Services which could realistically return to Loco Haulage

[Chris125]

Hard to see much need for more loco-hauled sets with all the cascaded HSTs likely going cheap in the coming years.

Chris

 

[AM9]

I'm just imaging the numbers of passengers that would turn up in 2020 if it the S&C line was run with HST's in the old IC colours and branding!

Based on comments from on here I wonder if it would be enough to mean that Northern were no longer reliant on subsidies?

Strange as it may seem the majority of passengers use trains as a means of transport rather than a spotting experience. I'm sure that most posters on this forum would like a bit of variety in stock and running, but unless we're talking about preserved lines, trains are run to get people from A to B as reliably as can be afforded within the rules which are to maximise operating profit.
The DfT seems to push for low costs rather than adequate seating capacity, so the niceties of yesterday's costly operating practices would be completely below their horizon. The recent spending spree will produce cascades that will satisfy those objectives, also leaving much longer-term benefits from running EMUs rather than anything diesel which not only has a more limited mechanical life but will be increasingly driven out by better and better environmental legislation, as is the case for cars. When the newest DMUs in use now reach the end of their life, the services that they are used on will be subject to review for more electrification (maybe BEMU) of even closure as viable alternatives to procuring new DMUs that will be much more expensive to run by then.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would like to see the 442 units be used as loco hauled coaching stock when they retire from GatEx services. Being built in 1988 you'd hope they have another decade of life in them.

I doubt it, all stock is just that, if it has no operational value. Once it has been written off by the bean counters, its age is irrelevant in a profit-run railway. In operating terms, they are dinosaurs, mainly becuse they only have a defunct DC traction system. They may have had a reasonable use after SWT ditched them if they had been ac/DC, e.g. Norwich.

 

[158722]

I'm interpreting the OP as to what services could be temporarily turned over to loco & stock NOW, given the current lack of diesel capacity until the electrification projects underway start to bear fruit (i.e. spare units!).

DRS 37, load 3/4 Mk2 plus DBSO over the S&C?
CAR d 0550
LDS a 0837
LDS d 0947
CAR a 1217

CAR d 1505
LDS a 1740
LDS d 1805
CAR a 2052

Gives a morning peak time arrival into Leeds, a late evening peak departure back out, whilst the 0947 and 1505 services are both limited stop services, thus more likely that the hauled set would keep to existing times. The 0550 & 1805 could have their respective departure/arrival times adjusted if longer running times for LHCS vice unit is required. Probably frees up a 153 and 158 for other services to be boosted.

Union/staffing issues to be sorted for that idea, but can't see any real practical issues.

Reinstating a second Fife circle loco hauled set would also free up a pair of 158s in all probability;
0637 Edinburgh, full circle to Edinburgh 0854
ECS to Cardenden then 0736 to Edinburgh 0840
then
1708 Edinburgh, full circle to Edinburgh 1931
1719 Edinburgh to Cardenden 1823, then ECS to Millerhill

No staff training, just an extra loco and set of stock. 158s displaced go off to Northern?

 

[CosherB]

might have guessed that 442's would get a mention ..... once again! lol

 

[TheJRB]

I think loco hauled trains are neither dead nor resurgent. They have their place at the moment and probably will do for the foreseeable future but I don't see any further orders happening.

I think Chiltern have done a fantastic job with their loco hauled sets and have made for a pleasant comfortable service which I don't think could be improved by replacing it with DMUs.

I spent a good part of a day on 444s the other Wednesday and for me, the smooth ride, sensibly placed vestibule doors, plenty of room for bikes, good trolley service, comfortable standard class and distinct first class all culminate to provide what I perceive to be a hard to beat intercity train. You won't get a better ride quality on loco hauled stock and there would be less flexibility of train length as well as less platform length for passengers.

Something along the lines of an AC version of a 444 (either in fixed 8/9 coach formation or doubled up) would be a good replacement for the 90+Mk3 formations on the GEML.

 

[ianhr]

We have had quite a bit of discussion on the Forum from time to time on the relative merits of DMU verus Loco Haulage and the consensus seems to be that LH has more or less gone for good. I would not be so sure. The present policy may be merely a fashion. There are many other policies which have oscillated through time and the 1980s trend to LH + DVT was a relatively successful attempt to combine some of the advantages of both options.

Non powered vehicles must be inherently cheaper to build, and this leads directly to the main downside/curse of DMU operation and that is that the trains are far too SHORT, although this is not the case with EMUs. Combined with the loss of a separate guard's van for cycles etc this inevitably leads to overcrowding.

Unfortunately a return to longer trains on many routes will now require capital spending as platforms have been shortened. The routes which should be given priority for a return to LH+DVT are the longer distance DMU services with endemic overcrowding, TPE & CC, where the main stations still retain relatively long platforms.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm just imaging the numbers of passengers that would turn up in 2020 if it the S&C line was run with HST's in the old IC colours and branding!

Based on comments from on here I wonder if it would be enough to mean that Northern were no longer reliant on subsidies?

Well, if they're going to scrape the barrel with peak hour fare rises of dubious provenance, perhaps they should be courting the crank pound!

 

[ChiefPlanner]

To run LHCS at certain depots - you need a lot of training and agreement from various TU's (unless you buy in from say freight operators ) - I was able to do this easily on the Bedford line in the mid 1990's as a number of drivers had 31 training in the not too recent past. Of course - costs are bound to be higher - Track access costs for locos are more than for a DMU - and of course alterations to safety case , "permitted equipment" , conductor and staff training blah blah .....

In other words - not a quick fix.

 

[cjmillsnun]

As I understand it we currently have a shortfall in non-electrified route passenger capacity. We have no DMU capacity to gill the gap. There is a reluctance to build more DMU's as some will be freed up by electrifications shortly .. and then we would have a surplus of DMU's and that would have been a poor investment.

To be fair, the DMUs that are going to be freed up (222s) are totally unsuitable for the routes that desperately need the capacity.

 

[Aictos]

How about loco hauled on Manchester to Scotland, Leeds to Carlisle or to cover the two Great Western workings into and from Brighton?

Using them on GW might free up the DMUs to use around Bristol and Exeter

 

[59CosG95]

How about loco hauled on Manchester to Scotland, Leeds to Carlisle or to cover the two Great Western workings into and from Brighton?

Using them on GW might free up the DMUs to use around Bristol and Exeter

I's suspect that the entire Cardiff/Pompey route'll be electrified in a few years (yes, down to Salisbury too) so that service can use Mk4 and 88s, for an example

 

[dosxuk]

might have guessed that 442's would get a mention ..... once again! lol

Well we started with suggesting 37s & Mk2's. Didn't really expect to see a recommendation for an AC version of the 444 considering the topic, but it's in here too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be fair, the DMUs that are going to be freed up (222s) are totally unsuitable for the routes that desperately need the capacity.

A cascade can free up ones that are more suitable. There are, for example, a fair few express routes using Classes 158 and 170 which can be released by using Meridians instead. Or Class 185s, while overpowered, have a local-service door layout, and could be replaced with Meridians pending TPE electrification if the MML is done first.

Neil

 

[bigdelboy]

I's suspect that the entire Cardiff/Pompey route'll be electrified in a few years (yes, down to Salisbury too) so that service can use Mk4 and 88s, for an example

Can't see 88's.

At a stretch The new 73/9's + 4 coaches just might fit brighton/pompey to Bristol if 158's needed to be freed up. But logistics, owners etc might prove an issue. If I remember the route has some steep gradients between cosham and Southampton ... 3h's used to chugg up them. The early morning Salisbury to Brighton to form one of these is also used as a busy commuter service if I remember.

(( Hmmm .... I may have opened a 442 opportunity for few and the rolling of eyes for others ))

This would not necessarily be of any benefit (and perhaps quite the opposite) to this service, but it might free 158's.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Interesting that Switzerland is mentioned. Part of the thinking behind the original post was the fact that LH is still used on the continent fairly widely.

Another advantage of LH is that if your loco fails, you can simply swap another onto it with no loss of capacity. If a MU fails that's two or three coaches down straight away.

And as for the time period this would cover, I hadn't really thought about that specifically - whether it's a stop-gap or a permanent solution - but I suppose I'm not really talking about a relief service to cover for a few days, more a regular diagram.

In the past the SNCF had widespread use of loco hauled stock, not just on Intercity services but also on suburban services and other local trains. Well the use of loco's on anything but Intercity services has now pretty much finished and the Corail stock is now being replaced by EMU's.

Germany appears to be going the same way too. Countries such as Poland still have plenty of loco hauled services but I suspect that is due to a lack of funding rather than anything else.

 

[higthomas]

I am not aware of any European countries that are actually still buying LHCS and loco's. MU's are winning, and I feel excluding sleepers and railtours, I feel that they will be gone in this country within my lifetime definitely, and probably almost extinct on the continent too.

 

[158722]

I am not aware of any European countries that are actually still buying LHCS and loco's. MU's are winning, and I feel excluding sleepers and railtours, I feel that they will be gone in this country within my lifetime definitely, and probably almost extinct on the continent too.

OBB Railjet in Austria and later Hungary and Czech Republic is the most up to date example I can think of.

 

[47802]

Loco Haulage is expensive and is probably only justified on fairly major secondary routes, for which some HST's may be available at some point.

There is only a limited pool of MK3 stock available OK some MK4 might be available around 2020 and there is a limited pool of 67/68's available, other loco hauled eg. MK2 stock and first gen diesels etc need not apply.

 

[tbtc]

There’s a few issues here.

Firstly, running just one loco hauled service from a depot is pretty inefficient – look at the problems/cost of the “WAG Express” – you’re going to have to train a lot of staff (drivers, maintenance...)/ keep a lot of spare equipment for the sake of one diagram – and then you can’t easily switch the loco hauled stock onto any other diagram when something goes wrong. If you’re going to do it, I think you need to have a few diagrams from one depot to justify the hassle.

Secondly, whilst enthusiasts would love loco hauled services on routes like the Settle & Carlisle (without the cost of paying for a railtour), these aren’t very “DMU heavy” routes (if the purpose is to free up some DMUs in the short term). With the S&C you’ve generally got a two coach Sprinter every couple of hours (sometimes with a single 153 tagged on in summer months) – IMHO going to the bother of loco hauled for the sake of freeing up one 158 is at the sledgehammer/nut end of the spectrum (see also “Lymington Pier” where people come up with complicated/expensive “solutions” for the sake of freeing up one 158).

Better to focus resources on routes where you are going to free up a lot of units and/or coaches (if that is your justification for loco haulage, rather than a “wouldn’t it be nice if we had nice old trains on a pretty route” line of nostalgic argument)

Thirdly – whilst you want to replace a decent number of DMU coaches, you have to make sure that there’s room for a loco and DVT in the platforms – esp at the termini. You could run loco hauled services on Edinburgh – Falkirk – Glasgow (would free up six coach Turbostars at peak times, not a huge amount of intermediate stops) but there’d be no space at Queen Street for the extra length required. Same goes for replacing Southern’s 171s at London Bridge (AIUI).

Fourthly – it’s got to be simple. No scope for loco hauled on Waterloo – Exeter (given the portion working to Bristol) – unless you want to tear the timetable up (?). See also “Liverpool to Norwich” and “West Highland”.

So, for the sake of freeing up five coach DMUs, what about London – Hull/ Bradford/ Sunderland with a 90 on one end and a diesel loco on the other? That’d be enough loco hauled diagrams to justify conversion, the platforms should be able to cope with loco + five coaches + loco, you’d free up a lot of DMU coaches that could be used to cascade downwards (five coach 180 moves onto three coach 185 route so that three coach 185 could replace two coach 158 so that two coach 158 could bulk up something currently used by Pacers/Sprinters... or five coach 180 moves on to Cardiff – Portsmouth so that three coach 158 goes elsewhere etc etc)

OR: More loco hauled for Chiltern (who already operate some) on the Birmingham corridor to free up the four coach 168s – e.g. four coach 168s could be used on XC’s Nottingham – Cardiff axis to free up 170s for use elsewhere? Unlike the 165/166s, 168s are “go anywhere” units, and there are plenty of routes where these four coach DMUs could go! (if your response is going to be “but the 168s are going to be reduced down to a uniform fleet of three coaches when the TPE 170s arrive” then we are talking further down the line, by which time we’ll presumably have more wires up elsewhere and therefore more DMUs freed up)

OR: More loco hauled on the Fife Circle – since that uses six coach 170s at peak times? It's a simple "out and back" route, should be okay for loco haulage on more services.

Well, if they're going to scrape the barrel with peak hour fare rises of dubious provenance

You mean expecting people at peak times to pay for a peak ticket (albeit at a discounted PTE rate)?

Given how busy many services in northern England have been at tea time, asking shoppers on subsidised off peak day returns in PTE areas to pay for a "peak" ticket if they want to travel at peak times seems a reasonable way of dealing with demand.

What's the alternative? Allow people to use busy services in rush hour with an off-peak ticket, so that those commuters paying for "peak" tickets have to stand?

For all the complaints on this forum about the price rise, you'd think it was much more onerous than requiring peak travellers to have a peak ticket!

 

[yorksrob]

You mean expecting people at peak times to pay for a peak ticket (albeit at a discounted PTE rate)?

Given how busy many services in northern England have been at tea time, asking shoppers on subsidised off peak day returns in PTE areas to pay for a "peak" ticket if they want to travel at peak times seems a reasonable way of dealing with demand.

What's the alternative? Allow people to use busy services in rush hour with an off-peak ticket, so that those commuters paying for "peak" tickets have to stand?

For all the complaints on this forum about the price rise, you'd think it was much more onerous than requiring peak travellers to have a peak ticket!

I'm a commuter paying for a "peak" ticket in West Yorkshire, and it is plain to me that the effect a few leisure travellers who brave the evening peak have on whether I have to stand is miniscule in the extreme. The greater inconvenience comes if I decide to engage in a leisure activity after work which involves a train trip beyond my zone.

I could perhaps accept them if there was going to be a transpharent review of how effective these rises have been in raising revenue in a years time perhaps, but we all know that this won't happen, because these fare rises are purely a result of gesture politics from London bureaucrats who need to look as though they're doing something about a subsidy situation which has been artificially generated as a result of the franchising system that they designed.

Back on topic, the train I caught between Leeds and Appleby two weeks ago was actually a four carriage 158, and it isn't the only one I've been on on that route in the last couple of months.

 

[47802]

There’s a few issues here.


Thirdly – whilst you want to replace a decent number of DMU coaches, you have to make sure that there’s room for a loco and DVT in the platforms – esp at the termini. You could run loco hauled services on Edinburgh – Falkirk – Glasgow (would free up six coach Turbostars at peak times, not a huge amount of intermediate stops) but there’d be no space at Queen Street for the extra length required. Same goes for replacing Southern’s 171s at London Bridge (AIUI).

Well there's certainly some issues with your post, Hello why are you even mentioning Edinburgh Glasgow, just a hint its going to be electrified soon

Fourthly – it’s got to be simple. No scope for loco hauled on Waterloo – Exeter (given the portion working to Bristol) – unless you want to tear the timetable up (?). See also “Liverpool to Norwich” and “West Highland”.

So, for the sake of freeing up five coach DMUs, what about London – Hull/ Bradford/ Sunderland with a 90 on one end and a diesel loco on the other? That’d be enough loco hauled diagrams to justify conversion, the platforms should be able to cope with loco + five coaches + loco, you’d free up a lot of DMU coaches that could be used to cascade downwards (five coach 180 moves onto three coach 185 route so that three coach 185 could replace two coach 158 so that two coach 158 could bulk up something currently used by Pacers/Sprinters... or five coach 180 moves on to Cardiff – Portsmouth so that three coach 158 goes elsewhere etc etc)

Oh yes I'm sure GC will want swap their 180's for that idea, oh by they way I think they need 125mph trains and I don't believe 90's do 125mph.

OR: More loco hauled for Chiltern (who already operate some) on the Birmingham corridor to free up the four coach 168s – e.g. four coach 168s could be used on XC’s Nottingham – Cardiff axis to free up 170s for use elsewhere? Unlike the 165/166s, 168s are “go anywhere” units, and there are plenty of routes where these four coach DMUs could go! (if your response is going to be “but the 168s are going to be reduced down to a uniform fleet of three coaches when the TPE 170s arrive” then we are talking further down the line, by which time we’ll presumably have more wires up elsewhere and therefore more DMUs freed up)

OR: More loco hauled on the Fife Circle – since that uses six coach 170s at peak times? It's a simple "out and back" route, should be okay for loco haulage on more services.

Yes possibly you could do that but expect Chiltern would prefer to keep there units as they are cheaper and the number of units you free up in your mentioned scheme's isn't that great, of course if you want to free up some XC 170's you could buy some Bi-mode IEP for XC and free up Voyagers for Nottingham Cardiff, but that not a particularly cheap option either.

 

[Taunton]

You mean expecting people at peak times to pay for a peak ticket

Ah yes. So while the government is saying that travellers should divert from roads to the railway, the railway goes in the opposite direction and "prices off" those who are looking at travelling at these peak times.

Such an approach could only come from an organisation which is given huge amounts of public money to handle such travel, but then sends out two-car trains at "peak times" (in fact a single car when I was last in Sheffield).

 

[tbtc]

the train I caught between Leeds and Appleby two weeks ago was actually a four carriage 158, and it isn't the only one I've been on on that route in the last couple of months.

Fair enough - you have more experience of the S&C than I do, but two coaches are norm from my experience

Ah yes. So while the government is saying that travellers should divert from roads to the railway, the railway goes in the opposite direction and "prices off" those who are looking at travelling at these peak times

What's the alternative though? There's currently no capacity to accomodate everyone who wants to travel on an off-peak ticket at rush hour, and won't be for many years to come (if ever).

People elsewhere cope with "peak" restrictions, I don't know why this is such an ordeal for those in northern England.

Well there's certainly some issues with your post, Hello why are you
even mentioning Edinburgh Glasgow, just a hint its going to be electrified soon

As a benchmark for the kind of route where a lot of DMU carriages could be freed up and loco-hauled stock has a chance of keeping to current DMU timings!

If you’re going to the hassle of reintroducing loco-hauled to alleviate a short term DMU shortage then I personally think you’d be better to look at a route with lots of six coach DMUs than worrying about the Settle & Carlisle (where most services seem to be run by two coach Sprinters).

Obviously EGIP will electrify the line through Falkirk High before the end of the decade, but if we are talking about short term fixes to deal with a short term DMU shortage then it seems reasonable to talk about routes where there are significant numbers of DMU carriages today (since loco hauled could be a “quick fix” to deal with a short term problem whilst electrification will be years away).

Oh yes I'm sure GC will want swap their 180's for that idea, oh by they way I think they need 125mph trains and I don't believe 90's do 125mph.

...yet I keep hearing on this Forum about how the superior acceleration of the 90s means that they can match the timings of a 91 on some services, so are capable of running certain ECML diagrams.

I don’t think I suggested that Grand Central (or Hull Trains) would be *happy* with the idea (I don’t recall anyone saying that FGW/ Northern etc would be delighted with the suggestions that other people on this thread have made either, so not sure why you are so desperate to pick me up on this?).

I did suggest that London – Hull/ Bradford/ Sunderland are routes where there’s a chance of freeing up some five coach DMUs that could be used elsewhere (i.e. more useful to free up than a two coach DMU). Have you got any better suggestions of releasing a large enough number of DMU carriages by the way?

Yes possibly you could do that but expect Chiltern would prefer to keep there units as they are cheaper and the number of units you free up in your mentioned scheme's isn't that great, of course if you want to free up some XC 170's you could buy some Bi-mode IEP for XC and free up Voyagers for Nottingham Cardiff, but that not a particularly cheap option either

The number of units freed up isn't that great?

Hmm, there’s eleven four coach 168s – that seems a reasonable enough number of coaches when we are on a thread of people talking about freeing up a two coach 158 here and a two coach 158 there...

DMUs are cheaper than loco hauled? Well, obviously, and more so when the DMU in question is just a two coach 158 but you don’t seem to feel the need to pick other people up on that... most odd...

However there comes a point where loco hauled becomes cost effective (maybe around the six coaches mark?), which is why I tried to find some examples of longer DMU formations where loco hauled would be more appropriate to replace.

As for the suggestion of “we could just buy some new trains, of a type that haven’t even entered service yet”, well, yes, bi-mode IEP looks like being the solution for much of Cross Country in the long term, but that’s not much help for dealing with the lack of spare DMUs caused by delays to the electrification programme (which is the kind of thing that I thought this thread was about?).

In the long term, loco haulage doesn’t look like the answer to most problems (however misty eyed people might be about the days of Mk2s and droplight windows), but there are a handful of routes where it could be a sticking plaster to give us a little more capacity whilst we wait for delayed electrification schemes.

I’m not saying that it’s a great idea, just that if we do want to go to these extremes then some routes are better than others (i.e. routes where there are long DMUs are better than those with only two coach units).

 

[JamesRowden]

How practical would it be to produce new 4-car EMUs and new locomotives, that are designed for the locomotive to able to pull/push one of the 4-car EMUs once it has reached the extremity of the electrification of the line?

For example, the Waterloo-Salisbury-Exeter service, if Basingtoke-Salisbury is electrified, could run as 12-car out of Waterloo, and at Salisbury, the front 4-cars could be pulled to Exeter and then pushed back to Salisbury. On busier services, the trains could be designed to allow two locomotives to pull an 8-car, which would theoretically produce the same acceleration.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

How practical would it be to produce new 4-car EMUs and new locomotives, that are designed for the locomotive to able to pull/push one of the 4-car EMUs once it has reached the extremity of the electrification of the line?

For example, the Waterloo-Salisbury-Exeter service, if Basingtoke-Salisbury is electrified, could run as 12-car out of Waterloo, and at Salisbury, the front 4-cars could be pulled to Exeter and then pushed back to Salisbury. On busier services, the trains could be designed to allow two locomotives to pull an 8-car, which would theoretically produce the same acceleration.

What about a tri-mode unit? How much underframe space is needed for the DC only part of a dual voltage unit?

 

[TQ]

How practical would it be to produce new 4-car EMUs and new locomotives, that are designed for the locomotive to able to pull/push one of the 4-car EMUs once it has reached the extremity of the electrification of the line?

For example, the Waterloo-Salisbury-Exeter service, if Basingtoke-Salisbury is electrified, could run as 12-car out of Waterloo, and at Salisbury, the front 4-cars could be pulled to Exeter and then pushed back to Salisbury. On busier services, the trains could be designed to allow two locomotives to pull an 8-car, which would theoretically produce the same acceleration.

I was thinking a similar thing; could a mk2/3/4 pattern coach be built with an underfloor diesel engine? Presumably it'd cost a similar amount to a new DMU coach but could be slotted into non powered rake in order to increase the acceleration of LHCS. Obviously the cost of adapting locos to be able to power them plus potentially adding wiring to the non powered stock in order to allow the powered coaches to be behind non powered coaches could be prohibitively expensive buts it's another option to bring to the table.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Fair enough - you have more experience of the S&C than I do, but two coaches are norm from my experience

How often do you travel on the S&C? If Northern are unable to provide two class 158's they always tend to try and ensure that a class 153 is attached to a class 158, especially in the summer months. The Northern Dales had a decent summer this year and even with two class 158's the trains were often full and standing.

 

[CC 72100]

In the past the SNCF had widespread use of loco hauled stock, not just on Intercity services but also on suburban services and other local trains. Well the use of loco's on anything but Intercity services has now pretty much finished and the Corail stock is now being replaced by EMU's.

You make that sound as if all Corail stuff is going to disappear very quickly and their replacement is imminent. Sure, on some lines they are going over to EMUs, and this is indeed more appropriate, but other services like the former Teoz services, the stock has recently been refurbished and will likely be with us for the medium term/ next 10 years or so.

Same situation on some of the suburban push-pull double deck sets - they could have got rid of them 5 or so years ago, but they decided to refurbish them and order locos for them - locos however that will be well suited to freight in the latter stages of their career, given that they are essentially a passenger derivative of a freight loco.

The general move is to units (where isn't it?!) but the replacement isn't quite as drastic, far reaching and quick as your post implies.

 

[RichmondCommu]

You make that sound as if all Corail stuff is going to disappear very quickly and their replacement is imminent. Sure, on some lines they are going over to EMUs, and this is indeed more appropriate, but other services like the former Teoz services, the stock has recently been refurbished and will likely be with us for the medium term/ next 10 years or so.

Same situation on some of the suburban push-pull double deck sets - they could of got rid of them 5 or so years ago, but they decided to refurbish them and order locos for them - locos however that will be well suited to freight in the latter stages of their career, given that they are essentially a passenger derivative of a freight loco.

The general move is to units (where isn't it?!) but the replacement isn't quite as drastic, far reaching and quick as your post implies.

As a percentage those remaining push pull sets seem to be very much in the minority from what I have seen in Paris and last summer in SE France. In terms of ordering new locos this pretty sums up why the SNCF is in such a mess. Modern serviceable locos are now being dumped and yet they are ordering new locos!

Given what I see with my own eyes and what I read in Todays Railways Europe the SNCF does appear to be on a mission to get rid of loco hauled stock. And please don't start suggesting that the once mighty SNCF is well run!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You make that sound as if all Corail stuff is going to disappear very quickly and their replacement is imminent. Sure, on some lines they are going over to EMUs, and this is indeed more appropriate, but other services like the former Teoz services, the stock has recently been refurbished and will likely be with us for the medium term/ next 10 years or so.

In all fairness I didn't say that it was imminent and indeed I did say that you were more likely to find loco hauled stock on Intercity services more than anything else. However regional and Intercity loco hauled stock is disappearing quickly.

 

[CC 72100]

As a percentage those remaining push pull sets seem to be very much in the minority from what I have seen in Paris and last summer in SE France. In terms of ordering new locos this pretty sums up why the SNCF is in such a mess. Modern serviceable locos are now being dumped and yet they are ordering new locos!

Given what I see with my own eyes and what I read in Todays Railways Europe the SNCF does appear to be on a mission to get rid of loco hauled stock. And please don't start suggesting that the once mighty SNCF is well run!

To be fair, the new locos are just a passenger subclass of a freight loco which has been produced in great quantities, and from what I understand, they will be easy to convert back into freight locos (which is what they are deep down) when their time on the push-pull sets is over.

However, when you look at the yards of locos, and see a sizeable proportion of a class that you're travelling behind, you can't help but imagine the wastage - although of course, ordering new locomotives from Alstom is giving business to another french company in a time when the french economy needs all the help it can get

Whilst they may be 'on a mission', from what I understand it a lot of the replacements are not concrete yet, and tendering processes are still yet to start etc.

And no, I have actually used the SNCF on normal non-TGV lines, I can confirm that the SNCF is not well run, I wouldn't dare to suggest so in a million years!