Loco-hauled resurgence?

[Intercity110]

i’m asking this after TFW extend the 67’s to manchester (and i beleve TPE are extending 68’s but i’m not sure), but have loco hauled srevices resurged in recent years? (This is just my own opinion)

 

[zwk500]

To me they've not really resurged, just a few areas where either units are harder to find or some temporary capacity is needed. Also worth pointing out that all daytime Loco-hauled are push-pull services.

 

[tbtc]

I think it’s a “dead cat bounce” (The term given to something dropping so low then appearing to bounce back slightly), we could have had this thread a few years ago when the 67s on the Fife Circle and 37s on the Cumbrian Coast made it look like a loco hauled resurgence…

…or a few years before that when the Arriva Trains Northern 37s were running a top-and-tailed peak hour diagram from Harrogate into Leeds, a leisure-friendly daytime round trip on the Settle’n’Carlisle and then the teatime departure from Leeds to Harrogate…

…or stock shortages were meaning a brief loco hauled renaissance around Norwich/ Cardiff …

…such services/ diagrams are generally introduced with much fanfare but aren’t long term solutions…

…but the reason that TfW are running the loco hauled Manchester services is because LNER are getting rid of thirty one 91s that have provided hundreds of loco hauled journeys a day for decades, using the same coaches that are now in wales

So the small number of services run by 67s and 68s each day (a very small number in the case of TPE’s 68s!) needs to be seen in the context of the number of loco hauled services no longer running on the ECML

The one loco hauled service that has lasted beyond the short term has been the Chiltern 67s, which are still clogging up the Marylebone air some years later. But their polluting days may soon be over as government cutbacks “encourage” Chiltern to ditch their non-standard stock

See also the “sleeper renaissance”, where much attention is focused on continental expansion (which often doesn’t last beyond a few years) or the apparent “freight renaissance” (where a lot of focus is given to a new flow like Highland Spring which, although exciting, is a drop in the ocean compared to the number of coal trains that no longer run)

 

[zwk500]

The one loco hauled service that has lasted beyond the short term has been the Chiltern 67s, which are still clogging up the Marylebone air some years later. But their polluting days may soon be over as government cutbacks “encourage” Chiltern to ditch their non-standard stock

Agree with everything you've said, but on a pedantic note Chiltern moved from 67s to 68s in 2014.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Only because DMUs were unobtainable, and redundant Mk3/4 stock was available.
The trend is towards new bi-mode units (Hitachi, Stadler).
TPE's purchase of new coaching stock was an aberration - they should have gone for more 802s.

 

[zwk500]

Only because DMUs were unobtainable, and redundant Mk3/4 stock was available.
The trend is towards new bi-mode units (Hitachi, Stadler).
TPE's purchase of new coaching stock was an aberration - they should have gone for more 802s.

Wasn't TPE's purchase because of a really strange condition in the Franchise agreement?

 

[Bill57p9]

IIRC TPE split their new stock order due to timing: Hitachi couldn't supply 802s fast enough to meet a certain date, hence the need to engage CAF as well.
The particular date will have been a franchise commitment and might have been about releasing existing stock.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Wasn't TPE's purchase because of a really strange condition in the Franchise agreement?

The only condition I remember was about introducing new services by a specific date, which could apparently only be met by the CAF Mk5a build.
But of course that date was fanciful anyway*, and the Nova 3 fleet has spent most of its life in sidings since then, while 185s are retained in service.
The 802s were delivered close to schedule, and being clones of similar GWR/Hull Trains units had no introduction issues.
Then we've had the saga of noisy class 68s being expelled from Scarborough, and the TRU project will require an electric/bi-mode solution.
It also made TPE a 4-fleet operation (805, 397, Mk5a, 185), with only the existing 185 fleet being of reasonable size.

*wasn't the commitment actually met by a few late-December runs from Manchester Airport-Piccadilly using a Mk3 set?

 

[tbtc]

Agree with everything you've said, but on a pedantic note Chiltern moved from 67s to 68s in 2014.

Oops, sorry!

Only because DMUs were unobtainable, and redundant Mk3/4 stock was available

Yeah, I think it was more about being able to snaffle the WSMR stock much faster than finding any spare DMUs rather than any huge vote of confidence in loco hauled

TPE's purchase of new coaching stock was an aberration - they should have gone for more 802s.

Wasn't TPE's purchase because of a really strange condition in the Franchise agreement?

The particular date will have been a franchise commitment and might have been about releasing existing stock.

In hindsight, a couple of dozen more 802s would have been a lot better than mucking about with 67s and 397s (maybe even a few more to remove all 185s from the Leeds route?)

But who at the Government decided this silly deadline? Have TPE been forced into the problems of several small fleets because a Civil Servant decided that an artificially early date would free up dozens of 185s (even though TPE have all of them still)?

 

[Iskra]

The only condition I remember was about introducing new services by a specific date, which could apparently only be met by the CAF Mk5a build.
But of course that date was fanciful anyway, and the Nova 3 fleet has spent most of its life in sidings since then, while 185s are retained in service.
The 802s were delivered close to schedule, and being clones of GWR/Hull Trains units had no introduction issues.
Then we've had the saga of noisy class 68s being expelled from Scarborough, and the TPU project will require an electric/bi-mode solution.
It also made TPE a 4-fleet operation (805, 397, Mk5a, 185), with only the existing 185 fleet being of reasonable size.

They ended up briefly hiring in and running some Mk3’s to ‘hack’ the loco hauled stock in service date anyway, which was fairly ridiculous.

 

[zwk500]

In hindsight, a couple of dozen more 802s would have been a lot better than mucking about with 67s and 397s (maybe even a few more to remove all 185s from the Leeds route?)

Again, TPE use 68s

But who at the Government decided this silly deadline? Have TPE been forced into the problems of several small fleets because a Civil Servant decided that an artificially early date would free up dozens of 185s (even though TPE have all of them still)

I suspect it was a case of one TT Change date or the next one 6 months later.

 

[william.martin]

Again, TPE use 68s

I suspect it was a case of one TT Change date or the next one 6 months later.

Only TFW USE 67'S in the WTT, all others are either:
68's
92's
73's
66's
91's.
57's.

 

[43096]

The only condition I remember was about introducing new services by a specific date, which could apparently only be met by the CAF Mk5a build.
But of course that date was fanciful anyway*, and the Nova 3 fleet has spent most of its life in sidings since then, while 185s are retained in service.
The 802s were delivered close to schedule, and being clones of similar GWR/Hull Trains units had no introduction issues.
Then we've had the saga of noisy class 68s being expelled from Scarborough, and the TRU project will require an electric/bi-mode solution.
It also made TPE a 4-fleet operation (805, 397, Mk5a, 185), with only the existing 185 fleet being of reasonable size.

*wasn't the commitment actually met by a few late-December runs from Manchester Airport-Piccadilly using a Mk3 set?

There was a requirement in the TPE tender docs to use 5-car loco hauled formations. DfT were trying to push bidders towards hauling 442s around, but the winning bid had new build. Entirely compliant with the tender docs, but not what DfT really wanted!

 

[Intercity110]

Only TFW USE 67'S in the WTT, all others are either:
68
92
73
66
91's.

66? They’re for freight only and gatwick express haven’t used 73’s since early 2000’s (forgot about caledonial sleeper)

 

[zwk500]

Only TFW USE 67'S in the WTT, all others are either:

Well, DB do run passenger services with them in WTT paths

57 - GWR Night Riviera
68 - Chiltern and TPE,
73,92 - Caledonian Sleeper
91 - LNER (Not sure if they would still swap in a 90 if needed).

66s don't run passenger WTT services.

 

[littledude]

GBRf 66s regularly haul the diesel portions of the Caledonian Sleeper, to and from Edinburgh

Tom

 

[xotGD]

clogging up the Marylebone air

In actual fact the 68s are right at the end of the platform and cause way less pollution within the station than all of the bog units sitting under the station roof with their engines chugging away.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

Agree with everything you've said, but on a pedantic note Chiltern moved from 67s to 68s in 2014.

I hope Chiltern don't get rid of their loco hauled services, I find them very good to travel on.

 

[43074]

But who at the Government decided this silly deadline? Have TPE been forced into the problems of several small fleets because a Civil Servant decided that an artificially early date would free up dozens of 185s (even though TPE have all of them still)?

The point at the time was to procure new stock for the December 2017 timetable change which was thought to be unattainable with a new build of multiple units (there were serious proposals in the industry to use 67s+442s, First was the only bidder not to propose that). In the event it was a moot point as not only the stock was late but the timetable change happened late too...

22 185s would have gone off lease with the remaining 29 used on services to Hull and Cleethorpes in 6-car formations. In the event keeping all of the 185s was only done to help with diversions during Transpennine Upgrade. All complete fiction as the route knowledge of TPEs crews is completely inadequate to cover the service day to day, nevermind during diversions via Castleford or Calder Valley...

 

[tbtc]

They ended up briefly hiring in and running some Mk3’s to ‘hack’ the loco hauled stock in service date anyway, which was fairly ridiculous.

Ah, yes, running the Pretendolino from Manchester Airport to Piccadilly just to tick a box…

Again, TPE use 68s

I’m having a nightmare on this thread, aren’t I!

I even remember that TPE had sixty EIGHTS in post three on the thread, before apparently forgetting! Back to bed…

In actual fact the 68s are right at the end of the platform and cause way less pollution within the station than all of the bog units sitting under the station roof with their engines chugging away.

I just mentioned it as the locals seem to object to the locomotives (even if DMUs pollute more, it’s presumably less obvious)

The point at the time was to procure new stock for the December 2017 timetable change which was thought to be unattainable with a new build of multiple units (there were serious proposals in the industry to use 67s+442s, First was the only bidder not to propose that). In the event it was a moot point as not only the stock was late but the timetable change happened late too...

It’s so frustrating…

…the government decided when to run the franchise process…

…the government decided what deadlines to impose for getting new stock into service…

…as a result we’ve lots of “problematic” (and expensive) trains intended to last for decades, just to try to meet this artificial deadline (i.e. it’s not anything set in stone like the accessibility deadlines - there would have been lots of complaints from Disability groups if the Government had abolished the need to have accessible trains but nobody would have noticed if half of the 185s weren’t available for cascade in December 2017… it’s not as if there’s even an obvious home for them today!)

In hindsight, a really regrettable decision that means we are lumbered with small fleets of 68s/ 397s/ Mk5s for decades to come, all to try to tick a box

 

[43096]

Well, DB do run passenger services with them in WTT paths

57 - GWR Night Riviera
68 - Chiltern and TPE,
73,92 - Caledonian Sleeper
91 - LNER (Not sure if they would still swap in a 90 if needed).

66s don't run passenger WTT services.

Add 66 and 67 to Caledonian Sleeper.

 

[william.martin]

Well, DB do run passenger services with them in WTT paths

57 - GWR Night Riviera
68 - Chiltern and TPE,
73,92 - Caledonian Sleeper
91 - LNER (Not sure if they would still swap in a 90 if needed).

66s don't run passenger WTT services.

66? They’re for freight only and gatwick express haven’t used 73’s since early 2000’s (forgot about caledonial sleeper)

GBRf 66s regularly haul the diesel portions of the Caledonian Sleeper, to and from Edinburgh

Tom

Thanks Tom, that's what I meant.
I forgot about the 57, I will add it now.

I hope Chiltern don't get rid of their loco hauled services, I find them very good to travel on.

I had my first ride on a Chiltern 68 a few months ago however I found the 168's more comfortable. Although who cares, ITS A LOCO HAULED SERVICE!!!

 

[zwk500]

Although who cares, ITS A LOCO HAULED SERVICE!!!

Just out of interest, why is this such a big deal? I'm not trying to be obtuse or rude or anything, it's interesting to understand the emotional attachment people have to different parts of the railway.

 

[Iskra]

Just out of interest, why is this such a big deal? I'm not trying to be obtuse or rude or anything, it's interesting to understand the emotional attachment people have to different parts of the railway.

Novelty, people are drawn to the more obscure parts of railway operation.

 

[DanNCL]

91 - LNER (Not sure if they would still swap in a 90 if needed).

90s last worked for LNER in 2019. They were the first to go after the 80x introduction, even NL65 outlasted the 90s by a few weeks (albeit not with any diagrammed work).

 

[JohnMcL7]

I think it’s a “dead cat bounce” (The term given to something dropping so low then appearing to bounce back slightly), we could have had this thread a few years ago when the 67s on the Fife Circle and 37s on the Cumbrian Coast made it look like a loco hauled resurgence…

Those were 68's as well on the Fife Circle.

It perhaps doesn't count as a passenger service but the 66's currently haul the Royal Scotsman.

 

[L+Y]

Just out of interest, why is this such a big deal? I'm not trying to be obtuse or rude or anything, it's interesting to understand the emotional attachment people have to different parts of the railway.

Novelty, people are drawn to the more obscure parts of railway operation.

I'm not sure it's quite that- or else why would enthusiasts have been attracted to chasing locos and avoiding DMUs when the former were commonplace prior to the 90s?

I reckon it's something a bit intangible, but for most casual enthusiasts, a locomotive hauling a train is just fundamentally more "right" than any multiple unit: perhaps it all goes back to those who were introduced to the railway by Thomas et al?

Certainly from my perspective, while I think my local 331s and 195s are fine units, I don't care whatsoever which class member I'm riding on at any time. But on a TPE loco hauled working, I'll go and see the loco and number, listen out for the engine in the tunnels, and so forth. The same would go for any movement through a station.

 

[norbitonflyer]

In actual fact the 68s are right at the end of the platform and cause way less pollution within the station than all of the bog units sitting under the station roof with their engines chugging away.

yes, but the locals complaining live near the country end of the platforms.

Just out of interest, why is (loco haulage) such a big deal? I'm not trying to be obtuse or rude or anything, it's interesting to understand the emotional attachment people have to different parts of the railway.

Partly, not sharing a vehicle with several hundred horsepower of traction equipment (especially if it's a diesel engine) has some attraction

66? They’re for freight only and gatwick express haven’t used 73’s since early 2000’s (forgot about caledonial sleeper)

Not scheduled, but more often than not 66's can be found at the head of the Caledonian Sleeper - but didn't I read somewhere that 67s were returning to that role?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I thought it was noise that was the main class 68 problem, rather than emissions.
You can't hear anything else when one is parked up at Liverpool Lime St, with the sound enhanced by the curved roof and enclosed concourse.

 

[JohnMcL7]

Not scheduled, but more often than not 66's can be found at the head of the Caledonian Sleeper - but didn't I read somewhere that 67s were returning to that role?

GBRF have bought a couple of 67s and one has been running on the Inverness portion at least.

Personally I like loco hauled service as you can't hear the engine underneath, I've never been a fan of the 158's or 170's up here as I find the constant noise from the engine irritating whereas a Scotrail HST is so much quieter and smoother.