Why oh why....

[yorksrob]

I agree with Schnellzug that some commentators in Rail seem to have a rosily uncritical view of anything new and shiny.

I don't think it's necessarily living in the past to ask why all new train seats seem to be rock hard for example.

With regard to the MU versus loco hauled debate, I think MU's are ideal when used to their strengths, i.e. allowing flexibility with train lengths as has been the case on the Southern Region for many years. I'm less convinced of their superiority for longer distance Inter-City type services where this seems to happen less. This is particularly true for diesel services where there is an effect on quality due to noise and vibrations.

 

[Greenback]

I agree with Schnellzug that some commentators in Rail seem to have a rosily uncritical view of anything new and shiny.

Yes, I think I may have mentioend this before, although not with reference to new rolling stock particularly. One of my criticisms of RAIL is that it does not challenge TOC's enough when interviewing their senior people.

I don't think it's necessarily living in the past to ask why all new train seats seem to be rock hard for example.

It's not, and this is the thing that magazines should be doing, as Ian Walmsley did in modern Railways a while back.

With regard to the MU versus loco hauled debate, I think MU's are ideal when used to their strengths, i.e. allowing flexibility with train lengths as has been the case on the Southern Region for many years. I'm less convinced of their superiority for longer distance Inter-City type services where this seems to happen less. This is particularly true for diesel services where there is an effect on quality due to noise and vibrations.

Rather like the private v public debate, the consensus seems to be that MU operation is the only way. There is no real debate on this any longer, because it has become so accepted in the industry. I would like to see a proper discussion about the costs, benefits and drawbacks of each method of operation over different types of route.

 

[yorksrob]

Rather like the private v public debate, the consensus seems to be that MU operation is the only way. There is no real debate on this any longer, because it has become so accepted in the industry. I would like to see a proper discussion about the costs, benefits and drawbacks of each method of operation over different types of route.

Indeed, particularly bearing in mind loco operation is still proving its worth daily on the ECML for example.

 

[WestCoast]

I don't think it's necessarily living in the past to ask why all new train seats seem to be rock hard for example.

You'll never find a way for everyone to agree on the 'best seating'. I for one don't find IC70s very comfortable, but many others do.

I don't particularly think all new seating is that bad either. Some people don't like seats with lots of padding or more angled seating, as they would prefer to sit in a more upright position and vice versa.

The only seats that I've thought were rock hard and generally dreadful are those to be found on 142 Pacers, that were refurbished to Merseytravel specifications.

 

[whhistle]

Gangways reduce the visuals and give the cab a claustrophobic feel.

Gangways improve the ability for trains to work in multiple, increasing flexibility. Given that loco rakes are only remarshalled when in the depot nowadays, MUs are more flexible.

This is where the Voyager / Meridian family of trains have it right.
They look good, are a MU but a single train at the same time. Unusual workings mean the trains can couple together (I say unusual as if the trains were ALWAYS going to be coupled at some point, gangway units would have been far more suitable and cheaper to run). It is win win win for these types of units.

This is particularly true for diesel services where there is an effect on quality due to noise and vibrations.

This whole thing on vibration is a non-argument for me.
Granted, the MK3/4 coaching stock won't vibrate as much as a diesel MU but does it really bother you that much? Is it worth sacrificing diesel MU's for some coaching stock to have less flexibility in the trains? No. That is why MU's, like it or not are taking over. It's the natural selection of trains.


Hold on, this thread looks like it is simply complaining. I thought these types of threads were deleted?

 

[Flywaver]

Once again im being mis understood. It's a bit of a joke if people want a Thread deleted because it's a Drivers view of how traction has become.
As its my mobile office i can't see why i can't view on a forum like this..
There are major design flaws in how units are designed. Not necessarily all but anything which risks Health and Safety makes me wonder how they entered service in the first place.
For example The Sprinter family has not got Cab access except via passenger doors...Rules apply for us to use the SPT on the signals.
Class 379 gangways have restricted offside Drivers view which would make them a danger in sidings using offset Ground signals,let alone staff crossing the track even people on normal crossings..
In an accident the Driver is very much more at risk being trapped in a unit with in sufficient access. The 158 which hit the footbridge at Barrow Upon Soar is a good example...
Voyagers/Meridians have a great cab. A fairly central position and it's a bigger barrier before the Passenger area.

 

[yorksrob]

This whole thing on vibration is a non-argument for me.
Granted, the MK3/4 coaching stock won't vibrate as much as a diesel MU but does it really bother you that much? Is it worth sacrificing diesel MU's for some coaching stock to have less flexibility in the trains? No. That is why MU's, like it or not are taking over. It's the natural selection of trains.


Hold on, this thread looks like it is simply complaining. I thought these types of threads were deleted?

Well, no - it doesn't keep me awake at night.

I can see your point to an extent, it's just with the exception possibly of Cross Country, which does seem to use different lengths of trains, most operators don't seem to use this flexibility anyway. You don't get the Hull Trains or Grand Central ones doubled up for example, which leads me to conclude that Inter-City type services are just more suited to semi-permanent formations.

Permanent on a day-to-day basis but flexible enough to add or subtract carriages occasionally if needs be. In this respect loco-rake of carriages-DVT are ideal, so why give up being able to swoosh along quietly in a carriage in the first place.

 

[HSTEd]

Permanent on a day-to-day basis but flexible enough to add or subtract carriages occasionally if needs be. In this respect loco-rake of carriages-DVT are ideal, so why give up being able to swoosh along quietly in a carriage in the first place.

Acceleration is becoming increasingly important to reducing journey times now that speed limits on the conventional railway have effectively plateaued.
Multiple units are inherently better accelerating as they dont have dead weight being used to produce tractive effort, instead they use the weight of the passenger carriages to do so, meaning a greater proportion of the trains weight is on driven axles.

This also means you dont have to lug the locomotive's deadweight around with you.

EDIT:

In addition, the more even spread of the traction equipment's weight amongst multiple vehicles reduces the peak axle loading of the train, in some cases permitting differential speeds, and reducing track wear.

Oh and if you keep changing train length you have to timetable for the longest, slowest, configuration, increasing journey times.

 

[yorksrob]

Oh and if you keep changing train length you have to timetable for the longest, slowest, configuration, increasing journey times.

I only mean in the sense that Cross Country vary the length of their HST's from time to time. I presume they fit this in around any timetable changes.

 

[Jobsworth]

Here's my sixpenny worth!

Railways didn't become boring in the last decade. That happened 30 odd years ago. There was a brief respite pre EWS days when we had some exciting new freight liveries. And some of the post privatisation liveries made a refreshing change until they became familiar everyday sights. But then, that's only a coat of paint (or vinyl). The trains themselves are fundamentally boring because they are just boxes on wheels for carrying commodities (people and freight) from A to B in the most safe, efficient and cost effective manner. Aesthetic design doesn't come into it - viz the class 70 to name but one abominable design.

The invention of the autocoupler did wonderful things to increase the efficiency of multiple working. It made a lot of shunters redundant.

The point about electric trains not having to carry the weight of their own fuel around is very valid. It reduces axle load and wear and tear on the track and also allows greater flexibility in rolling stock use. A diesel powered HST has to return to a fuelling point every 24-36 hours whereby its basic maintenance exam is now out to 7 days.

It isn't just earthquakes we have to worry about. But then, if a stray comet lands within a few counties or so from Sellafield, I think the release of a bit of radiation will be the least of our worries.

 

[YorkshireBear]

But then, if a stray comet lands within a few counties or so from Sellafield, I think the release of a bit of radiation will be the least of our worries.

It certainly wont be seen as the radiation from the comet will exceed the amount of radiation released if sellafield just blew up.

 

[Buttsy]

The lack of cycle space on trains has been a problem for a number of years now. This lack of space has occured because of the loss of the bulk of the Post Office contract, no train was built with a parcels/post area.

Back in the good/bad old days of the 80s, the loading and unloading of the BG or similar coach was always a fascinating distraction when spotting at the end of platform 2 at Oxford.

 

[Flywaver]

Railjet often couple two sets of Pushpull.. It can work the same way as MU. I'm not on about adding single coaches in the peak..

 

[MK Tom]

Somebody made a point about rock-hard seats a few posts back - just thought I'd chip in that as someone who's only in their twenties and grew up on modern stock, a trip on a first-gen DMU or EMU or a mark 1/2 coach is like luxury to me - the seats have physical springs in them and that makes them so much more comfortable than anything that's around today. I don't get why new stock can't have that. The closest new stock has come is the seating on the Meridians which is exceptionally comfortable compared with most of what's around today. The most uncomfortable seating for me is the 350/2s which are worse than most bus seats for anyone taller than 5' 10''. If I'm ever travelling to stations between MK and Euston I'll always aim for the Southern service because the seating on the 377s is infinitely more comfortable.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Because not all electricity is generated from fossil fuels. A significant amount comes from nuclear and renewable sources. And that amount is going to increase rapidly in the coming decades.

Correct. And even if it was all generated from fossil fuel, the emmisions would still be less than burning said fossil fuel directly on board trains. The smaller individual engines would likely be less efficient than a power station and then have to shift their own weight as well as that of the train, requiring more power and therefore more fuel.

Gangways improve the ability for trains to work in multiple, increasing flexibility. Given that loco rakes are only remarshalled when in the depot nowadays, MUs are more flexible.

I agree. However, a non-gangwayed unit is less-flexible than a LHCS rake, and since you probably can't get a gangwayed unit up to 125mph LHCS remains more flexible for such trains. I think an IC225 might work out cheaper to run than for a 9-car Pendo too.

Rather like the private v public debate, the consensus seems to be that MU operation is the only way. There is no real debate on this any longer, because it has become so accepted in the industry. I would like to see a proper discussion about the costs, benefits and drawbacks of each method of operation over different types of route.

Agreed, more attention needs to be paid to what is the most suitable stock for each service.

Nowt wrong with nuclear energy. Just manage it right and it'll be the gift that keeps on giving.

Thankfully these new reactors seem to have been given the green light.

The nuclear waste is an issue, so I don't think nuclear fission power can continue to be used forever. However, I am pleased that the current new generation has been given the go-ahead, as I belive it is a necessary stop-gap to replace fossil fuels as we are not going to be able to build enough renewable plants fast enough.

New is not necessarily a synonym for Better.

This is where the Voyager / Meridian family of trains have it right. They look good, are a MU but a single train at the same time. Unusual workings mean the trains can couple together (I say unusual as if the trains were ALWAYS going to be coupled at some point, gangway units would have been far more suitable and cheaper to run). It is win win win for these types of units.

They look good yes, but they drink fuel like there's no tommorow (that's what comes if you try to make a DMU with EMU-style acceleration) and are cloustriphobic and cramped inside. There's also the issue of multiple working without corridor connections, meaning one unit could be nearly full and the other almost completly empty.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Somebody made a point about rock-hard seats a few posts back - just thought I'd chip in that as someone who's only in their twenties and grew up on modern stock, a trip on a first-gen DMU or EMU or a mark 1/2 coach is like luxury to me - the seats have physical springs in them and that makes them so much more comfortable than anything that's around today. I don't get why new stock can't have that.

Agreed. I grew up with Havant as my nearest station when stock was slammers and 5-WESes. However, I was too young then to remember much of that, so when I heard there were slammers still running on the Lymington branch but about to stop I had to take a trip down there. And the seats were wonderfully soft, why can't new stock have seats that soft?

The FGW 158 seats are not too bad, but my comfort is runined in airline seating by insufficent legroom. The 175s are the opposite, good legroom but rock-hard seats.

 

[jopsuk]

We also lost cycle space not only because of the end of the mail contracts, but because that space was then eyed up as being needed for seating- understandably. With space being lost to bigger loos, bigger vestibules, bigger crumple zones, every bit of space possible that's left gets taken for seating.

Claerly, the operational ideal would be a barely-polluting electricity source, plentiful, powering EMUs that are as long as the route will take (terminal platform length limited- intermediates can be extended more easily or SDO used) with a spacious, good visibility cab (no need for corridor connector on a max length train) with a good provion of luggage/cycle space. And a guard...

 

[yorksrob]

I was too young then to remember much of that, so when I heard there were slammers still running on the Lymington branch but about to stop I had to take a trip down there. And the seats were wonderfully soft, why can't new stock have seats that soft?

And those were only phase 2 CIG's - the phase 1 CIG's were even plusher !

I also agree with your point on fuel efficiency which will become more and more important as time progresses. As I understand it the Voyagers do consume rather a lot.

 

[Flywaver]

The Southern slammers made perfect sense. I understand gangways on Suburbans. I just wasn't a fan. Speaking of fans. I had a gangway open at 70mph... Plus the endless rain water sweeping through let alone the ear piecing whistles above 60mph on a 317...

 

[Daimler]

At this risk of derailing this thread slightly, I've noticed that there have been a good number of complaints from drivers of late about gangwayed units, and the draughts, leaks, and other problems these cause.

While I understand that no amount of new technology or improved design can increase the amount of physical space inside the cab of a gangwayed unit, are new ones (Desiros and Electrostars, essentially) really no better? I'd have thought that today it would be possible to build a (gangwayed) train which didn't suffer from these faults.

 

[mallard]

At this risk of derailing this thread slightly, I've noticed that there have been a good number of complaints from drivers of late about gangwayed units, and the draughts, leaks, and other problems these cause.

I expect most of these complaints are from LM drivers who're used to the large cabs of the 150/1s and 170s and are now driving corridor-equipped 172s. It's just "we don't like change" really. I expect that's why the 172s are the first corridor-equipped diesels since privatisation. Besides, leaks and draughts are the result of age/poor maintenance, not an inherent issue with gangways.

Any unit that's going to be frequently running in multiple really needs gangways. They improve safety/security, access to facilities (toilets, first class, catering), enable the passenger load to be more evenly spread and lower staffing costs (although unionists consider that a disadvantage, to passengers/taxpayers it reduces cost which is good).

It's already awkward for 22xs and 185s to operate in multiple (particularly when short platforms are involved, e.g. 2x5 car 222s at Loughborough), we should be aiming for a future more like the what was achieved with Sprinters - multiple classes from different manufacturers with full operational compatibility able to form any length of train without complications.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Any unit that's going to be frequently running in multiple really needs gangways. They improve safety/security, access to facilities (toilets, first class, catering), enable the passenger load to be more evenly spread and lower staffing costs (although unionists consider that a disadvantage, to passengers/taxpayers it reduces cost which is good).

Well said, I agree with all that but will concentrate on the unions issue for this post. If you want more jobs, in my opinion it would be much wiser to employ more station-staff (who are probably lower paid than on-train staff), improving security at stations so that better facilities (not nearly enough stations have waiting rooms these days) or opening hours for said facilities can be provided. That would be a much more useful use of funds than doubling up guards/revenue protection staff when a single guard would be sufficent in most cases if using gangwayed units.