Locomotives no more - why?

[coltrane68]

I am interested to know the reasons why there is such a widespread move away from locomotive hauled passenger services across most of European railways, but especially in the UK. I had always felt that the locomotive hauled service was so much more flexible (can always stick extra coaches on at busy / peak times) compared to fixed size multiple units. I can see that locomotives may be costly to maintain - but surely, with driving units / motors distributed across all carriages in a multiple unit, they can't be much easier / cheaper to maintain?

Would love to hear thoughts on this query.

Regards
Richard

 

[RyanB]

I am interested to know the reasons why there is such a widespread move away from locomotive hauled passenger services across most of European railways, but especially in the UK. I had always felt that the locomotive hauled service was so much more flexible (can always stick extra coaches on at busy / peak times) compared to fixed size multiple units. I can see that locomotives may be costly to maintain - but surely, with driving units / motors distributed across all carriages in a multiple unit, they can't be much easier / cheaper to maintain?

Would love to hear thoughts on this query.

Regards
Richard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_Unit#Comparison_to_locomotive-hauled_trains - this article will probably be of help to you

 

[Metroland]

Arguably some services are better suited to MU operation (especially London and SE services where quick turnarounds are required) and some loco hauled, such as Cross Country. The latter is now one of the most highly subsidised franchises, yet it's trains are rammed.

There are good arguments here that 'hand-me-down' stock should have been used (possible with electrification in the longer term) and train formations varied on routes that have very variable loadings, depending on time of year etc. Certainly cutting the size of the trains and making the service more frequent, as well as using relatively inefficient multiple units has not produced cost efficiencies.

Finally a lot of the lack of flexibility with loco-hauled trains can be got around with push-pull trains.

 

[ACE1888]

Good article that, well balanced. The biggest 'downside' for me remains the 'fixed formation' though whether you've 1 or 1000 passengers..Oops sorry, customers! Surely by now T.O.C's should have got the 'balance' sorted, ie Voyagers the PRIME example????? Grrrrrrr

 

[90019]

Surely by now T.O.C's should have got the 'balance' sorted, ie Voyagers the PRIME example????? Grrrrrrr

What exactly do you expect them to do? Magic some new trains out of nowhere?
It's the DfT that are the problem anyway, not the TOCs.

 

[MacCookie]

Good article that, well balanced. The biggest 'downside' for me remains the 'fixed formation' though whether you've 1 or 1000 passengers..Oops sorry, customers! Surely by now T.O.C's should have got the 'balance' sorted, ie Voyagers the PRIME example????? Grrrrrrr

Multiple units are actually more flexible in many cases. How many loco hauled trains run as three coaches off-peak and then get formed into six coaches during the peaks? And the spare three coaches don't need another locomotive to move them to a depot or allow them to work another service!

A lot of the arguments about loco-hauled being more flexible seem to be on the basis that if there's an unexpected surge in demand, there will be dozens of coaches lying around that can be utilised. The reality is that if loco-hauled trains were used, all the coaches would be utilised day in-day out and there wouldn't actually be any sitting around idle. Just as happens with multiple units.

Ewan

 

[gordonthemoron]

DB is moving far more quickly toward MUs than the UK, probably because they buy more trains. IC loco hauled stock is being replaced by MUs, I guess that ECs will remain loco hauled, ICE1s will be replaced by MUs (granted they aren't proper loco hauled at the mo). Double deck regional electric services are being replaced by single deck (rubbish) EMUs.

 

[Smudger105e]

Surely by putting a loco on one end of a formation and a DVT on the other, you then have a multiple unit?

If you wanted to have felxible formations, you could build new coaches, and put them ion the existing formations as required, but that would mean having spare coaches laying round to do this, which as has been said in this thread, would not happen with loco hauled coaches...

 

[GB]

Having a loco at one end and DVT at the other equals alot of dead space that can't be used for passengers.

 

[jopsuk]

In some parts of the country, especially the south east, peak service are now very much limited by platform length, including at terminals. A loco would take up the space of a passenger carrying carriage. Even with three units coupled, the space given over to cabs is less than the length of a carriage.

Plus, especially in electrified areas, MUs offer far superior acceleration, that doesn't get worse as the train length increases as when you add more carriages you add more motors.

 

[LexyBoy]

A loco would take up the space of a passenger carrying carriage.

Why though? Surely the loco doesn't have to be platformed?

Also - it's certainly true that for commuter trains, several MUs have less wasted space than adding a loco, that doesn't work so well for IC stock - a double Voyager easily has a carriage worth of wasted cab space. (In this case the solution should be to have trains long enough that they don't need to work in multiple, and fill the quieter trains using cheaper tickets).

Generally agree with the other points though - MUs are more flexible as they can be combined or split much more easily that loco+carriages, so peaks can be 8 carriages and off-peak services 4, for example. Plus for commuter services the superior acceleration is valuable (though a bit overblown I think, plenty of countries have push/pull commuter stock which usually seems pretty quick off the mark - electric of course though).

 

[jopsuk]

At some of the London (and other) terminuses a loco not at the platform would be beyond the signal and foul of the points. Yes, at intermediate stations it would be fine (as long as there was no signal at the end of the platform) but that's beside the point.

 

[route:oxford]

Having a loco at one end and DVT at the other equals alot of dead space that can't be used for passengers.

Having a loco at each end, working together, cuts the need for "crumple zone" dead space within the passenger stock. Adds redundancy too.

 

[Yew]

With regards to space lost in loco and dvt combination, cant modern dvt's hold passengers ? Whereas on a meridian half of the end coaches is off limits to pax, a loco hauled train could have a loco (possibly smaller than a standard carriage) and just the cab of a dvt.


Also there would be reduced maintenance costs of having one engine to check and service instead of 10


Then there is more space for equipment under the floors of carriages, instead of bolted onto the roof where it is subject to the elements or taking up passenger space in the carriage

Would the reduced carriage weight equal out the increased wear due to having all the power comin from the loco?


Locomotives are quieter for people
Living on the routes (the meridian past my window is louder than the hst that goes past), meaning less infrastructure to reduce noise on new routes is needed, and less noise and no harmonic vibrations in the passanger compartment

 

[starrymarkb]

One example of units being more flexible then locomotives is the West of England route, where the 158-159 fleet means train lengths can vary between 2 and 10 coaches and capacity can be added, dropped or portion worked as required. The multiple engines also mean the service is reliable aswell, something it wasn't in the days of the "50/50"s

 

[Bon Accord]

If you wanted to have felxible formations, you could build new coaches, and put them ion the existing formations as required, but that would mean having spare coaches laying round to do this, which as has been said in this thread, would not happen with loco hauled coaches...

Back in the dark ages, instead of scrapping or being left to waste away with no maintenance, redundant stock was kept in sidings in working order by the hundred, ready to strengthen services as and when required but particularly in high summer. Busy services were often immediately succeeded by a 'relief' using these coaches to avoid excess congestion.
Still it's a good thing we now live in far more enlightened times.

 

[jopsuk]

can't go back there- that required large carriage sidings and loco depots near city centres; that land has gone now.
Also, with a DVT (or other cab car) at one end and a loco at the other, you don't have the flexibility to easily add more carriages and the space for loco release roads has in most cases been reclaimed to either allow wider or more platforms.

 

[LexyBoy]

Also there would be reduced maintenance costs of having one engine to check and service instead of 10

The flipside being that if that one engine fails...

(Says me as a DMU-disliker! An EMU of course usually only has one pickup/transformer, and most of the parts need less servicing than a DMU).

 

[TDK]

Having a loco at each end, working together, cuts the need for "crumple zone" dead space within the passenger stock. Adds redundancy too.

Track access charges may be a factor

 

[route:oxford]

How short could a 100mph or 125mph capable locomotive be?

An HST is shorter than a Mk3 coach, but other locos are shorter still. The 20s are about 14 metres and other 2Xs series were around 15 metres.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Back in the dark ages, instead of scrapping or being left to waste away with no maintenance, redundant stock was kept in sidings in working order by the hundred, ready to strengthen services as and when required but particularly in high summer. Busy services were often immediately succeeded by a 'relief' using these coaches to avoid excess congestion.
Still it's a good thing we now live in far more enlightened times.

Back in the dark ages, that kind of practice cost an absolute fortune and was certainly not economically viable. Not only that but a "relief service" normally constituted nothing more than a rake of grotty mk1's hauled by a museum piece. Even now the very thought of it makes me shudder.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

How short could a 100mph or 125mph capable locomotive be?

An HST is shorter than a Mk3 coach, but other locos are shorter still. The 20s are about 14 metres and other 2Xs series were around 15 metres.

Now i would need to check this but i'm not sure a class 20 is capable of 100 mph.

 

[90019]

Now i would need to check this but i'm not sure a class 20 is capable of 100 mph.

75mph maximum, IIRC.

 

[NSEFAN]

Now i would need to check this but i'm not sure a class 20 is capable of 100 mph.

Or even 125!

I've heard suggestions before about reworking freight locos like 56s, 58s and 60s to be passengers locos. On the face of it, this might sound like a good idea, but it is definetely not worth it. 'Tis cheaper to scrap them and use the scrap value to buy newer trains better suited to what you need. Of course, make sure one or two are preserved somewhere first!

 

[Yew]

Back in the dark ages, that kind of practice cost an absolute fortune and was certainly not economically viable. Not only that but a "relief service" normally constituted nothing more than a rake of grotty mk1's hauled by a museum piece. Even now the very thought of it makes me shudder.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Now i would need to check this but i'm not sure a class 20 is capable of 100 mph.

HST's are 17.79m Long, and they have the crew compartment or whatever it is in the back is probably 2m long, so taking that out, we get to 15.8m long

And then we have modern technologies, more powerful engines, more efficient turbochargers, smaller digital control circuits, I would say a 14m 125mph Locomotive would be possible

A Pendolino is 297m long

297-14 = 283
283/23 = 12.3 carriages.

If we round this to 12 carriages, with the nosecone of w/e of the DVT taking up a chunk of the 0.3 we have

• Locomotive
• 11 carriages
• DVT with seats to full capacity or just under

Unfoprtunately I cant find how many sears are in a Mk3 or a HST but a Pendolino has 145 first class and 294 standard. a 153 has 72 seats per carriage. If we include the cabs that could be removed, and took out... 12 seats to make the standard class accomodation more comfortable for distance. we have 60 seats per car. to match the pendolino for standard class we would need 5 standard class cars (60 x 5 = 300) Then if we said 36 seats per first class car we would need just over 4 First class Cars.)

Hence to match the capacity of a pendolino, we need

• 14m Locomotive
• 5x 23m standard class Cars
• 1x 23m Buffet car (to make the extra first class seats, and to have a buffet)
• 3x 23m first class cars
• 1 25m First class DVT

Total Length = 246m

This would allow Us to put two extra coaches for the same length of a pendolino, or 4 Extra coaches (a potential of 240 seats in standard) for the length of the new extended pendolinos

 

[Bon Accord]

Back in the dark ages, that kind of practice cost an absolute fortune and was certainly not economically viable. Not only that but a "relief service" normally constituted nothing more than a rake of grotty mk1's hauled by a museum piece. Even now the very thought of it makes me shudder.
.

Compared to the railway as a whole (which was HUGE, remember) costs were small fry, and it only really died out in the 80s with sectorisation - the 'new' industry weren't interested in assets that were only marginally profitable, despite the positives it brought (much like the present day attitude to on train catering).
The question is what would the travelling public prefer, actually getting somewhere on a train of tired Mk 1's (or I suppose Mk 2/3 today), or a couple of hundred people crammed into single two car 158 or the like on a Summer Saturday, with many others turned away?
Perhaps I'm showing my age here, but many relief services I can recall didn't consist of Mark 1's (positively modern)...

 

[Strat-tastic]

Not only that but a "relief service" normally constituted nothing more than a rake of grotty mk1's hauled by a museum piece.

Sounds like a basher's dream

 

[tbtc]

Compared to the railway as a whole (which was HUGE, remember) costs were small fry, and it only really died out in the 80s with sectorisation - the 'new' industry weren't interested in assets that were only marginally profitable, despite the positives it brought (much like the present day attitude to on train catering).
The question is what would the travelling public prefer, actually getting somewhere on a train of tired Mk 1's (or I suppose Mk 2/3 today), or a couple of hundred people crammed into single two car 158 or the like on a Summer Saturday, with many others turned away?
Perhaps I'm showing my age here, but many relief services I can recall didn't consist of Mark 1's (positively modern)...

The big difference nowadays is that the "redundant" stock (which BR could keep in sidings and use on a handful of summer Saturdays) is still being used every day due to increased passenger demand.

The reason there's no spare coaches/ units (apart from a handful of Mk3 Buffet cars, the unallocated 460s and a handful of spare Mk2s in sidings) is because almost everything that should have been life expired since privatisation is still needed to meet this increasing volume.

I like the idea of having all this spare capacity, but really we don't have the luxury of keeping hundreds of coaches around the country for maybe a dozen weekend "relief" trains a year.

 

[jopsuk]

Also, at peak times on many lines there isn't track capacity for any relief trains.

 

[GB]

Having a loco at each end, working together, cuts the need for "crumple zone" dead space within the passenger stock. Adds redundancy too.

Crumple zones do not need to be the length of a whole loco or DVT. Which ever way you look at it a loco and DVT use up passenger space that MUs can use quite nicely. Not sure what you mean by adding redundancy?

 

[tbtc]

Also, at peak times on many lines there isn't track capacity for any relief trains.

True - some TOCs struggle to find enough staff to commit to work Saturdays/ Sundays as it is - imagine trying to find additional ones to work ad-hoc "relief" services?

There are no spare platforms, there are no spare paths, there is no spare stock... last time we had this many passengers using trains (in peacetime) we had over double the number of lines... its amazing that the railway performs as well as it does in such cramped conditions!