• 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 services - future?

Status
Not open for further replies.

RichmondCommu

Established Member
Joined
23 Feb 2010
Messages
6,912
Location
Richmond, London
Two things worth mentioning here:

Firstly the inclines on the S&C are not particularly steep, hence the name “The Long Drag”. To my knowledge ‘bankers’ have never been used on the line and double headed trains were only run during the Midland Railway’s tenure due to their small engine policy.

Secondly, I would be pretty annoyed if when waiting for my train I saw a class 66 hove into view. Such things might be suitable for a basher’s grand day out but nothing else other than what they were designed for.

Let’s get back to reality and hope that the ROSCO’s / DfT can be encouraged to start ordering some more DMU’s.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

sprinterguy

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2010
Messages
11,048
Location
Macclesfield
Firstly the inclines on the S&C are not particularly steep, hence the name “The Long Drag”. To my knowledge ‘bankers’ have never been used on the line and double headed trains were only run during the Midland Railway’s tenure due to their small engine policy.
Good point, the Midland specified the S&C to have an incline no steeper than 1 in 100. The long drag has quite a large retardation effect on a lengthy loco hauled formation, but I don't think a loco plus four/five coaches would be adversely affected by the grade.
 

RichmondCommu

Established Member
Joined
23 Feb 2010
Messages
6,912
Location
Richmond, London
Good point, the Midland specified the S&C to have an incline no steeper than 1 in 100. The long drag has quite a large retardation effect on a lengthy loco hauled formation, but I don't think a loco plus four/five coaches would be adversely affected by the grade.

Exactly! Or indeed Pendolinos when they are dragged over the S&C. With the exception of the mighty Lickey the likes of Shap and Aisgill are not half as formidable as they used to be. And even then most things get over the Lickey without being 'banked'.
 

boing_uk

Member
Joined
18 May 2009
Messages
619
Location
Blackburn
How about transferring the CLE-MIA over to loco-hauled? In fact I dont really know why TPE run to Manchester Airport from Cleethorpes anyway, given the number of services that run to the Airport from Manchester anyway.

Both the 170's and 185's are wasted on this particular route. Top and tailed (or even DBSO'd / DVT'd) loco-hauled services wouldn't really impact that greatly on timings, given how slow the route is east of Doncaster and the line speeds between Donny and Manchester.

While the cutting of the Airport service might seem retrograde, it is not the biggest flow for Cleethorpes service and would adequately be served by existing plentiful MAN-MIA services.

The Cleethorpes to Manchester run would be fairly ideal for an operator like DRS as it has reasonable loadings for most of the day (the only quiet trains I have been on are winter trains during the middle of the day or the very last trains out of Cleethorpes). Of course, I am happy to be shot down in flames on this.
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,568
Settle - Carlisle, Waterloo - Exeter, Edinburgh/Glasgow - Aberdeen/Inverness are all good ideas. I'd say Manchester - Swansea though, rather than Manchester - Cardiff, I'm sure Cardiff - Swansea could use the extra capacity too. The best reason for spilting the service in twain at Cardiff rather than Swansea would be to up the trains per hour which could be electric between Cardiff and Swansea to four. Of course you then would need an alternative hourly service from Carmarthen (and beyond) to Cardiff, which I suggest should go via the Swansea District Line.

One route that's always been a clear stand-out to be a loco-hauled service is Birmingham-Liverpool Lime Street. I can't for the life of me ever understand why this became effectively a semi-commuter route.
Actually, that could be a good idea to reduce the requirements for new EMUs for expansion of electrification. Unlike diesel routes, we have suitable locos (90s) which are already able to work with DVTs, so you save on converting either the loco or the DVT to work with the other. That would then cascade the 350s to LM's other EMU routes, releasing class 321 or class 323 units for use on newly electrified routes.

There was suggestion of using 90s with coaches running Manchester Airport - Glasgow/Edinburgh (due to the 110mph top speed), but it now looks like 350s will run that.
Run Manchester - Scotland with 90s too, and LM could have all the extra 350s (18 rather than 8). I estimate Birmingham - Liverpool at 8 diagrams (although I'm guessing there's probablly interworking with other routes that I didn't take account off). Assuming the units run alone that's 18 units (321s or 323s) which LM could spare if class 90 push-pull rakes were used for Manchester - Scotland and Birmingham - Liverpool.

I don't know where ATW are meant to be getting their 158s from for the Cambrian - I was thinking that a four/five coach loco-hauled service on Cardiff - Manchester would release a two/three coach 175 for other ATW services to free up a two coach 158 (so every route gets some improvement in capacity).
I think a 2-car 158 has more seats than a 2-car 175. I also think there can't be more than about 4 158 diagrams that don't vist the Cambrian, down to the Cambrian interworking with Birmingham - Holyhead. Now if Shrewsbury - Birmingham was cut off the Cambrian services so that it could be run with non-ERTMS stock, then we might be able to manage something, including hourly services on the Cambrian mainline.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
How about transferring the CLE-MIA over to loco-hauled? In fact I dont really know why TPE run to Manchester Airport from Cleethorpes anyway, given the number of services that run to the Airport from Manchester anyway.

Both the 170's and 185's are wasted on this particular route. Top and tailed (or even DBSO'd / DVT'd) loco-hauled services wouldn't really impact that greatly on timings, given how slow the route is east of Doncaster and the line speeds between Donny and Manchester.

While the cutting of the Airport service might seem retrograde, it is not the biggest flow for Cleethorpes service and would adequately be served by existing plentiful MAN-MIA services.

The Cleethorpes to Manchester run would be fairly ideal for an operator like DRS as it has reasonable loadings for most of the day (the only quiet trains I have been on are winter trains during the middle of the day or the very last trains out of Cleethorpes). Of course, I am happy to be shot down in flames on this.

Agreed

Settle - Carlisle, Waterloo - Exeter, Edinburgh/Glasgow - Aberdeen/Inverness are all good ideas. I'd say Manchester - Swansea though, rather than Manchester - Cardiff, I'm sure Cardiff - Swansea could use the extra capacity too. The best reason for spilting the service in twain at Cardiff rather than Swansea would be to up the trains per hour which could be electric between Cardiff and Swansea to four

The reason I suggested splitting the services at Cardiff (rather than Swansea) is that you'd be talking a seven hour round trip from Manchester to Cardiff (allowing for recovery time at both ends), so it sounded reasonable for one rake to do two return journeys from Manchester to Cardiff in a fourteen hour day (e.g. start at 07.00, finish at 21.00), so that each train would end up where it started. Plus, splitting at Cardiff doesn't mess up existing connections from West Wales/ Swansea to Cardiff.

The problem with the Waterloo - Exeter service would be the splitting of coaches at Salisbury (I think the services are nine coach east of Salisbury, but three/six coach west of there). But if that line were converted then you'd free up a large number of three coach "super Sprinters" which would be welcomed elsewhere.
 

tirphil

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2011
Messages
275
Location
Wales
I don't know where ATW are meant to be getting their 158s from for the Cambrian - I was thinking that a four/five coach loco-hauled service on Cardiff - Manchester would release a two/three coach 175 for other ATW services to free up a two coach 158 (so every route gets some improvement in capacity).

Yes, it would have to be an internal cascade of the sort you suggest. Just can't see it happening even though.
 

button_boxer

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
1,270
How about transferring the CLE-MIA over to loco-hauled? In fact I dont really know why TPE run to Manchester Airport from Cleethorpes anyway, given the number of services that run to the Airport from Manchester anyway.

Don't underestimate the demand for a direct Manchester Airport service from places like Sheffield. Airport routes, and in particular routes where the airport is the terminus, are one place where it makes a huge difference having a direct service rather than having to change. Faced with a change of trains at Piccadilly I suspect many air passengers would drive or get a taxi the whole way rather than taking the train.
 

tirphil

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2011
Messages
275
Location
Wales
Two things worth mentioning here:

Firstly the inclines on the S&C are not particularly steep, hence the name “The Long Drag”. To my knowledge ‘bankers’ have never been used on the line and double headed trains were only run during the Midland Railway’s tenure due to their small engine policy.

Secondly, I would be pretty annoyed if when waiting for my train I saw a class 66 hove into view. Such things might be suitable for a basher’s grand day out but nothing else other than what they were designed for.

Let’s get back to reality and hope that the ROSCO’s / DfT can be encouraged to start ordering some more DMU’s.

Indeed, the gradients a long and steady but not especially fearsome. If I recall correctly, EWS ran a trial train of 28 loaded HTA's hauled by one class 66 some years ago. Just shy of 2900 tonnes trailing. The 66 coped no problem keeping to time for a 21 set. Seem to remember it was braking distances between distant and home boards that floored the plan.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,098
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Ohhh, so this is why whenever I went into work on the services from Doncaster to MIA I was one of about 20 passengers who didn't all pile off at Piccadilly or Stockport...?
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
Don't underestimate the demand for a direct Manchester Airport service from places like Sheffield. Airport routes, and in particular routes where the airport is the terminus, are one place where it makes a huge difference having a direct service rather than having to change. Faced with a change of trains at Piccadilly I suspect many air passengers would drive or get a taxi the whole way rather than taking the train.

There's demand, but is there really demand for over twenty coaches an hour between Manchester Airport and Manchester Picadilly? (compared to the number of coaches an hour between Manchester and Leeds/ Sheffield etc)
 

jamie_

Member
Joined
4 Oct 2006
Messages
36
No-one mentioned the Elephant in the room aka the cost of running a Loco-hauled train against a DMU, track access charges are more if you bash a 67 or similar compared to a 2 car 150/158.....
 

ChrisCooper

Established Member
Joined
7 Sep 2005
Messages
1,787
Location
Loughborough
I imagine that most people would catch a TPX to Manchester Airport once, and then especially if they were in a group would drive or get a Taxi in future anyway. The services are often overcrowded, have inadequate luggage space, and are quite slow (you could drive it from Sheffield in the same time, and that's before taking into account the need to get to Sheffield station in the first place). Airport users also have the disadvantage that cheap fares are not really feasable due to having to take into account possible delays to return flights.
 

button_boxer

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
1,270
you could drive it from Sheffield in the same time

True. If you live close enough to Sheffield station the quickest route overall is probably train to Stockport and taxi from there. The killer for the train is having to go all the way into the centre of Manchester and out again.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,836
Indeed, the gradients a long and steady but not especially fearsome. If I recall correctly, EWS ran a trial train of 28 loaded HTA's hauled by one class 66 some years ago. Just shy of 2900 tonnes trailing. The 66 coped no problem keeping to time for a 21 set. Seem to remember it was braking distances between distant and home boards that floored the plan.

That I find very hard to believe, the data I have to hand suggests it would take considerably more time to cover the S&C with 800 tonnes more on the back.
 
Joined
13 Apr 2011
Messages
623
Location
Helsby
Used to love loco hauled trains in the 70's and 80's. I used to travel to Manchester and North Wales a lot and many of the services were hauled by Class 40 and 47 with MK1 and Mk2 coaches. Even the odd Class 25 showed its face. The trains were long, quiet and comfortable.
To get to Liverpool meant an old DMU to Rock Ferry then an electric to Lime Street. Noisy but still comfortable.
Modern DMU/EMU are mostly clean and seem very safe and reliable but noisy and uncomfortable. It's a shame that there aren't many more loco hauled services but in reality, modern DMU/EMU are more efficient and cost effective so DMU/EMU/DEMU it will be.
 

tirphil

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2011
Messages
275
Location
Wales
That I find very hard to believe, the data I have to hand suggests it would take considerably more time to cover the S&C with 800 tonnes more on the back.

Why? I have no doubt it was possible. I frequently used to haul 2000 tonnes over the S&C without ever using notch 8 on a 66. Due to the RT3973HAW restrictions for bridges 177, 176, 66, 53 and 47 you could hardly go flat out anyway. (They were all 30mph bridges apart from 66 Ribblehead Viaduct which was 20mph) Also there was a long slack just south of Kirkby Thore which impeded any speedy progress. Are those restrictions still in place?
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,568
No-one mentioned the Elephant in the room aka the cost of running a Loco-hauled train against a DMU, track access charges are more if you bash a 67 or similar compared to a 2 car 150/158.....

Running a loco and two coaches would be silly, very inefficient I expect (forget track access charges, I'm talking fuel here). However, if you have an overcrowed 2-car route that warrants 4 or 5 coach trains, then it makes sence to replace some of the 2-car units with LHCS rakes. Then the 2-car units replaced can add to capacity on other trains. I would guess a 4-car DMU would probablly be getting close to equal fuel costs as a 57 or 67 and 5 coaches.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
8,677
Running a loco and two coaches would be silly, very inefficient I expect (forget track access charges, I'm talking fuel here). However, if you have an overcrowed 2-car route that warrants 4 or 5 coach trains, then it makes sence to replace some of the 2-car units with LHCS rakes. Then the 2-car units replaced can add to capacity on other trains. I would guess a 4-car DMU would probablly be getting close to equal fuel costs as a 57 or 67 and 5 coaches.

you would think/hope so, but would be very interested if anyone has any figures on it?
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
8,677
Last edited:

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,098
Location
Somewhere, not in London
That should be reflective of the charges for all of CP4, at what point does LHCS become cheaper than MUs in terms of TACs?

Also, how about somthing like T+T 20s or 37s?
 

Rhydgaled

Established Member
Joined
25 Nov 2010
Messages
4,568
Oh i shall.... :/
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
ive got a 67 + 5 coaches to be 73pence per mile and a 4 car 158 about 25p per mile so id say a loco and 5 carriges is far more expensive in terms of track charges

that is 09/10 prices though.... but still it represents locos are more expensive in terms of track access charges.

As I said, I was talking in terms of fuel use, and guessing fairly blindly. I wasn't intending to sound like I was claiming the track access charges were comparable to MUs, but I do expect fuel use to be similar when comparing 4 or 5-car trains. That said, if I've added the right figures up, a Pendolino is more expensive on track-access than an Intercity 225.
 

YorkshireBear

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
8,677
As I said, I was talking in terms of fuel use, and guessing fairly blindly. I wasn't intending to sound like I was claiming the track access charges were comparable to MUs, but I do expect fuel use to be similar when comparing 4 or 5-car trains. That said, if I've added the right figures up, a Pendolino is more expensive on track-access than an Intercity 225.

i thought as much but cant find figures on fuel right now so thats all i had to go by :(
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
That should be reflective of the charges for all of CP4, at what point does LHCS become cheaper than MUs in terms of TACs?

Also, how about somthing like T+T 20s or 37s?

it doesnt, the figure i gave was for one 67 plus 5 coaches. The pence per mile figure for a coach is given as 5.87 the figure for a 158 (example) is 6.00 therefore for example with T+T 37s you would need (at 32.82 each) 505 coaches :) to make up the difference. So i think the only savings you shall get for loco hauled is through fuel. Which i can't be bothered doing now as i have a lecture at 12 and i need some food.
 
Last edited:

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
Running a loco and two coaches would be silly, very inefficient I expect (forget track access charges, I'm talking fuel here). However, if you have an overcrowed 2-car route that warrants 4 or 5 coach trains, then it makes sence to replace some of the 2-car units with LHCS rakes. Then the 2-car units replaced can add to capacity on other trains. I would guess a 4-car DMU would probablly be getting close to equal fuel costs as a 57 or 67 and 5 coaches.

Agreed - this is why my suggestion was to have four/five coach loco hauled services on Cardiff - Manchester (which usually gets three coach 175s and could sustain something longer), whilst the three coach 175s are cascaded onto other routes (maybe meaning 158s replacing 150s and 150s replacing 153s and 153s doubling up...) so that various routes get some capacity increase.

That should be reflective of the charges for all of CP4, at what point does LHCS become cheaper than MUs in terms of TACs?

Thats an interesting question, and one which I guess has implications for future trains - if we say that the cut off is "six and a half coaches" then you'd want anything of up to six coaches being DMU and anything at least seven coaches to be loco-hauled.

Obviously its a bit more complicated than just track access - there's the leasing costs, the fuel, the staffing etc, but there must be a "watershed" at which its less/more efficient to use a DMU/ loco hauled.

(I'm talking new trains in the future here - the idea of running loco hauled services of four/five coaches above is more in relation to current day restrictions)
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,098
Location
Somewhere, not in London
It also depends on leasing costs, if for example a shed tonne of Mk3 stock goes spare it will be cheaper to lease than anything new (or would be if there wasn't a mass shortage of stock) so even with LHCS costing possibly more to run, it would be cheaper to lease.

Theres also the idea of a London Midland Scottish style diesel locomive designed for shorter passenger rakes, but then again... that would need to have lower TAC costs to be cost effective, and with everyone favouring multiple units, even with the benifits of loco haulage for maintenance schedules etc. I don't think we'll ever see a return to LHCS outside of really looonnnggg rakes.
 

Moog_1984

Member
Joined
5 Mar 2010
Messages
171
Used to love loco hauled trains in the The trains were long, quiet and comfortable.
To get to Liverpool meant an old DMU to Rock Ferry then an electric to Lime Street. Noisy but still comfortable.
hauled services but in reality, modern DMU/EMU are more efficient and cost effective so DMU/EMU/DEMU it will be.

DMUs must have reduced seating on many of these formerly load 5 to 8 digrams: I think DMUs probably are cheaper based on minimum capacity and lower track access of course for such small trains.

So trains run at less of a loss off peak and then are wedged hell with nice profits at peak

The other issue is that dmus are a lot cheaper to buy than new stock plus new locos for the reduced capacity. Given rail companies ( TOCs) are a dubious investment and have had relatively short operating licences this is all inevitable.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
As it appears that the remaining fleet of Mark 3s has been cannabalised for parts further coaching stock would have to be built new.

How much do these things cost these days? I don't think there has been significant hauled stock production in the UK since the end of the nightstar run.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top