Very few passenger services are loco hauled in the UK. My recent trip to
Belgium revealed that many services are loco hauled/propelled (although
there were plenty of EMU services too). Why the difference?

Oh, and to follow up on another thread, the local train had an in coach
display showing all the following stops, with timetabled arrival time and
predicted arrival time. As it approached a station it showed connections
from that stop.

Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
> Very few passenger services are loco hauled in the UK. My recent trip to
> Belgium revealed that many services are loco hauled/propelled (although
> there were plenty of EMU services too). Why the difference?

Just a theory: our big move from loco-hauled to multiple units was mainly
post-privatisation. The new ROSCO-owned trains were typically shorter,
more frequent, and harder-worked, and MUs are better for that. The only
loco-hauled passenger carriages ordered in the last 25 years have been CAF
Mk 5 carriages for CS and TPE (and there was incredulity about the latter
order). I don't think there have been any pure electric locos ordered (but
many ex-BR electric locos have been scrapped, so the fleet is significantly
reduced).

Perhaps, with the DfT prescribing exactly what services would run, the
flexibility of loco-hauled trains was no longer needed?

>
> Oh, and to follow up on another thread, the local train had an in coach
> display showing all the following stops, with timetabled arrival time and
> predicted arrival time. As it approached a station it showed connections
> from that stop.

Yes, that's been common on the Continent was years, but as been remarkably
slow to appear here.

On 26.03.23 12:30, Recliner wrote:
> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Very few passenger services are loco hauled in the UK. My recent trip to
>> Belgium revealed that many services are loco hauled/propelled (although
>> there were plenty of EMU services too). Why the difference?
>
> Just a theory: our big move from loco-hauled to multiple units was mainly
> post-privatisation. The new ROSCO-owned trains were typically shorter,
> more frequent, and harder-worked, and MUs are better for that. The only
> loco-hauled passenger carriages ordered in the last 25 years have been CAF
> Mk 5 carriages for CS and TPE (and there was incredulity about the latter
> order). I don't think there have been any pure electric locos ordered (but
> many ex-BR electric locos have been scrapped, so the fleet is significantly
> reduced).

The move to MU trains started long before privatisation. The southern
was basically all MU since the end of steam, and on regional routes,
since the Sprinter era in the '80s.

> Perhaps, with the DfT prescribing exactly what services would run, the
> flexibility of loco-hauled trains was no longer needed?

Even where locomotive hauled trains remained, flexibility was not really
a feature. Fixed formation trains came in during the 70s, and the idea
of altering the formation of a train hasn't been a thing for decades.

Robin

Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
> On 26.03.23 12:30, Recliner wrote:
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Very few passenger services are loco hauled in the UK. My recent trip to
>>> Belgium revealed that many services are loco hauled/propelled (although
>>> there were plenty of EMU services too). Why the difference?
>>
>> Just a theory: our big move from loco-hauled to multiple units was mainly
>> post-privatisation. The new ROSCO-owned trains were typically shorter,
>> more frequent, and harder-worked, and MUs are better for that. The only
>> loco-hauled passenger carriages ordered in the last 25 years have been CAF
>> Mk 5 carriages for CS and TPE (and there was incredulity about the latter
>> order). I don't think there have been any pure electric locos ordered (but
>> many ex-BR electric locos have been scrapped, so the fleet is significantly
>> reduced).
>
> The move to MU trains started long before privatisation. The southern
> was basically all MU since the end of steam, and on regional routes,
> since the Sprinter era in the '80s.

Yes, but long distance services were all loco-hauled (incl class 43) at the
time of privatisation; now, very few are, and soon there will be none,
apart from sleepers.

>
>> Perhaps, with the DfT prescribing exactly what services would run, the
>> flexibility of loco-hauled trains was no longer needed?
>
> Even where locomotive hauled trains remained, flexibility was not really
> a feature. Fixed formation trains came in during the 70s, and the idea
> of altering the formation of a train hasn't been a thing for decades.

HSTs have had varying numbers of carriages, from four to nine. Other Mk 3
and Mk 4 trains have had even more variation.

On 26/03/2023 11:58, Recliner wrote:
> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 26.03.23 12:30, Recliner wrote:
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Very few passenger services are loco hauled in the UK. My recent trip to
>>>> Belgium revealed that many services are loco hauled/propelled (although
>>>> there were plenty of EMU services too). Why the difference?
>>>
>>> Just a theory: our big move from loco-hauled to multiple units was mainly
>>> post-privatisation. The new ROSCO-owned trains were typically shorter,
>>> more frequent, and harder-worked, and MUs are better for that. The only
>>> loco-hauled passenger carriages ordered in the last 25 years have been CAF
>>> Mk 5 carriages for CS and TPE (and there was incredulity about the latter
>>> order). I don't think there have been any pure electric locos ordered (but
>>> many ex-BR electric locos have been scrapped, so the fleet is significantly
>>> reduced).
>>
>> The move to MU trains started long before privatisation. The southern
>> was basically all MU since the end of steam, and on regional routes,
>> since the Sprinter era in the '80s.
>
> Yes, but long distance services were all loco-hauled (incl class 43) at the
> time of privatisation; now, very few are, and soon there will be none,
> apart from sleepers.
>
>>
>>> Perhaps, with the DfT prescribing exactly what services would run, the
>>> flexibility of loco-hauled trains was no longer needed?
>>
>> Even where locomotive hauled trains remained, flexibility was not really
>> a feature. Fixed formation trains came in during the 70s, and the idea
>> of altering the formation of a train hasn't been a thing for decades.
>
> HSTs have had varying numbers of carriages, from four to nine. Other Mk 3
> and Mk 4 trains have had even more variation.
>

But they don't vary from day to day
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 13:04:39 +0100, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 26/03/2023 11:58, Recliner wrote:
>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 26.03.23 12:30, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Very few passenger services are loco hauled in the UK. My recent trip to
>>>>> Belgium revealed that many services are loco hauled/propelled (although
>>>>> there were plenty of EMU services too). Why the difference?
>>>>
>>>> Just a theory: our big move from loco-hauled to multiple units was mainly
>>>> post-privatisation. The new ROSCO-owned trains were typically shorter,
>>>> more frequent, and harder-worked, and MUs are better for that. The only
>>>> loco-hauled passenger carriages ordered in the last 25 years have been CAF
>>>> Mk 5 carriages for CS and TPE (and there was incredulity about the latter
>>>> order). I don't think there have been any pure electric locos ordered (but
>>>> many ex-BR electric locos have been scrapped, so the fleet is significantly
>>>> reduced).
>>>
>>> The move to MU trains started long before privatisation. The southern
>>> was basically all MU since the end of steam, and on regional routes,
>>> since the Sprinter era in the '80s.
>>
>> Yes, but long distance services were all loco-hauled (incl class 43) at the
>> time of privatisation; now, very few are, and soon there will be none,
>> apart from sleepers.
>>
>>>
>>>> Perhaps, with the DfT prescribing exactly what services would run, the
>>>> flexibility of loco-hauled trains was no longer needed?
>>>
>>> Even where locomotive hauled trains remained, flexibility was not really
>>> a feature. Fixed formation trains came in during the 70s, and the idea
>>> of altering the formation of a train hasn't been a thing for decades.
>>
>> HSTs have had varying numbers of carriages, from four to nine. Other Mk 3
>> and Mk 4 trains have had even more variation.
>>
>
>But they don't vary from day to day

True, but I didn't say they did.

In message <tvp7jn$2ll8a$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:43:01 on Sun, 26 Mar
2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>On 26.03.23 12:30, Recliner wrote:
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Very few passenger services are loco hauled in the UK. My recent trip to
>>> Belgium revealed that many services are loco hauled/propelled (although
>>> there were plenty of EMU services too). Why the difference?
>> Just a theory: our big move from loco-hauled to multiple units was
>>mainly
>> post-privatisation. The new ROSCO-owned trains were typically shorter,
>> more frequent, and harder-worked, and MUs are better for that. The only
>> loco-hauled passenger carriages ordered in the last 25 years have been CAF
>> Mk 5 carriages for CS and TPE (and there was incredulity about the latter
>> order). I don't think there have been any pure electric locos ordered (but
>> many ex-BR electric locos have been scrapped, so the fleet is significantly
>> reduced).
>
>The move to MU trains started long before privatisation. The southern
>was basically all MU since the end of steam, and on regional routes,
>since the Sprinter era in the '80s.
>
>> Perhaps, with the DfT prescribing exactly what services would run, the
>> flexibility of loco-hauled trains was no longer needed?
>
>Even where locomotive hauled trains remained, flexibility was not
>really a feature. Fixed formation trains came in during the 70s, and
>the idea of altering the formation of a train hasn't been a thing for
>decades.

<Thread convergence> Other than by splitting/joining units part-way,
something which is trivially easy with MU, but requires a second loco
otherwise (unless the orphaned carriages stay at the platform, while the
front half disappears into the sunset. But the problem with that is the
rejoining maneuver will end up with a loco in the middle of the train.

Of course, that's just a subset of how do you reverse a train at its
destination, or en-route like Liverpool-Norwich at Sheffield, if you
only have one loco.
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 13:38:38 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <tvp7jn$2ll8a$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:43:01 on Sun, 26 Mar
>2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>On 26.03.23 12:30, Recliner wrote:
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Very few passenger services are loco hauled in the UK. My recent trip to
>>>> Belgium revealed that many services are loco hauled/propelled (although
>>>> there were plenty of EMU services too). Why the difference?
>>> Just a theory: our big move from loco-hauled to multiple units was
>>>mainly
>>> post-privatisation. The new ROSCO-owned trains were typically shorter,
>>> more frequent, and harder-worked, and MUs are better for that. The only
>>> loco-hauled passenger carriages ordered in the last 25 years have been CAF
>>> Mk 5 carriages for CS and TPE (and there was incredulity about the latter
>>> order). I don't think there have been any pure electric locos ordered (but
>>> many ex-BR electric locos have been scrapped, so the fleet is significantly
>>> reduced).
>>
>>The move to MU trains started long before privatisation. The southern
>>was basically all MU since the end of steam, and on regional routes,
>>since the Sprinter era in the '80s.
>>
>>> Perhaps, with the DfT prescribing exactly what services would run, the
>>> flexibility of loco-hauled trains was no longer needed?
>>
>>Even where locomotive hauled trains remained, flexibility was not
>>really a feature. Fixed formation trains came in during the 70s, and
>>the idea of altering the formation of a train hasn't been a thing for
>>decades.
>
><Thread convergence> Other than by splitting/joining units part-way,
>something which is trivially easy with MU, but requires a second loco
>otherwise (unless the orphaned carriages stay at the platform, while the
>front half disappears into the sunset. But the problem with that is the
>rejoining maneuver will end up with a loco in the middle of the train.
>
>Of course, that's just a subset of how do you reverse a train at its
>destination, or en-route like Liverpool-Norwich at Sheffield, if you
>only have one loco.

No problem these days — you just have a driving trailer at the other end. That's very common on the Continent.

If you want to split and join loco-hauled trains with driving trailers, it's no different to doing that with Voyagers or
IETs. But I'm not aware of any recent UK practice of doing so.

One other argument against loco-haulage is the wasted platform space. A nine-car IET uses less platform length than a
2+9 HST, but has more usable passenger space.

In message <tvp8g1$2ls6p$5@dont-email.me>, at 10:58:09 on Sun, 26 Mar
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 26.03.23 12:30, Recliner wrote:
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Very few passenger services are loco hauled in the UK. My recent trip to
>>>> Belgium revealed that many services are loco hauled/propelled (although
>>>> there were plenty of EMU services too). Why the difference?
>>>
>>> Just a theory: our big move from loco-hauled to multiple units was mainly
>>> post-privatisation. The new ROSCO-owned trains were typically shorter,
>>> more frequent, and harder-worked, and MUs are better for that. The only
>>> loco-hauled passenger carriages ordered in the last 25 years have been CAF
>>> Mk 5 carriages for CS and TPE (and there was incredulity about the latter
>>> order). I don't think there have been any pure electric locos ordered (but
>>> many ex-BR electric locos have been scrapped, so the fleet is significantly
>>> reduced).
>>
>> The move to MU trains started long before privatisation. The southern
>> was basically all MU since the end of steam, and on regional routes,
>> since the Sprinter era in the '80s.
>
>Yes, but long distance services were all loco-hauled (incl class 43) at the
>time of privatisation;

But with workarounds like push-pull (Class 43) and DVTs (IC225).

Neither rake very often being seen without a semi-permanent set of
coaches.

Modulo nonsense like: http://www.perry.co.uk/images/dd-twins.jpg where
someone did some shuffling in the depot with their eyes closed.

>now, very few are, and soon there will be none,
>apart from sleepers.
>
>>
>>> Perhaps, with the DfT prescribing exactly what services would run, the
>>> flexibility of loco-hauled trains was no longer needed?
>>
>> Even where locomotive hauled trains remained, flexibility was not really
>> a feature. Fixed formation trains came in during the 70s, and the idea
>> of altering the formation of a train hasn't been a thing for decades.
>
>HSTs have had varying numbers of carriages, from four to nine.

No different in principle to TurboStars which come in two or three car
formations. But rarely get their formation altered on the fly.

Even the re-sizing of Meridians was done on a permanent basis.
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 13:45:30 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <tvp8g1$2ls6p$5@dont-email.me>, at 10:58:09 on Sun, 26 Mar
>2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 26.03.23 12:30, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Very few passenger services are loco hauled in the UK. My recent trip to
>>>>> Belgium revealed that many services are loco hauled/propelled (although
>>>>> there were plenty of EMU services too). Why the difference?
>>>>
>>>> Just a theory: our big move from loco-hauled to multiple units was mainly
>>>> post-privatisation. The new ROSCO-owned trains were typically shorter,
>>>> more frequent, and harder-worked, and MUs are better for that. The only
>>>> loco-hauled passenger carriages ordered in the last 25 years have been CAF
>>>> Mk 5 carriages for CS and TPE (and there was incredulity about the latter
>>>> order). I don't think there have been any pure electric locos ordered (but
>>>> many ex-BR electric locos have been scrapped, so the fleet is significantly
>>>> reduced).
>>>
>>> The move to MU trains started long before privatisation. The southern
>>> was basically all MU since the end of steam, and on regional routes,
>>> since the Sprinter era in the '80s.
>>
>>Yes, but long distance services were all loco-hauled (incl class 43) at the
>>time of privatisation;
>
>But with workarounds like push-pull (Class 43) and DVTs (IC225).
>
>Neither rake very often being seen without a semi-permanent set of
>coaches.

Or, indeed, at all! There won't be any HSTs in normal service in England by the end of the year, and the remaining
IC225s won't be in service for much longer. The remaining DVTs have retired to Wales.

>
>Modulo nonsense like: http://www.perry.co.uk/images/dd-twins.jpg where
>someone did some shuffling in the depot with their eyes closed.
>
>>now, very few are, and soon there will be none,
>>apart from sleepers.
>>
>>>
>>>> Perhaps, with the DfT prescribing exactly what services would run, the
>>>> flexibility of loco-hauled trains was no longer needed?
>>>
>>> Even where locomotive hauled trains remained, flexibility was not really
>>> a feature. Fixed formation trains came in during the 70s, and the idea
>>> of altering the formation of a train hasn't been a thing for decades.
>>
>>HSTs have had varying numbers of carriages, from four to nine.
>
>No different in principle to TurboStars which come in two or three car
>formations. But rarely get their formation altered on the fly.

Do they ever? EMUs and DMUs seem to need to have their formations altered in the depot or factory. The process seems to
be quite complicated (ie, the software needs to be changed).

>
>Even the re-sizing of Meridians was done on a permanent basis.

Though it could be revised if needed.

On 26/03/2023 13:19, Recliner wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 13:04:39 +0100, Graeme Wall <rail@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 26/03/2023 11:58, Recliner wrote:
>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>> On 26.03.23 12:30, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Very few passenger services are loco hauled in the UK. My recent trip to
>>>>>> Belgium revealed that many services are loco hauled/propelled (although
>>>>>> there were plenty of EMU services too). Why the difference?
>>>>>
>>>>> Just a theory: our big move from loco-hauled to multiple units was mainly
>>>>> post-privatisation. The new ROSCO-owned trains were typically shorter,
>>>>> more frequent, and harder-worked, and MUs are better for that. The only
>>>>> loco-hauled passenger carriages ordered in the last 25 years have been CAF
>>>>> Mk 5 carriages for CS and TPE (and there was incredulity about the latter
>>>>> order). I don't think there have been any pure electric locos ordered (but
>>>>> many ex-BR electric locos have been scrapped, so the fleet is significantly
>>>>> reduced).
>>>>
>>>> The move to MU trains started long before privatisation. The southern
>>>> was basically all MU since the end of steam, and on regional routes,
>>>> since the Sprinter era in the '80s.
>>>
>>> Yes, but long distance services were all loco-hauled (incl class 43) at the
>>> time of privatisation; now, very few are, and soon there will be none,
>>> apart from sleepers.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps, with the DfT prescribing exactly what services would run, the
>>>>> flexibility of loco-hauled trains was no longer needed?
>>>>
>>>> Even where locomotive hauled trains remained, flexibility was not really
>>>> a feature. Fixed formation trains came in during the 70s, and the idea
>>>> of altering the formation of a train hasn't been a thing for decades.
>>>
>>> HSTs have had varying numbers of carriages, from four to nine. Other Mk 3
>>> and Mk 4 trains have had even more variation.
>>>
>>
>> But they don't vary from day to day
>
> True, but I didn't say they did.

HSTs have always operated as fixed formation sets. As, I suspect, did
the other Mk3 and Mk4 sets. There hasn't been the legendary flexibility
that people keep claiming existed in the Golden Era™. The fact that
formations have been changed to allow for trends in travel requirements
dosn't alter that.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

Tweed pretended :
> Very few passenger services are loco hauled in the UK. My recent trip to
> Belgium revealed that many services are loco hauled/propelled (although
> there were plenty of EMU services too). Why the difference?
>
Speaking for Belgium, just catch those loco hauled trains while you
still can, because it won't last long. The current M7 stock order will
displace all previous generation locos - only the two most recent
series
will be spared - and there is alreay a following order for EMUs being
prepared. Belgium will probably never become an EMU-only network like
the Netherlands - we still have an order pending for 20 multi-system
200
km/h TRAXX 3 locos - but loco hauled trains will become the exception
rather than the norm. It's a slow move - we tend to keep our rolling
stock active for 40 or 50 years - but it is happening nevertheless.

--
Marc Van Dyck

On 26.03.23 12:58, Recliner wrote:
> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 26.03.23 12:30, Recliner wrote:
>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Very few passenger services are loco hauled in the UK. My recent trip to
>>>> Belgium revealed that many services are loco hauled/propelled (although
>>>> there were plenty of EMU services too). Why the difference?
>>>
>>> Just a theory: our big move from loco-hauled to multiple units was mainly
>>> post-privatisation. The new ROSCO-owned trains were typically shorter,
>>> more frequent, and harder-worked, and MUs are better for that. The only
>>> loco-hauled passenger carriages ordered in the last 25 years have been CAF
>>> Mk 5 carriages for CS and TPE (and there was incredulity about the latter
>>> order). I don't think there have been any pure electric locos ordered (but
>>> many ex-BR electric locos have been scrapped, so the fleet is significantly
>>> reduced).
>>
>> The move to MU trains started long before privatisation. The southern
>> was basically all MU since the end of steam, and on regional routes,
>> since the Sprinter era in the '80s.
>
> Yes, but long distance services were all loco-hauled (incl class 43) at the
> time of privatisation; now, very few are, and soon there will be none,
> apart from sleepers.

It depends what you define as "long distance". Waterloo-Exeter, for
example, is quite a long distance, but it was DMU operated at that time.

>>> Perhaps, with the DfT prescribing exactly what services would run, the
>>> flexibility of loco-hauled trains was no longer needed?
>>
>> Even where locomotive hauled trains remained, flexibility was not really
>> a feature. Fixed formation trains came in during the 70s, and the idea
>> of altering the formation of a train hasn't been a thing for decades.
>
> HSTs have had varying numbers of carriages, from four to nine. Other Mk 3
> and Mk 4 trains have had even more variation.

But they weren't varied on a day-to-day basis, they were reformed
occasionally in the depot, in the same way that, for example, some 158s
were reformed from 2 car sets to 3 car sets.

In the end, if you are going to mess around with formations of trains,
you inherently have to have spare rolling stock that is only used for
some of the time, and it's better to have your trains in revenue earning
service rather than sitting in some carriage sidings waiting for the odd
occasions they are needed.

Robin

On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 16:29:43 +0200, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:

>On 26.03.23 12:58, Recliner wrote:
>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 26.03.23 12:30, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Very few passenger services are loco hauled in the UK. My recent trip to
>>>>> Belgium revealed that many services are loco hauled/propelled (although
>>>>> there were plenty of EMU services too). Why the difference?
>>>>
>>>> Just a theory: our big move from loco-hauled to multiple units was mainly
>>>> post-privatisation. The new ROSCO-owned trains were typically shorter,
>>>> more frequent, and harder-worked, and MUs are better for that. The only
>>>> loco-hauled passenger carriages ordered in the last 25 years have been CAF
>>>> Mk 5 carriages for CS and TPE (and there was incredulity about the latter
>>>> order). I don't think there have been any pure electric locos ordered (but
>>>> many ex-BR electric locos have been scrapped, so the fleet is significantly
>>>> reduced).
>>>
>>> The move to MU trains started long before privatisation. The southern
>>> was basically all MU since the end of steam, and on regional routes,
>>> since the Sprinter era in the '80s.
>>
>> Yes, but long distance services were all loco-hauled (incl class 43) at the
>> time of privatisation; now, very few are, and soon there will be none,
>> apart from sleepers.
>
>It depends what you define as "long distance". Waterloo-Exeter, for
>example, is quite a long distance, but it was DMU operated at that time.

That route illustrates the flexibility of units: a full-length (9-car) train from London could be down to a 3-car unit
by the time it gets to Exeter, with no complicated shunting moves. One single Waterloo departure could serve up to three
routes. While the Waterloo to Salisbury 9-car train would be more efficient if loco-hauled, the units win beyond there.

Ditto with the 12-car trains that leave Victoria, and end up as 3x4-car trains at their final destinations.

>
>>>> Perhaps, with the DfT prescribing exactly what services would run, the
>>>> flexibility of loco-hauled trains was no longer needed?
>>>
>>> Even where locomotive hauled trains remained, flexibility was not really
>>> a feature. Fixed formation trains came in during the 70s, and the idea
>>> of altering the formation of a train hasn't been a thing for decades.
>>
>> HSTs have had varying numbers of carriages, from four to nine. Other Mk 3
>> and Mk 4 trains have had even more variation.
>
>But they weren't varied on a day-to-day basis, they were reformed
>occasionally in the depot, in the same way that, for example, some 158s
>were reformed from 2 car sets to 3 car sets.
>
>In the end, if you are going to mess around with formations of trains,
>you inherently have to have spare rolling stock that is only used for
>some of the time, and it's better to have your trains in revenue earning
>service rather than sitting in some carriage sidings waiting for the odd
>occasions they are needed.

Or, of course, better still if the part-trains can be used in their own right, as happens with units.

Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
> On 26.03.23 12:30, Recliner wrote:
>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Very few passenger services are loco hauled in the UK. My recent trip to
>>> Belgium revealed that many services are loco hauled/propelled (although
>>> there were plenty of EMU services too). Why the difference?
>>
>> Just a theory: our big move from loco-hauled to multiple units was mainly
>> post-privatisation. The new ROSCO-owned trains were typically shorter,
>> more frequent, and harder-worked, and MUs are better for that. The only
>> loco-hauled passenger carriages ordered in the last 25 years have been CAF
>> Mk 5 carriages for CS and TPE (and there was incredulity about the latter
>> order). I don't think there have been any pure electric locos ordered (but
>> many ex-BR electric locos have been scrapped, so the fleet is significantly
>> reduced).
>
> The move to MU trains started long before privatisation. The southern
> was basically all MU since the end of steam, and on regional routes,
> since the Sprinter era in the '80s.
>
>> Perhaps, with the DfT prescribing exactly what services would run, the
>> flexibility of loco-hauled trains was no longer needed?
>
> Even where locomotive hauled trains remained, flexibility was not really
> a feature. Fixed formation trains came in during the 70s, and the idea
> of altering the formation of a train hasn't been a thing for decades.
>

The Southern Railway and later the Southern region kept a lot of its loco
hauled coaching stock in fixed rakes so the trend there started a lot
earlier.

They ranged from two coaches to six and a long train of course could
contain more than set but unless a coach needed attention a sets coaches
remained together . There was a pool,of unallocated coaches that would
replace a coach that had failed.
Sets had their own number, I don’t know if every coach in a set displayed
it on all the coach ends
but they are visible in many photos of the end vehicles such as this
preserved example on the I.O.W

<https://iwsteamrailway.co.uk/heritage/our-rolling-stock/carriages-wagons/four-wheeled-carriages/>

Some later design coaches that had buckeye couplers that were part of a
fixed set ran without buffers apart from the outer ends of the sets.

GH

In message <q4i02ih6ung50divc90a3efvq0c0gqg51n@4ax.com>, at 14:33:39 on
Sun, 26 Mar 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 13:45:30 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <tvp8g1$2ls6p$5@dont-email.me>, at 10:58:09 on Sun, 26 Mar
>>2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>> On 26.03.23 12:30, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Very few passenger services are loco hauled in the UK. My recent trip to
>>>>>> Belgium revealed that many services are loco hauled/propelled (although
>>>>>> there were plenty of EMU services too). Why the difference?
>>>>>
>>>>> Just a theory: our big move from loco-hauled to multiple units was mainly
>>>>> post-privatisation. The new ROSCO-owned trains were typically shorter,
>>>>> more frequent, and harder-worked, and MUs are better for that. The only
>>>>> loco-hauled passenger carriages ordered in the last 25 years have been CAF
>>>>> Mk 5 carriages for CS and TPE (and there was incredulity about the latter
>>>>> order). I don't think there have been any pure electric locos ordered (but
>>>>> many ex-BR electric locos have been scrapped, so the fleet is
>>>>>significantly
>>>>> reduced).
>>>>
>>>> The move to MU trains started long before privatisation. The southern
>>>> was basically all MU since the end of steam, and on regional routes,
>>>> since the Sprinter era in the '80s.
>>>
>>>Yes, but long distance services were all loco-hauled (incl class 43) at the
>>>time of privatisation;
>>
>>But with workarounds like push-pull (Class 43) and DVTs (IC225).
>>
>>Neither rake very often being seen without a semi-permanent set of
>>coaches.
>
>Or, indeed, at all!

What's the question here? Just die-hard trainspotting, or analysing why
there's a conception that LHCS is somehow more dynamically flexible than
MU's, and that back in the golden_age[tm] someone might have said "The
mid-morning Saturday train to the seaside is likely to be a bit busy, so
let's dust off a couple of those old carriages lurking in the sidings
over there, and attach them to the end of the train.

>There won't be any HSTs in normal service in England by the end of the
>year, and the remaining IC225s won't be in service for much longer. The
>remaining DVTs have retired to Wales.
>
>>Modulo nonsense like: http://www.perry.co.uk/images/dd-twins.jpg where
>>someone did some shuffling in the depot with their eyes closed.
>>
>>>now, very few are, and soon there will be none, apart from sleepers.
>>>
>>>>> Perhaps, with the DfT prescribing exactly what services would run, the
>>>>> flexibility of loco-hauled trains was no longer needed?
>>>>
>>>> Even where locomotive hauled trains remained, flexibility was not really
>>>> a feature. Fixed formation trains came in during the 70s, and the idea
>>>> of altering the formation of a train hasn't been a thing for decades.
>>>
>>>HSTs have had varying numbers of carriages, from four to nine.
>>
>>No different in principle to TurboStars which come in two or three car
>>formations. But rarely get their formation altered on the fly.
>
>Do they ever? EMUs and DMUs seem to need to have their formations
>altered in the depot or factory. The process seems to
>be quite complicated (ie, the software needs to be changed).

I only say "rarely", because this being Usenet someone is bound to have
an anecdote about it happening once, ten years ago, in rather strange
circumstances.

>>Even the re-sizing of Meridians was done on a permanent basis.
>
>Though it could be revised if needed.

See, you've almost done that there... I suppose they could be
re-re-sized back at the factory, but it's not just software because some
of the services are distributed along the train too, so those need to be
taken onto account.
--
Roland Perry

In message <2gf02itlv2it53oup39spffrtgmt4v881p@4ax.com>, at 13:52:00 on
Sun, 26 Mar 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 13:38:38 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <tvp7jn$2ll8a$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:43:01 on Sun, 26 Mar
>>2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>On 26.03.23 12:30, Recliner wrote:
>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Very few passenger services are loco hauled in the UK. My recent trip to
>>>>> Belgium revealed that many services are loco hauled/propelled (although
>>>>> there were plenty of EMU services too). Why the difference?
>>>> Just a theory: our big move from loco-hauled to multiple units was
>>>>mainly
>>>> post-privatisation. The new ROSCO-owned trains were typically shorter,
>>>> more frequent, and harder-worked, and MUs are better for that. The only
>>>> loco-hauled passenger carriages ordered in the last 25 years have been CAF
>>>> Mk 5 carriages for CS and TPE (and there was incredulity about the latter
>>>> order). I don't think there have been any pure electric locos ordered (but
>>>> many ex-BR electric locos have been scrapped, so the fleet is significantly
>>>> reduced).
>>>
>>>The move to MU trains started long before privatisation. The southern
>>>was basically all MU since the end of steam, and on regional routes,
>>>since the Sprinter era in the '80s.
>>>
>>>> Perhaps, with the DfT prescribing exactly what services would run, the
>>>> flexibility of loco-hauled trains was no longer needed?
>>>
>>>Even where locomotive hauled trains remained, flexibility was not
>>>really a feature. Fixed formation trains came in during the 70s, and
>>>the idea of altering the formation of a train hasn't been a thing for
>>>decades.
>>
>><Thread convergence> Other than by splitting/joining units part-way,
>>something which is trivially easy with MU, but requires a second loco
>>otherwise (unless the orphaned carriages stay at the platform, while the
>>front half disappears into the sunset. But the problem with that is the
>>rejoining maneuver will end up with a loco in the middle of the train.
>>
>>Of course, that's just a subset of how do you reverse a train at its
>>destination, or en-route like Liverpool-Norwich at Sheffield, if you
>>only have one loco.
>
>No problem these days — you just have a driving trailer at the other
>end. That's very common on the Continent.

I mentioned those earlier, but the train needs to have been originally
designed with that in mind.

>If you want to split and join loco-hauled trains with driving trailers,
>it's no different to doing that with Voyagers or IETs. But I'm not
>aware of any recent UK practice of doing so.

Not surprised, because two IC225's joined together is going to struggle
to find anywhere with a platform long enough to accommodate it.

>One other argument against loco-haulage is the wasted platform space. A
>nine-car IET uses less platform length than a 2+9 HST, but has more
>usable passenger space.

I don't think it's as much a case of wasting platform space, but
creating a formation with the maximum seating capacity, for platforms
with a restricted length.

When I went to Lincoln on a railtour 18 months ago, passengers in the
last third of the train had to walk-through to disembark (and later to
board). That's a long winded process you don't want to be routine.

Although it was what happened on northbound HSTs at Loughborough twenty
years ago. The platform was originally, and remained, fundamentally long
enough, but there was a narrow road bridge under which you had to duck
when walking to the exit, and someone decided that modern rail
passengers weren't capable of doing that any more.
--
Roland Perry

On 26.03.23 15:33, Recliner wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 13:45:30 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <tvp8g1$2ls6p$5@dont-email.me>, at 10:58:09 on Sun, 26 Mar
>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>> On 26.03.23 12:30, Recliner wrote:

>>>>> Perhaps, with the DfT prescribing exactly what services would run, the
>>>>> flexibility of loco-hauled trains was no longer needed?
>>>>
>>>> Even where locomotive hauled trains remained, flexibility was not really
>>>> a feature. Fixed formation trains came in during the 70s, and the idea
>>>> of altering the formation of a train hasn't been a thing for decades.
>>>
>>> HSTs have had varying numbers of carriages, from four to nine.
>>
>> No different in principle to TurboStars which come in two or three car
>> formations. But rarely get their formation altered on the fly.
>
> Do they ever? EMUs and DMUs seem to need to have their formations altered in the
> depot or factory. The process seems to be quite complicated (ie, the software needs to be changed).

The general idea is if you want to be able to run trains flexibly, you
make them up of a number of shorter units. For example the 465/466 fleet
has been used over the years to run 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 car formations,
depending on the specific needs of the route/time of day, using the
basic 2 and 4 car units. Likewise the 159 fleet operates as 6, 6 and 9
car formations depending on route/loadings.

Robin

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <q4i02ih6ung50divc90a3efvq0c0gqg51n@4ax.com>, at 14:33:39 on
>
> What's the question here? Just die-hard trainspotting, or analysing why
> there's a conception that LHCS is somehow more dynamically flexible than
> MU's, and that back in the golden_age[tm] someone might have said "The
> mid-morning Saturday train to the seaside is likely to be a bit busy, so
> let's dust off a couple of those old carriages lurking in the sidings
> over there, and attach them to the end of the train.
>
That did happen sometimes.
Third photo down on this link shows an example stored on the original GWR
route soon after the Railway entered Cornwall.

<http://www.cornwallrailwaysociety.org.uk/wearde-deviation.html>

Nowadays spare track like that is very rare and even if it was leaving
stock in an unsecured location
would see it graffitied,windows smashed and some burn’t so would not be an
economic exercise.

GH

Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
> On 26.03.23 15:33, Recliner wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 13:45:30 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <tvp8g1$2ls6p$5@dont-email.me>, at 10:58:09 on Sun, 26 Mar
>>> 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 26.03.23 12:30, Recliner wrote:
>
>>>>>> Perhaps, with the DfT prescribing exactly what services would run, the
>>>>>> flexibility of loco-hauled trains was no longer needed?
>>>>>
>>>>> Even where locomotive hauled trains remained, flexibility was not really
>>>>> a feature. Fixed formation trains came in during the 70s, and the idea
>>>>> of altering the formation of a train hasn't been a thing for decades.
>>>>
>>>> HSTs have had varying numbers of carriages, from four to nine.
>>>
>>> No different in principle to TurboStars which come in two or three car
>>> formations. But rarely get their formation altered on the fly.
>>
>> Do they ever? EMUs and DMUs seem to need to have their formations altered in the
>> depot or factory. The process seems to be quite complicated (ie, the
>> software needs to be changed).
>
> The general idea is if you want to be able to run trains flexibly, you
> make them up of a number of shorter units. For example the 465/466 fleet
> has been used over the years to run 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 car formations,
> depending on the specific needs of the route/time of day, using the
> basic 2 and 4 car units. Likewise the 159 fleet operates as 6, 6 and 9
> car formations depending on route/loadings.

It's even more flexible than that, as SWR also has 2-car 158s that can be
part of the same formation.

So, you can have 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 car formations (I'm not sure if
more than three units can join together, but if they can, then 10, 11 and
12 car would also be possible).

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <2gf02itlv2it53oup39spffrtgmt4v881p@4ax.com>, at 13:52:00 on
> Sun, 26 Mar 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 13:38:38 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <tvp7jn$2ll8a$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:43:01 on Sun, 26 Mar
>>> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>> On 26.03.23 12:30, Recliner wrote:
>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Very few passenger services are loco hauled in the UK. My recent trip to
>>>>>> Belgium revealed that many services are loco hauled/propelled (although
>>>>>> there were plenty of EMU services too). Why the difference?
>>>>> Just a theory: our big move from loco-hauled to multiple units was
>>>>> mainly
>>>>> post-privatisation. The new ROSCO-owned trains were typically shorter,
>>>>> more frequent, and harder-worked, and MUs are better for that. The only
>>>>> loco-hauled passenger carriages ordered in the last 25 years have been CAF
>>>>> Mk 5 carriages for CS and TPE (and there was incredulity about the latter
>>>>> order). I don't think there have been any pure electric locos ordered (but
>>>>> many ex-BR electric locos have been scrapped, so the fleet is significantly
>>>>> reduced).
>>>>
>>>> The move to MU trains started long before privatisation. The southern
>>>> was basically all MU since the end of steam, and on regional routes,
>>>> since the Sprinter era in the '80s.
>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps, with the DfT prescribing exactly what services would run, the
>>>>> flexibility of loco-hauled trains was no longer needed?
>>>>
>>>> Even where locomotive hauled trains remained, flexibility was not
>>>> really a feature. Fixed formation trains came in during the 70s, and
>>>> the idea of altering the formation of a train hasn't been a thing for
>>>> decades.
>>>
>>> <Thread convergence> Other than by splitting/joining units part-way,
>>> something which is trivially easy with MU, but requires a second loco
>>> otherwise (unless the orphaned carriages stay at the platform, while the
>>> front half disappears into the sunset. But the problem with that is the
>>> rejoining maneuver will end up with a loco in the middle of the train.
>>>
>>> Of course, that's just a subset of how do you reverse a train at its
>>> destination, or en-route like Liverpool-Norwich at Sheffield, if you
>>> only have one loco.
>>
>> No problem these days — you just have a driving trailer at the other
>> end. That's very common on the Continent.
>
> I mentioned those earlier, but the train needs to have been originally
> designed with that in mind.

I was talking about driving trailers, not DVTs.

>
>> If you want to split and join loco-hauled trains with driving trailers,
>> it's no different to doing that with Voyagers or IETs. But I'm not
>> aware of any recent UK practice of doing so.
>
> Not surprised, because two IC225's joined together is going to struggle
> to find anywhere with a platform long enough to accommodate it.

There are other, shorter loco-hauled trains (eg, Nova 3) that could, in
theory, couple together and fit on some longer platforms.

>
>> One other argument against loco-haulage is the wasted platform space. A
>> nine-car IET uses less platform length than a 2+9 HST, but has more
>> usable passenger space.
>
> I don't think it's as much a case of wasting platform space, but
> creating a formation with the maximum seating capacity, for platforms
> with a restricted length.
>
> When I went to Lincoln on a railtour 18 months ago, passengers in the
> last third of the train had to walk-through to disembark (and later to
> board). That's a long winded process you don't want to be routine.
>
> Although it was what happened on northbound HSTs at Loughborough twenty
> years ago. The platform was originally, and remained, fundamentally long
> enough, but there was a narrow road bridge under which you had to duck
> when walking to the exit, and someone decided that modern rail
> passengers weren't capable of doing that any more.

Yes, there are quite a few once-long platforms that are now only partially
used.

On 27.03.23 12:22, Recliner wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <2gf02itlv2it53oup39spffrtgmt4v881p@4ax.com>, at 13:52:00 on
>> Sun, 26 Mar 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 13:38:38 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In message <tvp7jn$2ll8a$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:43:01 on Sun, 26 Mar
>>>> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>> On 26.03.23 12:30, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Very few passenger services are loco hauled in the UK. My recent trip to
>>>>>>> Belgium revealed that many services are loco hauled/propelled (although
>>>>>>> there were plenty of EMU services too). Why the difference?
>>>>>> Just a theory: our big move from loco-hauled to multiple units was
>>>>>> mainly
>>>>>> post-privatisation. The new ROSCO-owned trains were typically shorter,
>>>>>> more frequent, and harder-worked, and MUs are better for that. The only
>>>>>> loco-hauled passenger carriages ordered in the last 25 years have been CAF
>>>>>> Mk 5 carriages for CS and TPE (and there was incredulity about the latter
>>>>>> order). I don't think there have been any pure electric locos ordered (but
>>>>>> many ex-BR electric locos have been scrapped, so the fleet is significantly
>>>>>> reduced).
>>>>>
>>>>> The move to MU trains started long before privatisation. The southern
>>>>> was basically all MU since the end of steam, and on regional routes,
>>>>> since the Sprinter era in the '80s.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps, with the DfT prescribing exactly what services would run, the
>>>>>> flexibility of loco-hauled trains was no longer needed?
>>>>>
>>>>> Even where locomotive hauled trains remained, flexibility was not
>>>>> really a feature. Fixed formation trains came in during the 70s, and
>>>>> the idea of altering the formation of a train hasn't been a thing for
>>>>> decades.
>>>>
>>>> <Thread convergence> Other than by splitting/joining units part-way,
>>>> something which is trivially easy with MU, but requires a second loco
>>>> otherwise (unless the orphaned carriages stay at the platform, while the
>>>> front half disappears into the sunset. But the problem with that is the
>>>> rejoining maneuver will end up with a loco in the middle of the train.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, that's just a subset of how do you reverse a train at its
>>>> destination, or en-route like Liverpool-Norwich at Sheffield, if you
>>>> only have one loco.
>>>
>>> No problem these days — you just have a driving trailer at the other
>>> end. That's very common on the Continent.
>>
>> I mentioned those earlier, but the train needs to have been originally
>> designed with that in mind.
>
> I was talking about driving trailers, not DVTs.

DVTs are driving trailers. The D and T in the initialism are for driving
and trailer. The reason they were built as vans and not as passenger
vehicles was due to the post-Polmont rule about no passengers in leading
vehicles over 100 mph. On slower routes, like Liverpool St - Norwich,
the DBSOs had passenger accommodation in the driving trailer. That rule
was relaxed to a standard based on crashworthiness and energy absorbtion
capabilities, to enable the 180s, 22x and 390 to be built.

I'm reasonably certain the Mk2 stock used on LivSt-Norwich for many
years in push-pull configuration with class 86 and DBSOs were not
originally designed with this mode of operation in mind, nor were the
class 86 locomotives.

Robin

Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
> On 27.03.23 12:22, Recliner wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <2gf02itlv2it53oup39spffrtgmt4v881p@4ax.com>, at 13:52:00 on
>>> Sun, 26 Mar 2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> On Sun, 26 Mar 2023 13:38:38 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In message <tvp7jn$2ll8a$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:43:01 on Sun, 26 Mar
>>>>> 2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On 26.03.23 12:30, Recliner wrote:
>>>>>>> Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Very few passenger services are loco hauled in the UK. My recent trip to
>>>>>>>> Belgium revealed that many services are loco hauled/propelled (although
>>>>>>>> there were plenty of EMU services too). Why the difference?
>>>>>>> Just a theory: our big move from loco-hauled to multiple units was
>>>>>>> mainly
>>>>>>> post-privatisation. The new ROSCO-owned trains were typically shorter,
>>>>>>> more frequent, and harder-worked, and MUs are better for that. The only
>>>>>>> loco-hauled passenger carriages ordered in the last 25 years have been CAF
>>>>>>> Mk 5 carriages for CS and TPE (and there was incredulity about the latter
>>>>>>> order). I don't think there have been any pure electric locos ordered (but
>>>>>>> many ex-BR electric locos have been scrapped, so the fleet is significantly
>>>>>>> reduced).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The move to MU trains started long before privatisation. The southern
>>>>>> was basically all MU since the end of steam, and on regional routes,
>>>>>> since the Sprinter era in the '80s.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps, with the DfT prescribing exactly what services would run, the
>>>>>>> flexibility of loco-hauled trains was no longer needed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even where locomotive hauled trains remained, flexibility was not
>>>>>> really a feature. Fixed formation trains came in during the 70s, and
>>>>>> the idea of altering the formation of a train hasn't been a thing for
>>>>>> decades.
>>>>>
>>>>> <Thread convergence> Other than by splitting/joining units part-way,
>>>>> something which is trivially easy with MU, but requires a second loco
>>>>> otherwise (unless the orphaned carriages stay at the platform, while the
>>>>> front half disappears into the sunset. But the problem with that is the
>>>>> rejoining maneuver will end up with a loco in the middle of the train.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, that's just a subset of how do you reverse a train at its
>>>>> destination, or en-route like Liverpool-Norwich at Sheffield, if you
>>>>> only have one loco.
>>>>
>>>> No problem these days — you just have a driving trailer at the other
>>>> end. That's very common on the Continent.
>>>
>>> I mentioned those earlier, but the train needs to have been originally
>>> designed with that in mind.
>>
>> I was talking about driving trailers, not DVTs.
>
> DVTs are driving trailers. The D and T in the initialism are for driving
> and trailer.

Please don't patronise me — of course I'm well aware of that. I was
obviously using 'DT' as opposed to DVT to mean that they were passenger
carrying.

> The reason they were built as vans and not as passenger
> vehicles was due to the post-Polmont rule about no passengers in leading
> vehicles over 100 mph.

Yes, I know.

> On slower routes, like Liverpool St - Norwich,
> the DBSOs had passenger accommodation in the driving trailer. That rule
> was relaxed to a standard based on crashworthiness and energy absorbtion
> capabilities, to enable the 180s, 22x and 390 to be built.
>
> I'm reasonably certain the Mk2 stock used on LivSt-Norwich for many
> years in push-pull configuration with class 86 and DBSOs were not
> originally designed with this mode of operation in mind, nor were the
> class 86 locomotives.

As I said, I was talking about Continental practice, where DTs have long
been common. They were also the norm on the Tube in the early EMU days.

And we now have DTs on the mainline again with the Nova 3 trains.

Am 26.03.2023 um 16:22 schrieb Marc Van Dyck:
> Tweed pretended :
>> Very few passenger services are loco hauled in the UK. My recent trip to
>> Belgium revealed that many services are loco hauled/propelled (although
>> there were plenty of EMU services too). Why the difference?
>
> Speaking for Belgium, just catch those loco hauled trains while you
> still can, because it won't last long. The current M7 stock order will
> displace all previous generation locos - only the two most recent series
> will be spared - and there is alreay a following order for EMUs being
> prepared.

There have been two trends in the last decades in Europe: one towards
EMU for more flexible operations and one towards double-decker stock for
the maximum number of seats on existing lines. Until recently, only
'one or the other' was possible.

Now, the Bombadier Twindexx class (M7 in Belgium, RABe 502 in
Switzerland, class 445/446 in Germany) closes ths gap, enabling
double-decker EMU operations.

Rolf

Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
> Am 26.03.2023 um 16:22 schrieb Marc Van Dyck:
>> Tweed pretended :
>>> Very few passenger services are loco hauled in the UK. My recent trip to
>>> Belgium revealed that many services are loco hauled/propelled (although
>>> there were plenty of EMU services too). Why the difference?
>>
>> Speaking for Belgium, just catch those loco hauled trains while you
>> still can, because it won't last long. The current M7 stock order will
>> displace all previous generation locos - only the two most recent series
>> will be spared - and there is alreay a following order for EMUs being
>> prepared.
>
> There have been two trends in the last decades in Europe: one towards
> EMU for more flexible operations and one towards double-decker stock for
> the maximum number of seats on existing lines. Until recently, only
> 'one or the other' was possible.
>
> Now, the Bombadier Twindexx class (M7 in Belgium, RABe 502 in
> Switzerland, class 445/446 in Germany) closes ths gap, enabling
> double-decker EMU operations.

That's a good point that I'd forgotten: loco-hauled sets of double-decker
trailers. It kept loco-haulage economic for much longer.

The availability of double-decker EMUs now makes electric loco-haulage
redundant. I see the Twindexx EMUs can also be diesel-hauled away from the
wires.

https://www.railway-technology.com/projects/bombardier-twindexx-double-deck-trains/