A thought experiment. As DTG (rightly or wrongly, not the debate here) are leaning towards the modern era for routes these days, which invariably means for passenger routes a DMU or EMU of some description, are there any loco hauled passenger services in the UK at all now, beyond the sleeper services? If any exist, would they be suitable for a busy timetable?
The UK is moving away from Loco hauled services after a number of accidents in which these types of trains have been particularly susceptible too. (Think Falkirk and that Landrover one). I think Wales has some left, but not sure if anywhere else does
I think the last loco hauled services would have been the Trans Pennine Express Nova sets which were push-pull with Class 68, Mk5 coaches and DVT (please correct me if I'm wrong on any of these details). DRS were running Class 68 + Mk2 in ScotRail livery doing complete laps of the Fife Circle so locomotive leading out of Waverley and Leading in at the end of the journey so proper old-fashioned style of working. These were withdrawn around May 2020 and there were two sets. For TSW we have rail tours including the Fife Circle however without the challenge of regular passenger stops. In Train Simulator Classic there is the Fife Circle including the Class 68 and Mk2 coaches doing a full stopping service although many of the speed limits are not correct. I suppose an option for TSW would be some rescue missions where for instance you attach a locomotive to a broken down HST and complete the service; HST's can be hauled normally with a leading rescue locomotive, but are restricted to 20 where another HST is rescuing from the rear (again correct me if this has changed).
Chiltern Railways still run Class 68s with Mk3 DVT sets regularly between London Marylebone and Birmingham Moor Street.
Chiltern still use 68 + Mk3s on some of their mainline services between Marylebone and Birmingham AFAIK - that would make for a good route, which I believe gets suggested quite a lot on here.
I would look forward to some modern loco hauled services mentioned such as the class 66, I would find it more interesting than the constant EMU's I think a few class 91's are also still operating on the ECML, though not for much longer. Hopefully we will get an expert version of the class 91 before they all disappear
For some reason the front of the 68 puts me in mind of Augustus Gloop... This must be one of the last loco hauled services around then, what route does it take from Marylebone to Brum?
Cardiff - Manchester: 67+mk4 Cardiff - Holyhead: 67+mk4 Swansea - Manchester: 67+mk4 London - Birmingham: 68+mk3 London - York: 91+mk4 London - Leeds: 91+mk4 London - Penzance: 57+mk3 (sleeper) London - Scotland 92+mk5 and then 73+66 (sleeper).
Good thread tbh I’m from the US so been wondering the same thing, so I’m glad to see the question asked and discussed. Did a little google myself and it looks like something from Chiltern Railways is our best bet here. What do you folks think would be a reasonable start and endpoint for a route like this?
Marylebone is one of the smaller termini in London, and has a very distinctive design, so would probably be a good start. Based on a similar distance on the WCML, I would personally say Banbury is far enough with a 1h10 journey time (70ish miles, but at a lower overall speed limit than other UK mainlines), stopping at High Wycombe and Bicester North on the way. Local stopping services would obviously be longer than that.
I would personally go for the Birmingham end of the line, and do Leamington Spa and Stratford-upon-Avon to Birmingham Snow Hill (59 miles altogether for the whole network). There would be a vast amount of service variety: Chiltern Railways Class 68 + DVT sets on fast and semi-fast services from Leamington to Birmingham Moor St Class 168 and 165 DMUs on semi-fast services from Leamington to Birmingham Snow Hill Class 165 DMUs on stopping shuttle services Leamington to Stratford-upon-Avon West Midlands Railway Class 172 DMU on stopping services Leamington to Snow Hill and beyond Class 172 DMU on stopping services Stratford-upon-Avon to Birmingham Snow Hill and beyond The route is also heavily used by freight services from London to Birmingham and beyond (mostly Class 66 as normal for UK operations), plus there is the steam centre at Tyseley for rail tours (there are steam rail tours every Sunday in the summer between Birmingham and Stratford-upon-Avon using both routes). For operational interest, several of the stations between Tyseley and Stratford are small request stops so the timetable could be varied throughout the day. Many of the stations on this route have either kept much of their original steam-era Great Western Railway fixtures and fittings or are otherwise architecturally interesting, particularly the Art Deco station at Leamington Spa. Both the 168 and 172 DMUs should be more easily adaptable from the existing Class 170 DMU (and the 377, which the 172 is very similar to in body style - see below). The 165 could be repurposed from the GWR 166 with some changes to the underbody modeling in particular.
I attach Max Schroeder's articles, excellent as always: https://mx-schroeder.medium.com/terribly-tired-the-2001-great-heck-train-crash-4a3183632839 https://mx-schroeder.medium.com/unholy-cow-the-1984-polmont-scotland-train-derailment-b4159a3b94e8 I find it interesting, as my feeling is that mainland Europe is moving rather towards more push-pulls than away from them. I wonder if there is something particular about UK railways that makes them behave differently (brake setup deviating from UIC standards comes to mind, or a poor construction of passenger wagons?), as safety from rear-impact of the loco is not something I have seen as a big concern here. European passenger wagons should withstand even head-on collision with destruction limited in designated crumple zones (outside of the first vehicle which will obviously take a large hit in any case). Even in event of sudden decceleration the forces from rear loco should be much smaller than that. There is so many different types of accidents where EMU will be so much less safe that I cannot imagine them being advantageous in total..
The much lighter driving cab, when being propelled Cab first, this part of the train is much more susceptible to derailing, compared with that of the much heavier loco. Great Heck - DVT hit a landrover and derailed Falkirk - DVT hit a cow and derailed Both accidents are generally believed to have been avoidable, if the loco had hit first
Fair enough. That's because the passengers are in their cars, which are in the the train. Does this not count?
A large proportion of multiple units have unpowered vehicles leading, too. Following the Falkirk collision additional weight was added to some vehicles used as the leading vehicle in a push-pull arrangement, and the required weight for a leading vehicle was increased. These days the weight of a DVT used on high speed services is comparable to the weight of the lead vehicle on a multiple unit. It’s true that with a loco-hauled set operating push-pull there is a potential benefit in some types of collision of having the loco leading, but given that a loco is heavier than the lead vehicle of a multiple unit, that could be taken as an argument for a loco-hauled train being safer than a multiple unit when the loco is leading. A loco-hauled set has the additional safety benefit that there are no passengers in the lead vehicle. Either way, there is nothing inherently unsafe about a loco-hauled set or about a multiple unit, and safety is not the reason for the UK moving towards multiple units for most purposes. A multiple unit has a number of advantages over a hauled set. The ability to distribute power across more vehicles (so more wheels) in the train is helpful for adhesion. Also, having passengers in all vehicles gives a higher passenger capacity for an equivalent length of train.
Then at Ufton on the B&H, a HST with an 80 ton power car leading struck a road vehicle which had been deliberately driven onto a level crossing by someone wanting to top themselves and was derailed with considerable loss of life. Nevertheless I couldn't help wonder myself whether the outcome at Heck etc. might have been different if the train wasn't being propelled.
TfW runs class 67s on there services. Now that DTG is making Welsh routes, you might see a class 67 loco DLC drop at some point.
I think that this is the most interesting loco-hauled operation in the UK today, and if DTG are insistent on only making modern routes going forward, Marylebone-Banbury (realistically we won't get all the way to Moor Street in one go) is the route I'd most like to see them make.
The Falkirk DBSO derailment had something else in the report about a contributing factor: there was a brake delay designed to prevent backlash when brakes are applied from the DBSO cab. DVTs are directly cut-in to the brake pipe so that they are as effective at braking as a locomotive. Leading vehicles are always ballasted these days however following the Falkirk trains designed to use a passive vehicle leading were not for passenger carrying instead being utilised for luggage, mail and bicycles. The privatised railway undid that change to maximise passenger capacity and profit. It is also a good point that some multiple units have passive vehicles leading.
Most modern units have light front vehicles. The class 80x for example does not have engines in the leading vehicles. The move to units is almost always a question of efficiency rather than safety. The outliers are some of the loco-hauled trains listed by others but are easily explained. TFW and Chiltern are just using existing stock which is still serviceable instead of buying new units. The sleeper services all favour loco hauled stock as there is no need for an engine to be under sleeping compartments and it makes changing the formation easier. Particularly the night riviera which changes length depending on the demand. The TPE nova push pull sets are a bit of an outlier as they were intended to make changing to electric trains easier once the Transpennine route was electrified. They could simply swap the locomotive for an electric version and reap the benefits without buying new stock. Unfortunately this hasn't happened due to the slow progress of the electrification and the shocking quality of the caf coaches which have had to be withdrawn.
On the car/bus train with the enclosed coaches you indeed stay in your vehicle as the coaches are sealed. The lorries basically go on flatbed with an open cage around them so the drivers have to go in a proper coach.
It feels as if that must add a lot of time to the loading/unloading process for lorries. I wonder why they didn’t just enclose the vehicles and use the same system as for cars/buses. Something to do with increased risk of fire if some of the lorries have a flammable load, perhaps?
It's not too bad actually - they have minibuses that pick up/drop off the whole length of the train, stopping at each vehicle, so it only takes a few minutes to get all the drivers back to the right place. IIRC last time I did it, they had a coach behind each loco, and then split the drivers down the middle with one bus heading toward each end. It's a very strange little operation, added to the fact that the coaches are more European style rather than British stock, so it feels very alien sometimes for Kent! I believe you're correct about the cage-style wagons - having flammable goods in a pressurised wagon like the passenger ones would be a disaster if something went wrong.
It is worth noting that all of the fires on the Channel Tunnel so far have been because of the trucks.
For "route hopping" you know it's start in London. It's about 112 miles in total, so they COULD do it all....Birmingham would be a nice "route hop" too. That's about as long as Kassel so it's POSSIBLE to do the whole thing. Not sure where else would make sense to have it end logically. I think London to Birmingham makes sense as it is and it's in the realm of other TSW routes like Kassel and Southeastern High Speed. The Class 68 would be a GREAT addition being used on several routes.
Interesting about how/why the UK moved away from cab cars... Caltrain had a similar issue where they connected the cabcar use with some bad derailments, but they didn't get rid of cabcars completely, they did remove the Bombardier cabcars from service and only use the Hyundai Rotems for improved crash safety (the same Rotems we have in TSW). For whatever reason I prefer loco hauled trains in TSW vs MUs... not sure why... I guess they feel more like "trains" vs MUs that often feel like a glorified bus.
There were a number of reasons for the move away from loco hauled sets in the UK. While they have been made almost extinct in the past fifteen years, the process really started when the second generation multiple units came into service, which often replaced longer loco hauled trains. One of the reasons is better acceleration and deceleration, and I expect that for diesel trains, one locomotive is a lot less efficient than three or four smaller engines powering each coach. It's worth noting that even the best designed loco-hauled sets would still experience jolting because of the coaches pushing and pulling against each other, which doesn't happen with multiple units. Finally, they're a much better use of space since the length of one coach isn't taken up by an engine - the only reason that other countries are fine with it on busy commuter routes is because they can have double decker trains that effectively double the passenger-carrying space in the same coach length. We have one of the most busy railways in Europe but the continent's least forgiving loading gauges, so we don't have many options to expand capacity. Even the walk-through gangways on 378s, 700s, 2024 stock, etcetera, were billed as a way of carrying more passengers rather than a quality of life feature.
Last time I took the Shakespeare express, the semaphores were still up. Return trip £15, nice long climb on the north Warwickshire route. Don't think filming out of the carriage window is allowed now.
