Train cancelled after spilling 900 litres of diesel

[bgstrowger]

Guess it would be either operate with a DVT or another single cab 67 a la HST.

[mattvince]

Locomotives only become economically better when train lengths become longer than about eight coaches (compared to DMUs). Unfortunately, a lot of passenger flows are distinctly peak-time, consequently you either have to run long trains in the off-peak, carting around fresh air, or cut your services down to match average demand. The latter risks a vicious circle - less frequent trains makes the service less convenient and thus less attractive ('spontaneous' leisure travellers won't use the train if the next one is not for another two hours, and business travellers will simply drive), which reduces demand thus forcing you to cut back the service even further.

With a DMU, you can run longer trains in the peak and shorten them in the off-peak - often down to two or three coaches - yet maintain the level of frequency (and thus convenience) which attracts the passengers in. Journey time is significant - faster journeys means that the trainset gets to the other end of the line earlier, is able to form a return service sooner, which gets back to the beginning sooner, and spread over a fleet of trains that means the same amount of work can be done by fewer trains, which reduces the overall cost by not needing to lease as many trains to run the same level of service. Or you use the same number of trains to do even more work with little increase in cost - for instance lengthening peak services, or running to more destinations. In almost every case where DMUs have replaced locomotives, it has been possible to increase frequencies and passenger traffic has grown as a result.

Of course, the ultimate solution is to not carry any engines around with you at all - whether under the floor or in a locomotive at the front of the train. Apparently a nine-car Pendolino has the same running cost as a five-car SuperVoyager, with getting on to twice the number of seats.

[arabiandisco]

with MUs you also have to run long trains off peak, or have them sitting unused in sidings. Fuel costs aside, the expenses involved with running 2 coaches must be much the same as 8 coaches.

Though not dragging your power station around with you is clearly the solution...

[ForburyLion]

why would it be single cab tho?

It's cheaper.

That site also has plans for single cab class 58's designed for Export.

[jtiffin]

That is not good.

[mattvince]

Ease of coupling is another factor in the proliferation of multiple units - with loco-hauled stock, there is only one end which additional vehicles can be attached to (at a mid-way station): the rear. That of itself will require an additional locomotive and driver to propel the stock into the platform (propelling, particularly in our H&S-obsessed times, is a risky strategy), and very possibly a shunter to attach the two portions of coaches, plus uncouple the shunt locomotive. At a terminal station, you will either end up with a locomotive at the stops, one in the middle, or adopting the practice of propelling the stock into the platform.

Portion working (trains from different origins to the same destination & v.v.) becomes even more complicated, to the point where you have multiple shunt moves just to get locomotives out of the way. All of which costs time, potentially up to fifteen minutes, which makes rail seem less attractive for some journeys.

These problems don't really arise with multiple-units - the driver of the 'rear' portion merely drives in (under 'permissive' signals), stops short of the front portion (whilst the guard/driver in the front portion closes the door and readies the unit for the coupling), and moves up until the couplings close and lock, and the electrical/pneumatic connections show a good join. No locomotives to get in the way, no excessive shunt movements (which can eat up valuable track capacity at the station throats, not to mention distracting the signallers), and it's a lot safer than propelling the stock in. Plus the track layout can be simpler, with fewer crossovers to need maintaining. And it works, as Faversham, Ashford, Barnham, Bournemouth, Salisbury and Cambridge (to name but a few) demonstrate on a daily basis. In fact, it's so good, even the Japanese use portion working with their multiple-units.

[kingsgate]

Unfortunately, MUs encourage companies to use the fewest coaches possible, thus leading to overcrowding in the peak, and, in some cases, off-peak. At the same time, you can't just add a single extra vehicle, you have to add another five or whatever. Added to that, you still have the multiple engines. TPX have started switching one engine on their 185s off, and have instructed their drivers to coast more. Unfortunately, MUs have many plus points operationally, but pollute more and are far less convenient for a passenger. Limited luggage space, limited seating capacity, in the case of express units, you may find yourself in the wrong portion for the buffet (Because how many companies want to double-man and open both?). MUs are, in the words of VT's Chris Green, a Cul-de-sac. Very nice and flashy, very European, but not what's needed in the long term. That's why so many MK3s are being brought back, and why the venerable HST continues to soldier on.

Tor-K

[mattvince]

Unfortunately, MUs encourage companies to use the fewest coaches possible, thus leading to overcrowding in the peak, and, in some cases, off-peak.

Platform lengths and fleet size are the big constraining factors causing overcrowding - put simply, you couldn't run longer trains because there simply isn't any more platform length in which to sit the train. Current signal sighting requirements would likely mean shorter formations, as the ability to sit the loco off the platform end has been lost.

At the same time, you can't just add a single extra vehicle, you have to add another five or whatever. Added to that, you still have the multiple engines. TPX have started switching one engine on their 185s off, and have instructed their drivers to coast more. Unfortunately, MUs have many plus points operationally, but pollute more and are far less convenient for a passenger. Limited luggage space, limited seating capacity, in the case of express units, you may find yourself in the wrong portion for the buffet (Because how many companies want to double-man and open both?).

Multiple Engines means redundancy - one failing does not mean the train grinds to a halt. Multiple powered axles also improves adhesion, resulting in better acceleration.
Passenger comfort is an interior design issue - symptomatic of the industry structures as a whole over the last decade or two, but nevertheless a design issue which can be resolved with some work. It's not going to happen under the present Government, but is still only an issue for interior designers. Few described the 5BELs as being anything less than luxury - perhaps something for modern rolling stock designers (and those who specify rolling stock design for the ROSCOs/TOCs/DfT) to think about.
Pollute more - is running a three-car DMU carrying three coaches worth of passengers really more polluting than a Type 5 diesel hauling 9 coaches (yet still carrying three coaches worth of passengers)?
And the 'wrong portion for the buffet' problem? I raise the Class 444, cunningly designed to have a gangway in the nose. Such things are common on 100mph EMUs south of the river.
Not forgetting - operational benefits make the railways operationally cheaper, which impacts on both subsidy and fares. 40 EMUs means a maintenance problem of only 40, whereas the equivalent in coaches represents a maintenance problem of 160, before we even count in locomotives. Plus there is the benefit of still having something to cover the service if a train goes defective - it may mean a half-length train, but it means a service not cancelled.

MUs are, in the words of VT's Chris Green, a Cul-de-sac. Very nice and flashy, very European, but not what's needed in the long term.

Not wishing to disagree with Chris Green - was H. A. Walker really that wrong?

That's why so many MK3s are being brought back, and why the venerable HST continues to soldier on.

No, the fact that HM Government won't allow any investment in new stock (other than those enshrined in the Five Year Plan) is why the Mk3s are being brought back into service. HSTs? Classes 253 and 254...

It is difficult to show that a locomotive is better at doing the job of outer-suburban/inter-urban work than a Multiple Unit - for inner suburban work, there simply is no contest. Even on CrossCountry, most of the flows are of a suburban/inter-urban nature. The Great Western is also heavily 'suburbanised' - demanding frequent stops which tax even HSTs, but which a multiple-unit (in particular an EMU) would find little trouble.

[kingsgate]

Unfortunately, running trains at 100mph for passenger comfort reasons isn't feasible in this day and age. So we end up with two trains working as two trains coupled, not in multiple. On a short journey, that's fine, but we're meant to be encouraging people to travel long distances. Families with small children have enough to contend with without having to change between portions just to get a drink. It's unacceptable, plain and simple. I recognise the versatility of MUs, and they are, indeed, unbeatable for suburban working. However, they are utterly terrible for long-distance work (The current lot, that is, new ones may be better, I doubt it, mind). Engines rattling away for mile after mile, constricting tilt-profile (A "feature" of MK4s, I realise), no luggage space, and no way to just couple on a luggage van. And when the unit does fail? (Yes, it can and does happen, if the computer decides it's not going to play). No way to pull it with the nearest loco. Indeed, you need to wait for another MU with a similar coupling to come along. The only comfortable journey I've ever made on an MU was on a 185, in the centre car, when the engine shut down for no real reason. Suddenly the rattling stopped, all was peaceful and quiet, and the entire experience became very much like rail travel should be. HSTs can, indeed, be classed as MUs, but it's significant that BR stopped doing that 20 years ago. They're not fixed-formation, they do change formation, and they are far more flexible than any MU could ever hope to be. Maybe I am fighting a loosing battle here, I don't know...I just think we, as a nation, are making a massive, massive mistake here.

Tor-K

[arabiandisco]

Those in the relevant positions do ned to realise that for all the talk of "capacity" being the major challenge, that's not going to be an issue if the best quality the railways can offer is a 390 where none of the seats line up with a window (my reserved seats on those *always* have a nice plastic panel to look at) or a 22x which shakes your fillings out every time it pulls away. That's not to say that LHCS would be any better, but either option requires a higher quality product than we're getting these days.

It is not acceptable to provide DMUs for intercity journeys - Basingstoke - Derby on a voyager is one of the circles of hell, and that's only 3 hours.

Incidentally, why is LHCS with automatic couplers not an option? And I seem to recall the backwards southern region had this ingenious scheme involving unpowered MUs and push-pull locos that seemed to work quite well...

[johncard]

Matt, you mentioned Pendolinos costing the same amount to run as Super Voyagers - is this taking into account OHLE maintenance, if so, what frequency would electric trains have to operate at to make them more economic than diesel power? What would be the payback period for the cost of installation? From what you're saying the Govt is barking to not be throwing up the masts as we speak.

LHCS - my Dad once commented that it seemed a waste GNER were operating full length trains at night. I've had a few thoughts - would there be enough platform capacity to shorten the London based sets by a coach and add them to northern-based sets? Apparently there is a crowding problem on East Coast sets beyond Peterbrough - diagrams permitting, why not taylor train lengths to give capacity where it's needed? On the same theme, would there be any cost benefit over the loss of paths by using the train's loco (class 43 or 91 at the northern end) to shunt half the set into a siding at KX/Leeds/Edinburgh in the evening to operate trains at night, reforming for the first service of the morning?

Alternatively, how about altering the franchises so that Thameslink takes over services to Leeds and York past 8 or 9pm with a trolley service, returning south in time to work the morning peak? I would suggest using any surplus Voyagers or Meridians, but if EMUs are the order of the day...

[enotayokel]

I'm going to be having a long trip on a multiple unit next year. A German BR403 It even has a glass wall to the drivers cab so you can watch the line ahead.

[mattvince]

Bearing in mind that most of the UK's infrastructure is capable of little more than 90-100mph - only the six (or so) core main lines have sections above 100mph - and that much long distance travel is done on BR-era DMUs (with gangways!), then for a lot of long-distance travel 100mph is a totally acceptable top speed - thus gangways are feasible. Longer-Distance sets should be fixed formations of eight to twelve-car EMUs. I'd concede the point that there is no place for Voyager-type units (save for electro-diesel MUs), but equally there is no place for the large diesel locomotives (~3500hp) which would be required for any LHCS solution. It would be exceedingly costly to build - not least as no other country operates 125mph diesel locomotives. And if you are going to electrify, you might as well put the traction kit under the floor and use the space saved by not having a loco to have an extra carriage.

I disagree that LHCS would be fundamentally better - if you took the design standards used when building a modern DMU and applied similar standards to a passenger carriage, you'd probably still end up with something looking like a modern DMU vehicle. Luggage Vans are irrelevant - most passengers want to see their luggage from their seat, not have it out of sight at the other end of the train. Unless we are to introduce 'Checked Baggage' systems (as on airlines), then luggage vans are useless. That's not to say there aren't things that can be done - perhaps coaches with extra baggage space (perhaps a preference when booking fares: most people with lots of baggage are on pre-booked fares).

As a nation we are too small and too densely populated to make LHCS economically viable. Other countries operating LHCS typically have huge distances to travel, where train formations of up to 16 (26m-length) coaches are economically justifiable (at a frequency of once or twice a day). They also tend to have a much higher proportion of freight by rail - something which significantly affects the economics of operating locomotives. If there is a comparable network to the UK, then it is Japan, where the EMU is ubiquitous.

johncard - splitting and reforming HSTs and IC225s is not something done without the presence of quite a few fitters, and also messes with the maintenance schedules and mileage exams - the latter are required to be done at the correct mileage, else the wrath of the Regulator shall be unleashed. Also the way the set working diagrams work on East Coast means that the sets 'cycle' around the diagrams - for instance the 2330 Kings X to Leeds has to be an HST as that set is booked to go into Neville Hill for maintenance, but the working comes in from Aberdeen.

[AlistairW]

Kingsgate, I agree with your original view that DMU's are far from preferable, especially if you spend any time at Nottingham or Derby (before building work started) with Meridians sitting with their engines running, very noisy and unpleasant. Not to mention, as Arabiandisco said, the fact that high powered MU's do shake like hell and I hate to think what they will feel like in 10 years time when the maintenance budget is reduced (or whenever this may happen).

However, as Matt suggests in a country such as the UK DMU's have the advantage of making maximum use of platform space and win every time when it comes to acceleration (unless of course the DfT pulls its finger out and electrifies!). It is a shame that Network Rail failed to accept XC's offer of a fifth or sixth un-powered carriage as it would hamper performance, which I don't believe, considering voyagers with an engine off still seem to keep time. Not to mention the number of slow approaches or slack time I've spent at stations slowly shaking my bones apart on a XC voyager. Again, I agree with Matt that MU's can be highly flexible, but it is rare that the flexibility is used north of the Thames.

Looking at flexibility, frequency and passenger experience I would like to point to the Swiss (if you've not been... go) who operate a clock face timetable throughout the day and couple additional coaches during peak times with little trouble. Thus increasing a trains length brings a minimal cost whilst everybody gets a seat, but the network isn't packed beyond capacity as train paths remain the same. Smart, practical and cost effective, although I doubt the British would ever grasp such a concept and apply it successfully.

[enotayokel]

Well SBB did look at some franchises. But they wanted 20-30 year terms, as 7 years is too short for them to invest and recoup