Stage IIIa only, I think. Could more be sourced? Alas HMG prefers overcrowding (which is just a fact of life) to expenditure (which they hate) and second hand trains (which cost votes).
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
The advantage of loco-hauled units is more for capacity reasons if anything, which though is desperately needed on the network, especially with CrossCountry, it is negated by the lack of platform length and space, and so you really need more frequent services to make up for it.

The HST's are 7x 23m cars, which is a reasonable length train already. And the HST also has two locomotives (which don't need to be on the platform). LHCS with a driving trailer only needs one loco, so have only half the dead length of train compared to what went before.

I recall the the Virgin XC loco hauled back in the day. Whilst a 100mph class 68 with 7 x mk5's might not seem like much progress over class 95mph 47's with 7 x mk2's, we are still looking at a fixed formation with DVT for faster reversing, and 3800hp vs 2580hp, all with more effective modern ac drive systems.

What is the real need for 125mph with cross country as things stand? Are there many places where they go that fast in practice or would 100mph be acceptable? And if 125mph is only needed on the East Coast mainline, could we look at swapping traction to electric between York and Edinburgh?

A few posters have suggested a 26m version of mk5s, but my question has to be... Why bother? The existing 22m design is fine, why does it need to be stretched? All you're doing is introducing extra cost in both design and clearance. You'd lose width at the vehicle ends with extra tapering for very little gain. The bodyshells would have to be redesigned to the point that what you'd have wouldn't really be a Mk5a any more... Mk5b? Mk6 maybe?

Agreed, but the 22m length of the mk5 was a fudge to allow the length of Scottish sleepers to fit the relevant platform at London town. Engineering longer coaches would provide more seats without a proportional increase in weight or operating cost (same number of bogies, life support systems etc). I feel that it would be desirable to lengthen to a standard already widely used such as 26m or maybe just 23m. And lengthening a design you already developed is not so hard really, look at the Airbus A320 range which includes the short A319, the regular A320 and the long A321 in the same basic airframe. Or those stretched cars favoured by hen parties.

When you also consider that there is at least one high speed bi-mode design already out there, with potential for a second design from Bombardier, any bi-mode MU will be far cheaper than the cost to develop a bi-modal 125mph capable loco for the UK loading gauge

Unlike many forum members I am not so bothered by the perceived noise and vibration of underfloor engines as the inelegance of distributed diesel traction. One bigger diesel is more efficient than many small ones from a thermodynamic point of view, and as Modern Railways point out the current generation of high powered underfloor engines are really at the limit of efficient cooling.
 

gingertom

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2017
Messages
1,251
Location
Kilsyth
perhaps we should be looking at Stadler's inter-city version of the Flirt: 8x 21m cars, 3x power pods, 6x motorised bogies. 8100BHP on both diesel and electric. That ought to keep to time.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,909
And if 125mph is only needed on the East Coast mainline, could we look at swapping traction to electric between York and Edinburgh?

Unfortunately the railway does not have the skill to attach and re-attach locomotives at pace. Just look at when Class 67 drags are in force, it adds around 20 minutes each for attaching and detaching to the journey time of East Coast services.

Additionally is there the capacity in Station limits to do this on an hourly basis?
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,162
perhaps we should be looking at Stadler's inter-city version of the Flirt: 8x 21m cars, 3x power pods, 6x motorised bogies. 8100BHP on both diesel and electric. That ought to keep to time.
The sensible thing to do with that would be to take the pods out of the middle of the train and put them at each end. We could put driving cabs on them and give them a name. “Power cars” would describe what they do.....
 

gingertom

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2017
Messages
1,251
Location
Kilsyth
The sensible thing to do with that would be to take the pods out of the middle of the train and put them at each end. We could put driving cabs on them and give them a name. “Power cars” would describe what they do.....
I had thought of that (honest!) but removing engines from that type of unit once wires go up is a bit tricky....
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,162
I had thought of that (honest!) but removing engines from that type of unit once wires go up is a bit tricky....
Agreed, but I was working on the basis that wiring is so stop/start (and mostly more stop than start) that there would always be work over a 30-35 year life. If you use the same modular concept as the current FLIRT build you could substitute battery modules to get over those gaps in the wires NR deem too difficult or can’t be arsed to wire.
 

gingertom

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2017
Messages
1,251
Location
Kilsyth
Agreed, but I was working on the basis that wiring is so stop/start (and mostly more stop than start) that there would always be work over a 30-35 year life. If you use the same modular concept as the current FLIRT build you could substitute battery modules to get over those gaps in the wires NR deem too difficult or can’t be arsed to wire.
that could work for short gaps. But give DaFT an opportunity not to wire and they will take it- wiring ECML to Hull springs to mind.
 

Harbornite

Established Member
Joined
7 May 2016
Messages
3,634
Going off the question of comfort, is it not operationally impractical to bring back loco-hauled stock? The need for added turn around times, the space needed for the procedure of getting the loco from one end to the other,

Do you not know what a DVT or DBSO is?
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
Unfortunately the railway does not have the skill to attach and re-attach locomotives at pace. Just look at when Class 67 drags are in force, it adds around 20 minutes each for attaching and detaching to the journey time of East Coast services.

Additionally is there the capacity in Station limits to do this on an hourly basis?

It would only be going back to what happened less than one generation ago - would circumstances really have changed so much in the meantime? Remember that now there is no need to detach the loco to run round when reversing direction (eg Reading), only when changing traction. And you would be using a modern auto-coupling not a victorian screw coupling like back in the day.

The bi-modes might have made sense on the GWR which had no culture of classic loco traction for almost two generations (night sleeper excepted) and an evolving electrification deployment, but for other routes (arguably also the midland) loco haulage makes more sense. In fact with regard to the Midland, despite the bi-modes being part of the invite to tender I hope somebody does come in with a wildcard bid involving loco haulage - the electrification situation is so fluid, and questions are likely to be asked about the ability of high power underfloor engines to cope with hot weather. But that is a discussion for another post!
 

The_Train

Established Member
Joined
2 Jun 2018
Messages
4,313
Do you not know what a DVT or DBSO is?

Forget those, I'd love to go back to the days of locos swapping ends. Was great as a kid to sit in a carriage and see the loco hauling us head past us and re-couple at the other end
 

class26

Member
Joined
4 May 2011
Messages
1,123
I disagree, the leg room in a Mark 4 is bad compared to a Voyager and I'm only 6 foot.

Leg room is easily changed, it would cost nothing save that there would be slightly less seats per vehicle. Changing the ghastly seating on the Voyagers will cost significant sums and what will we get in place ? Ironing boards ? When I pay three figure sums to travel by train I want to sit on a comfortable seat. I understand what is comfortable for one is not so much for another but other countries manage. I travelled second class between Madrid and Barcelona recently and these seats were better than any first class in the UK.
 

Rail Blues

Member
Joined
2 Aug 2016
Messages
608
Far more comfortable than any DMU/bi mode unit surely. And that's going to be the only viable alternative.

I wish people would stop stating this as a fact. It is a matter of opinion. I for one find Mk 4s and MK3's quite uncomfortable.

It is also interesting to see that yet again, folk have disappeared down a rabbit hole on the back of a speculative articles.Some folk are talking as if LHCS was a done deal.
 
Last edited:

Charlie M.

Member
Joined
4 Oct 2015
Messages
170
Location
Gloucester
7 and 9 car 802s please.

  • Bi-Mode
  • Good for Dawlish Sea Wall
  • Good for Cornwall Hills
  • Great Capacity
  • SDO fitted, Train Managment system etc.
  • New technology
  • CrossCountry could ask for a buffet fitted, just like Hitatchi did with the 801s for East Coast.
Pratical trains for the requirements, and a lot of passengers and commuters (not enthusiasts) like them if they turn up with the correct amount of coaches
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
7 and 9 car 802s please.

  • Bi-Mode
  • Good for Dawlish Sea Wall
  • Good for Cornwall Hills
  • Great Capacity
  • SDO fitted, Train Managment system etc.
  • New technology
  • CrossCountry could ask for a buffet fitted, just like Hitatchi did with the 801s for East Coast.
Pratical trains for the requirements, and a lot of passengers and commuters (not enthusiasts) like them if they turn up with the correct amount of coaches

I find it staggering how often bi modes in general and the Hitachi AT300s in particular have become regarded as the "savvy" choice for new intercity stock. I still place a lot of respect in Modern Railways columnists who have not changed their opinion as overweight electric trains / underpowered diesel express. And whilst the class 800's on GWR have not been a catastrophe by any means, and we are not enjoying yet the timetable and infrastructure that the route upgrade will deliver, anecdotal evidence suggests they haven't set the world on fire. And in this age of climate change, do you want a train whose engines start overheating when the ambient temperature exceeds 30deg?

The AT300 seems to be at its best where the majority of the journey is under the wires and the diesel leg is short and less than 100mph. The 802's for the west country and proposed 125mph bi-modes on the Midland Mainline seem to push the AT300 to the limits, and possibly beyond. The XC system is mostly unwired now. I am not persuaded that the AT300 family is appropriate, unless like the GWR we know further electrification is on its way.

Whilst this forum generally does not hold transport secretary Grayling in high regard, his constant heralding of Bi-modes as the future of the railways seem to have ground away forum opinions on the topic to the extent that a forum of loco loving train enthusiasts feel that bi-modes represent the one true form of progress. Now who is it that said "if a lie is repeated often enough it becomes generally accepted as the truth"?
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,162
I wish people would stop stating this as a fact. It is a matter of opinion. I for one find Mk 4s and MK3's quite uncomfortable.

It is also interesting to see that yet again, folk have disappeared down a rabbit hole in the back of a speculative article's.Some folk are talking LHCS was a done deal.
Some folk are talking complete tosh on this subject!

You are correct - the type (LHCS, DMU, EMU etc) of vehicle has little bearing on the comfort of the vehicle, other than an internal noise from an underfloor diesel engine. The vehicle is just a shell which you can fit out as you like - so you could have luxury EMUs and LHCS with ironing boards.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,162
I find it staggering how often bi modes in general and the Hitachi AT300s in particular have become regarded as the "savvy" choice for new intercity stock. I still place a lot of respect in Modern Railways columnists who have not changed their opinion as overweight electric trains / underpowered diesel express. And whilst the class 800's on GWR have not been a catastrophe by any means, and we are not enjoying yet the timetable and infrastructure that the route upgrade will deliver, anecdotal evidence suggests they haven't set the world on fire. And in this age of climate change, do you want a train whose engines start overheating when the ambient temperature exceeds 30deg?

The AT300 seems to be at its best where the majority of the journey is under the wires and the diesel leg is short and less than 100mph. The 802's for the west country and proposed 125mph bi-modes on the Midland Mainline seem to push the AT300 to the limits, and possibly beyond. The XC system is mostly unwired now. I am not persuaded that the AT300 family is appropriate, unless like the GWR we know further electrification is on its way.

Whilst this forum generally does not hold transport secretary Grayling in high regard, his constant heralding of Bi-modes as the future of the railways seem to have ground away forum opinions on the topic to the extent that a forum of loco loving train enthusiasts feel that bi-modes represent the one true form of progress. Now who is it that said "if a lie is repeated often enough it becomes generally accepted as the truth"?
You cannot get away from the AT300s being overweight EMUs and under-powered DMUs - it is a simple fact.

Like you, I am amazed at this love-in with Hitachi and the AT300 we now see from enthusiasts; the very same people who were telling us how rubbish they would be a couple of years ago! In service terms they are still un-proven really: already we are seeing issues with them in hot weather and anyone claiming they are good for the Dawlish sea wall and the Devon banks is clearly talking nonsense - they haven't been teste dins ervice there yet!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top