Modern loco hauled operations

[nightstar.train]

This has puzzled me for a while now. Why do most modern loco hauled trains in regular service, such as the FGW ones and the Arrive Holyhead to Cardiff service, have two engines (one at each end) when there are loads of DVTs and DBSOs lying around. Surley it must cost vastly more to hire a second engine rather than a DVT/DBSO. And a loco weighs 120 tons+, so they must use an awful lot fuel to drag that around with them. I can see why you might use two locos on a one off working when the stock might not be equipped for a DVT, but on regular long term workings it just doesn't make sense to me. Can any railwaymen on here shed some light?

[plarailfan]

The DVT's and DBSO's aren't wired up for class 57 push / pull operation, ISTR the class 67 loco's were modified to run with DVT's

It's handy having a second loco 'dead' on the rear of the train, in case the hauling loco fails, saving costly delays to following services.

A lot of terminus stations have had shunting engines and run-round loops removed to save money, but causes this some inconvenience and extra expense to operators who still do use locomotive haulage.

[Pennine MC]

It's handy having a second loco 'dead' on the rear of the train, in case the hauling loco fails, saving costly delays to following services.

 

 

Ah, that'll be why you see those artics with fork-lifts on the back then.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Stationmaster]

This has puzzled me for a while now. Why do most modern loco hauled trains in regular service, such as the FGW ones and the Arrive Holyhead to Cardiff service, have two engines (one at each end) when there are loads of DVTs and DBSOs lying around. Surley it must cost vastly more to hire a second engine rather than a DVT/DBSO. And a loco weighs 120 tons+, so they must use an awful lot fuel to drag that around with them. I can see why you might use two locos on a one off working when the stock might not be equipped for a DVT, but on regular long term workings it just doesn't make sense to me. Can any railwaymen on here shed some light?

 

 

 

The simple answer is 'to save money'.

A former recently retired colleague and I were only discussing this very thing a few days ago at an 'old boys' lunch' and remarking how much things have changed in this very area. For years adding a loco to the rear of a train movement was something to be treated with extreme caution and it was very strictly limited to basically assistance on gradients (although that often had to be from the front) and emergencies. In the days of steam that made a lot of sense as the rear loco had to be under power and was therefore likely to do something different from the leading one - such as carrying on pushing when the front end stopped.

Dieselisation effectively ended that problem but we still remained very wary of having locos on the rear of trains - presumably we had by then kidded ourselves that all that weight was a dangerous thing to have around, and all sorts of other ideas. But gradually things were relaxed and by the late 1980s the idea was beginning to catch on, a bit. But the '90s and even more so privetisation brought new economic realities and deeper thinking (among time served railwaymen - not necessarily the newcomers). If you had a loco at both ends you had no need to run round so you saved ground staff, and you saved pointwork and you could reverse in far more places - so operation could be more flexible.

Finally with privetisation not only was the hedge being trimmed a different way but the loco fleet became a different thing entirely from its past. Sectoristaion had helped by providing the BR businesses with dedicated fleets which once they had them only involved a running cost - and that could be cheaper than paying for shunters and pointwork. Privatisation bought something new in the shape of loco lease and hire which influenced cost calculations and the way things were looked at, plus staff often became as much something you hired in from another operator as the loco; changing railway, different way of doing things - especially if it saves money. Oh and the fuel cost - I don't know any precise figures but it would probably be negligible for around an extra 80 odd tons of trailing load weight, it certainly wasn't very much of factor in the days when we increased the load of a freight train by a few hundred tons.

 

 

[Fat Controller]

To which,in the event of a failure, you can factor in the cost of hiring in a rescue loco at short notice, and the cost of all the delay-minutes that get attributed to you. That's if you can find a rescue loco within range in the first place, of course...

A far cry from the days of Mystexs from Llanelli and Swansea in the late 1960s/early 1970s, when we'd normally have at least one change of loco before leaving Wales- I can remember at least one where we changed locos twice before heading up the North and West.

[Talltim]

Presumably tho, in the case of a failure, you still have to get the rear loco to the front of the train, and you then have all the issues of removed running round facilities that causes the need for the top-and-tailing anyway.

[The Stationmaster]

Presumably tho, in the case of a failure, you still have to get the rear loco to the front of the train, and you then have all the issues of removed running round facilities that causes the need for the top-and-tailing anyway.

 

In most instances propelling 'to clear the line' is permissible.

 

 

 

[a98087]

Top and tail locos effectivly converts loco hauled stock into multiple unit. It allows the train to reverse anywhere in any platform.

[Tay Bridge]

Hi

Interesting stuff. Had thought that it was always just in case of failure. hadn't thought of the turnaround or reverse and ground staff costs.

 

Learn something new everyday.

 

Interesting post

 

 

Chris

[tinsley-toton]

Just for info, the Holyhead to Cardiff WAG service does not usually operate as T+T, just the one 57 at the front and runs round at Canton.

 

Regards

T-T

[nightstar.train]

Just for info, the Holyhead to Cardiff WAG service does not usually operate as T+T, just the one 57 at the front and runs round at Canton.

 

Regards

T-T

 

I guess that is a recent development then as they certainly started with two locos.

As to the loco failure thing, are they really that common? I thought that the mean time between failures for most trains was in the thousands of hours, so on a typical working this SHOULD be less than once a year. Still as you say privatisation brings in new reality that doesn't make sense.

[Edwin_m]

The loco failure thing may be more to do with trying to find another train able to rescue, as a unit would probably not be able to manage it.

 

With class 57 and 67 probably still under-employed it makes sense to charge a cheap rate for two if the alternative would be getting no money for either. This could change if many more loco-hauled trains appeared on the network. Top'n'tail also removes the need to fit the coaching stock with jumper cables, devise a DVT arrangement and go to the cost and hassle of getting safety cases for both.

[nightstar.train]

The loco failure thing may be more to do with trying to find another train able to rescue, as a unit would probably not be able to manage it.

 

With class 57 and 67 probably still under-employed it makes sense to charge a cheap rate for two if the alternative would be getting no money for either. This could change if many more loco-hauled trains appeared on the network. Top'n'tail also removes the need to fit the coaching stock with jumper cables, devise a DVT arrangement and go to the cost and hassle of getting safety cases for both.

 

Yes, but i find it strange that WS&MR are running a 67 with DVT arrangement, whereas Arrive Trains Wales are having to do a run round. I can see why for a short term operation (like the FGW loco hauled) you wouldn't bother with the safety case, but for a permenant arrangement like the WAG express you think they'd bother. Like you say though, they probably get the locos ridiculously cheap. I just like trains with a DVT or DBSO, think they are really cool. Can't wait for this new service by the American lot down in Devon (?) that will be a 31 and DBSO arrangement. One for my layout me thinks.

[Edwin_m]

WSMR would struggle to run round in Marylebone. Even if there are platform end crossovers, the number of other trains using the station would make it very difficult. I don't recall the layout at Wrexham but unless there are two crossovers run-round there would be impossible. So using a DVT saves them at least one turnover loco and crew. And they will soon start running similar sets to Birmingham where run-round would be difficult to say the least.

 

There are two platforms at Holyhead with run-rounds and at the times they use them ATW will have no problem with platform occupancy. Running round at Cardiff Central would be very difficult but the train goes into Canton for several hours where on most days they would probably have to detach the loco anyway for fuel or a maintenance swap.

[beast66606]

WSMR would struggle to run round in Marylebone. Even if there are platform end crossovers, the number of other trains using the station would make it very difficult. I don't recall the layout at Wrexham but unless there are two crossovers run-round there would be impossible.

 

 

No problem running round at Wrexham, but the current turn round time would not be sufficient.

[Fat Controller]

I guess that is a recent development then as they certainly started with two locos.

As to the loco failure thing, are they really that common? I thought that the mean time between failures for most trains was in the thousands of hours, so on a typical working this SHOULD be less than once a year. Still as you say privatisation brings in new reality that doesn't make sense.

MTBF for EMUs is in the 5000-12000 miles range and for DMUs, probably somewhat less (must look at Captain Deltic's 'Golden Spanner' ratings). Diesel locos are somewhat less reliable- with considerable difference between operators and between classes. 'Failure' doesn't mean always that stock has to be rescued- I think the Network Rail definition is a fault causing more than 5 minutes delay- so it can be things such as door failures on units.

[plarailfan]

Ah, that'll be why you see those artics with fork-lifts on the back then.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Take the retail chain, "Pets at home" they use a haulage firm, (Downton) for their store deliveries, the artics are in "Pets at home" livery.

When the vehicle arrives at the store, the driver hops onto the forktruck on the back of his truck, and unloads the palletised delivery himself, while the store staff, err, work in the store.

Unloading complete, the driver gets his load ticket signed off, and gets on with his next job.

These fork truck arrangements are often used for building site deliveries, it adds extra cost onto haulage firms (Which customers often don't bother to pay for) and pity the poor driver, when a hydraulic hose pops off, spraying fluid all over him and his clothes, while hundreds of miles from home, and with nowhere to get a shower, and you're out of time on your tacho, before the locally based fork truck engineer arrives !!!

(I speak from bitter experience, not truck driving now, thankfully, lol).

[StaffsOatcake]

No problem running round at Wrexham, but the current turn round time would not be sufficient.

 

 

 

But the Skips are due to start running into Birmingham Snow Hill and run round there is a bit tight too.

 

 

[The Evil Bus Driver]

...while the store staff, err, work in the store.

 

So that's what they call it these days.

 

I assume you mean "Work" as in work rather than "work" round the back of the building with a cigarette and lighter, or just wandering around with a piece of paper as I used to do lol.

 

 

 

[big jim]

But the Skips are due to start running into Birmingham Snow Hill and run round there is a bit tight too.

 

the birmingham trains are going to be 67+dvt and they are only going to be running into moor st, into the new bay platforms which open on the 11th dec

[StaffsOatcake]

the birmingham trains are going to be 67+dvt and they are only going to be running into moor st, into the new bay platforms which open on the 11th dec

 

Are the drivers been trained to take the skips through to Stourbridge for fuelling etc?

 

 

[big jim]

not that i know of, we do sign stourbridge at moor st depot (well i will when i move depots in feb)

 

i suppose they will get fuelled at wembley, if not i could always take them to crewe!!

[45156]

On the question of locos T&T "because of failures", I was lucky enough to get a cab trip from Crewe to Carlisle over Shap when the North section of the WCML was worked by the 50s. The driver really showed a clean pair of heels, with 5400 hp to play with, and the starts out of the intermediate stops were quite amazing (better than the electric loco from London) but he kept getting ahead of time due to the much better acceleration, and I asked him why they were running in pairs, and he said exactly the same thing even back then.

[John M Upton]

Top & Tail loco hauled doesn't always mean get out of trouble quickly, there is a Class 73 T&T test train down south at the moment this week, it has failed twice on two consecutive days, the first time on Tuesday at Salfords where it sat blocking the down fast for over four hours and had to be rescued by an MPV(!) and then this very morning that very same train and locos packed up slap bang on Farlington Junction blocking off Portsmouth from the east for an hour.

 

Needless to say I do hope that any plans to run further test trips with this combo for the rest of this week take place a long way from me!!