Perfect Multiple Unit

[Kneedown]

What is this obsession with gangways! As a Driver we are never asked the perfect train. Not has the Driver lost a decent cab size as well as it being a Loco.He/She is reduced to a cupboard.... Multiple Units should be kept on Surburban routes. Its shocking they are allowed from London to Crewe. Fair enough perhaps the 100 mile mark is MU territory as Kings Lynn - KX is similar distance..
Can i add that Gangways reduce the Drivers view considerably. I have heard especially with recent stock such as the 172.. If Units have guards they dont need gangways..

I might not agree with you on electrification but i'm right with you on the gangways.
Anachronistic things that really serve no purpose, block your view, increase fuel consumption, ruin the looks of any train and leave the floor swimming with water.
The times i've seen an empty 158 coupled to a full and standing one. If folks can't move along the platform to an empty coach what makes us think that they'll move between units?
We should be asking for trains of sufficient length in the first place, or, where units must be coupled, and in this day and age there should be no need for more than two units to be coupled together, a Guard in one and ATE in the other.

 

[Rhydgaled]

An issue that's been highlighted in the Chiltern 172 thread is that gangwayed MUs are harder to see out of - and there are issues with facilities like buffet cars having to be duplicated.

Well surely the answer is a MU that can be extended/shortened 'on the fly' in depots in a matter of minutes e.g. unit pulls into depot, uncouples its DMS, moves forward into a loop, shunter couples a centre car to the rake, DMS re-couples and drives back out again. The advantage here is units can be extended or lengthened to coincide with peak times/events, so two carriage units aren't packed to the rafters and longer trains aren't carrying around fresh air outside of the peak.

Big advantage though - no gangways.

What you are talking about there sounds like it might as well be a push-pull LHCS solution. Ok so a loco takes up a bit of platform space, but without traction motor control wireing and such it should be easier to quickly uncouple a loco, bung some extra coaches in and put the loco back on than to do the same sort of thing with an MU, unless the intermediate vehicles are all trailers and you have one hell of a powerful traction motor under the DMS.

A unit would have to return to a depot for reforming in the manner you describe which adds additional ECS moves to the schedule and reduces the number of services it could be running in the meantime. Gangwayed units allow trains to be easily reformed in a platform without having to run somewhere with pilot locomotives and run round facilities.

Agreed, as I said if you are taking a unit back to the depot to shift it around you might as well use LHCS. A gangwayed multiple unit however is much more flexible, for example in running a through service from one destonation to two others (eg. Birmingham to Aberystwyth/Pwllheli) or dropping off surplus capacity away from the busier sections of a long route (eg. it would be useful to have more coaches than at present from Carmarthen/Llanelli/Swansea to Manchester but I expect you wouldn't want to send a 4/5-car train all the way through to Milford Haven, at least off-peak).

I might not agree with you on electrification but i'm right with you on the gangways.
Anachronistic things that really serve no purpose, block your view, increase fuel consumption, ruin the looks of any train and leave the floor swimming with water.
The times i've seen an empty 158 coupled to a full and standing one. If folks can't move along the platform to an empty coach what makes us think that they'll move between units?
We should be asking for trains of sufficient length in the first place, or, where units must be coupled, and in this day and age there should be no need for more than two units to be coupled together, a Guard in one and ATE in the other.

I don't agree at all. 150/2s look better than 150/1s, LM 172s look better than Chiltern's and 158s look better than 175s (175s are about the most boring trains out there I think) in my opinion. Of course passengers will normally jump on ASAP rather than walk along the platform, the train might pull off while they are walking along. However, once on board (esspecially if they are made realise there are free seats futher along) they should be given the ability to reach quieter parts of the train. I agree it would be good to have trains of sufficent length anyway in some cases, but the examples I gave earlier of splitting the train to go to multiple destonations or prevent exccess capacity on quiet sections of long routes support the need for gangwayed units.

You need a good local unit, a good InterRegional unit and a good InterCity unit (or stock).

Agreed, in fact I think you need 6 types of stock:

1. Intercity (electric, probably a push-pull set)
2. Intercity (tilting), basicly as above
3. Inner Suburban (electric, class 150 style doors)
4. Outer Suburban, (mostly electric, 377/LM 172 style units)
5. Regional Express (158 for diesel and 5WES/444 without a buffet car for electric, however the same stock plus buffet is ideal for the semi-Intercity fast services from the likes of Southampton, Portsmouth and Brighton to London)
6. Local branch lines - 150/156 depending on length of journey and frequency of stops

So, for the regional express units:

EMU Varient:

• 5-car (DMS - MS - MS - RSMB - DMF) (RSMB is a mini-buffet with standard class seating)
• 2+2 seating in second class
• 2+1 seating in first class
• 158-style door layout (possibly slightly wider, and faster operating (but same appearance) doors)
• Gangwayed end cabs at both ends (similar appearance to 158 or 5-WES)
• Option for "mini-buffet"
• 100mph capable
• Be capable of dual voltage operation (750V and 25kV)
• WiFi equipment installed throughout
• Decent legroom for almost 7ft tall passengers everywhere
• All seats lined up to give a clear view out of the windows, two to six tables per coach (more in first class perhaps)

DEMU Varient (capable of addition of pantograph car to make EMU/bi-mode):

• 3/4-car 158 (disabled toliet in one driving car, normal toliet in the other, no toliet in the intermediate car(s)
• 2+2 seating (second class only)
• 158-style door layout (possibly slightly wider, and faster operating (but same appearance) doors)
• Gangwayed end cabs at both ends (similar appearance to 158 or 5-WES)
• Option for "mini-buffet"
• 90mph capable
• Be capable of dual voltage operation (750V and 25kV)
• WiFi equipment installed throughout
• All seats lined up to give a clear view out of the windows, two to six tables per coach

 

[northwichcat]

If folks can't move along the platform to an empty coach what makes us think that they'll move between units?

To the average passenger there is no difference between a pair of 158s linked by corridor connections and a 4 carriage train, unless part of the train is removed or attached part way along the journey like EMT do on Liverpool-Norwich.

There are many reasons for passengers not being evenly distributed on a train including:
1. The train leaves a station with it's maximum number standing but the carriages don't empty out evenly and people already on the train have no idea that carriage A now has some space when they are in carriage C. This is common on TPE heading north from Bolton.
2. Two different looking trains are joined together e.g. a 142+150. Sometimes the rear unit is only opened at the guard's discretion so passengers make for the front unit unless told otherwise. Extremely common with Northern.

 

[Schnellzug]

Yeah, more room for people

Disadvantage if it's a long journey and the only toilet is out-of-order though.

yes, more people tends to equal more- well, you get the picture.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There are many reasons for passengers not being evenly distributed on a train including:

2. Two different looking trains are joined together e.g. a 142+150. Sometimes the rear unit is only opened at the guard's discretion so passengers make for the front unit unless told otherwise. Extremely common with Northern.

Or people with discernment know which one to choose.
I'll leave it for people to decide which of those that is.

 

[Kneedown]

I don't agree at all. 150/2s look better than 150/1s, LM 172s look better than Chiltern's and 158s look better than 175s (175s are about the most boring trains out there I think) in my opinion. Of course passengers will normally jump on ASAP rather than walk along the platform, the train might pull off while they are walking along. However, once on board (esspecially if they are made realise there are free seats futher along) they should be given the ability to reach quieter parts of the train. I agree it would be good to have trains of sufficent length anyway in some cases, but the examples I gave earlier of splitting the train to go to multiple destonations or prevent exccess capacity on quiet sections of long routes support the need for gangwayed units.

Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. My preference, and indeed i think most peoples, on the subject of aesthetics, is for a nice, smooth streamlined front.

 

[150001]

150/1 and 001/002 look better than 150/2 and lm 172s look better than 377s!

 

[Rhydgaled]

Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. My preference, and indeed i think most peoples, on the subject of aesthetics, is for a nice, smooth streamlined front.

I do find a streamlined front (ie. sloping for 125mph+ running, like a class 43, 91 or 22x) more aestheticly pleasing than a corridor-ended unit. However, when the end of a unit (not really the case with most locos) is fairly blunt-ended/slab-fronted (like a 170 or 150) I prefer them with a corridor connection.