Loco-hauled services - future?

[Class172]

Top choices for going loco-hauled:

Settle & Carlisle (6 coaches)
Manchester - Wales services currently operated by 175s. (5/6 coaches)
Cardiff - Nottingham (5 coaches)
Exeter - Cardiff Central (5/6 coaches)
Portsmouth - Bristol etc (5 coaches)
Far North Line (6/7 coaches)

Just exactly how many mk2/3s are there laying around of each coach type?

 

[jopsuk]

define "laying around"- in storage, or do you count those in possesion of charter companies?

 

[Class172]

define "laying around"- in storage, or do you count those in possesion of charter companies?

Anything that isn't used by TOCs, though it would help to know many charter companies have.

 

[Moog_1984]

Top choices for going loco-hauled:

Settle & Carlisle (6 coaches)
Manchester - Wales services currently operated by 175s. (5/6 coaches)
Cardiff - Nottingham (5 coaches)
Exeter - Cardiff Central (5/6 coaches)
Portsmouth - Bristol etc (5 coaches)
Far North Line (6/7 coaches)

Just exactly how many mk2/3s are there laying around of each coach type?

Glasg/ Edin - Inverness, Aberdeen peak expresses, Glasgow - ft william express, Edin-Oban limited stop SSO....

Norwich -Chester

Hull-Lincolln - London and Birmingham

Switch to sparky or drag of pendos: Newcaslte-Liverpool;birmingham; bristol etc


Various madness: it may well come full circle if some more, faster XC routes go back into public sector if they have a capacity and express route-passenger-service-requirment.

Units @load 6 and more must be very wasteful just sitting on idle with all those glorified bus engines running away.

 

[d5509]

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.

Ah yes but only 48p per mile more, which is £48 per 100 miles: I just got a quote of £44.70 for a hundred mile journey: so the TAC difference is about the cost of one passenger.
You can argue that if the loco hauled train attracts more passengers that's the TAC problem sorted and you can add another coach at £6.53 per 100 miles.

However, as others have said TAC charges are only part of the picture.

 

[HSTEd]

I would suppose it would be impossible to build new LHCS out of Turbostar bodies with the unpowered lightweight bogies from the Voyager?

 

[ainsworth74]

I would suppose it would be impossible to build new LHCS out of Turbostar bodies with the unpowered lightweight bogies from the Voyager?

Nothings impossible and I see no reason why you couldn't build a Turbostar body without power all you would need to do would be ensure that the ETS and couplings (either inter-vehicle or have TSOEs like Mk4s) are compatible with current locomotives. However this would all cost money for something that no one seems to want to order any more.

 

[Moog_1984]

Nothings impossible and I see no reason why you couldn't build a Turbostar body without power all you would need to do would be ensure that the ETS and couplings (either inter-vehicle or have TSOEs like Mk4s) are compatible with current locomotives. However this would all cost money for something that no one seems to want to order any more.

But if the glorified bus engines are past economic HGR you could build reasonable sized sets for longer distance semi fasts with big capacity and super-commuters.

So when these reach either expensive refurb or "scrap value otherwise" it could be a runner, and it is alleged that virgin were so disappointed with the 220s reliability after 2 years they considered putting pairs of 31s in the middle of remade sets.

You could do it with any DMU set and even leave in a good refrubed dmu engine to provide independent ETH.

This has been done incidentally in Canada, so p** off with the reliability of units due to the underslung engines: look up "former multiple unit loco hauled " on youtube.

 

[tbtc]

it is alleged that virgin were so disappointed with the 220s reliability after 2 years they considered putting pairs of 31s in the middle of remade sets

Never heard that one before

 

[MCR247]

and it is alleged that virgin were so disappointed with the 220s reliability after 2 years they considered putting pairs of 31s in the middle of remade sets.

LOOL

I'm sorry, but I'm actually sat at my computer pmsl!

Was this before or after the 220s were having problems because they kept getting damaged after hitting those flying pigs?! Always getting in the way they were....


I can't believe you could even put that in to a post keeping a straight face..

 

[Moog_1984]

So the overheating with the rheostatic system never lead to any fires, neither did the exhaust faults and the power units had a trouble free first two years then?


I see, the big book of trains was your technical reference on this?

The mention of using 31s was a comment made at high level, as a temporary solution to the wide problems which showed themselves publicly with the fires, failures and cancelled trains.

 

[d5509]

A GM loco hauling de-engined DMU stock, hmmm, shades of Dublin local services around 1980 here: a precedent that seemed to work well.

We were lucky times were good and money was found to buy all that new stock that we can now moan about. When mid-life refurbishment time comes we might not be so affluent.

 

[ACE1888]

In Deepest Cornwall, we wouldn't mind a 'modern day version' of a Class 50 with 3 or 4 Mk1's on services to Plymouth and back... cost effective though...probably not
Seriously though, how TOC's haven't utilised the remaining Mk2/3's around with Loco's, in the most needed area's, is certainly one of the modern day railways biggest disappointments, personally speaking.:roll:

 

[sprinterguy]

Just exactly how many mk2/3s are there laying around of each coach type?

That's quite a difficult one to count. In general, there would seem to be a lot more brake/van vehicles available than fully seated carriages, to the tune of:

7 Mark 2 DBSOs
34 Mark 2 air-con BSOs (Some used by Riviera and ATW)
24 Mark 3 DVTs
8 HST Mark 3 restaurant vehicles
14 Mark 3 RFMs
19 Mark 3 FOs
27 Mark 3 TSOs

And quite a lot of air-con mark 2 TSOs; sorry, it's just too difficult to count up the "spare" vehicles accurately, so don't take these numbers as gospel. And that's without even taking into account the difficulties that would be brough about through having various different owners of these vehicles, or taking into consideration how many of them are still railworthy.

 

[60163]

RE this thread:

like all great ideas, it won't happen.

(But I want to be proved wrong)

 

[Chris125]

The mention of using 31s was a comment made at high level, as a temporary solution to the wide problems which showed themselves publicly with the fires, failures and cancelled trains.

Who ever told you that has a cracking sense of humour!

 

[Hydro]

So the overheating with the rheostatic system never lead to any fires, neither did the exhaust faults and the power units had a trouble free first two years then?


I see, the big book of trains was your technical reference on this?

The mention of using 31s was a comment made at high level, as a temporary solution to the wide problems which showed themselves publicly with the fires, failures and cancelled trains.

If true, it'd be someone at a high level with absolutely no idea whatsoever of what they were talking about.