New type of train needed for secondary routes ?

[whole diary]

[grahame]

The running cost of loco-haulage on branch lines would be prohibitive. Track access charges for a loco are several times higher ...

The question that I'm always left wondering when I read about higher track access charges is "does a locomotive an coaches really cost Network Rail several times more to carry than a train with the locomotion built in to the coaches?".   In other words, are these much higher charges based on proportionately higher costs to support such trains, or for some market or political reason?   I would suspect a bit of both - does anyone know the sums?

[BandHcommuter]

The question that I'm always left wondering when I read about higher track access charges is "does a locomotive an coaches really cost Network Rail several times more to carry than a train with the locomotion built in to the coaches?".   In other words, are these much higher charges based on proportionately higher costs to support such trains, or for some market or political reason?   I would suspect a bit of both - does anyone know the sums?

I don't know what drives the variable track access charges payable to Network Rail by train operators, but they are regulated, and published here http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/regulatory%20documents/access%20charges%20reviews/cp4%20charges/b%20-%20track%20usage%20price%20list%20for%20cp4.pdf.
Taking a quick look, it would appear that charges for multiple unit vehicles are similar, or slightly higher than those for hauled coaches. The charges for  locomotives, however, are significantly higher.

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

It's done to reflect weight and track wear I thought?

[Network SouthEast]

Indeed. Locos being heavier mean that they really punish the track.

Apart from the fact locos cost more to run, there are a whole host of speed restrictions that apply to them that do not apply to multiple unit trains.

[Trowres]

The point, surely, is not that locos have a variable track access charge several times that of a DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) coach, but that it would take very few additional passengers to cover the additional cost.

[Network SouthEast]

But would it?

Preparing a locomotive for service takes quite a bit of time. Mobilisation of a locomotive train takes longer than a multiple unit, so you'd need longer turn around times.

Where there are differential speed limits, loco hauled trains have to obey the slower speed limit. They have slower acceleration. So pathing and performance now becomes a potential cost issue. Fuel efficiency is an issue too.

It is not as simple as saying that (for example) a loco hauled four car train has twice the number of seats as a two car multiple unit therefore it would be twice as cost effective, because that is not the case. If you have a two car train that is full and standing and give all the standing passengers a seat, you haven't sold any more tickets. But you have to sell a lot more tickets to make it worth while.

And that is why the TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) (and even BR^▸ (British Rail(ways))) are/were avoiding loco hauled trains if they can help it.

[6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01]

To be really honest with you.... And I don't like saying this but one way of saving money and improving line capacity at a lower cost as well as providing traffic conjestion would be conversion to tram.... The Exmouth branch is a prime example

[grahame]

The point, surely, is not that locos have a variable track access charge several times that of a DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) coach, but that it would take very few additional passengers to cover the additional cost.

Spot on (as ever!) ... I've done some sample sums

The cost of running a loco is about 40p per mile, a coach about 6p per mile, and a DVT^‡(resolve) 11p per mile. So loco + 3 coaches + trailer = 69p / mile

A 3 car 150 is 5p per carriage per mile = 15p / mile

Looks bad, until

A peak return from Melksham to Oxford (example from this week) is 96 pounds for 60 miles each way.   That's 80p per mile.  So track access charges for a three coach, rather nice train that will potentially be far more attractive than a 150 are paid for by a single passenger.  There may be a big difference in the prices charged, but it looks to me as if that's actually a pretty small compoent.

Thanks for the various other feedbacks on the differential.  I appreciate that a locomotive puts more wear onto the track - but how much more? Is it really 8 times more, are are pricing politics and "what the market will take" at work here, distorting the technical picture?

[John R]

You've also got to take into consideration the cost of leasing the stock concerned, and the relative fuel costs.

The example you give regarding ticket prices is probably atypical of the branch lines that Trout was suggesting loco+coaches would be used for, and which triggered the debate. I would suggest that having a loco+coaches tootling up and down the Exmouth line (or any of the others) would require a vast increase in passengers to pay for the additional lease/hire costs.

Also on branch lines the loco and or DVT^‡(resolve) would reduce the space available at the termini so would probably need platform extensions.

[grahame]

You've also got to take into consideration the cost of leasing the stock concerned, and the relative fuel costs.

The example you give regarding ticket prices is probably atypical of the branch lines that Trout ....

Yes, I agree ... I'm looking to getting an understanding of the various elements.   And I'm beginning to see why the GoCo proposals make sense whether they're loco + coaches or DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) (Diesel Multiple Unit), in contrast to other lines / services where it could make a big difference.

[thetrout]

Ah. I think I was referring to secondary routes rather than Branch line stock. Should have clarified.

However a further idea which has just come up in my brain. This may not be a well received suggestion for Long Distance Passengers and is only theoretical. But why not extend some if the Paddington bound services onto the branches aka Newquay during the summer. You could run an hourly HST^▸ (High Speed Train) to Avonmouth and back to Paddington. Thus freeing up a 150 (Example). For the same route you could run a PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) - Cardiff/Swansea service via that line calling at SVB Line stations as an alternate route?

Could the same be done for Gunnislake and Okehampton branches?

I've also thought about running a HST (Possibly 5 car set)  from Paddington to Weymouth non stop to Bristol Parkway and Bristol Temple Meads. Then take the path of say the 17:49 which can be a very cosy service down the Trowbridge line! Of course that would assume a set which didn't have any LSL^‡(resolve) (Long Swing Link) Bogies in the consist...

increases capacity on an already busy service with a comfortable train. Whilst elliviating overcrowding for passengers travelling just to Bristol by having a dedicated Fast service. But also for Bath Spa & Chippenham passengers who have more seats on existing Bristol Trains. And the best bit. You've done 2 diagrams with 1 set

[Southern Stag]

If you run an HST^▸ (High Speed Train) on branch lines generally they'll be slower than the DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) usually used so you'd require a drop in frequency on the Gunnislake or Severn Beach lines to accommodate running HSTs. The loadings wouldn't justify the use of an HST anyway. When FGW^▸ (First Great Western) are short of DMUs at the weekend they usually put an HST on either Taunton-Cardiff or Plymouth-Penzance services as the HSTs don't lose much time over the route, and there are available drivers and guards who sign the route and traction.

[John R]

Ah. I think I was referring to secondary routes rather than Branch line stock. Should have clarified.

However a further idea which has just come up in my brain. This may not be a well received suggestion for Long Distance Passengers and is only theoretical. But why not extend some if the Paddington bound services onto the branches aka Newquay during the summer. You could run an hourly HST^▸ (High Speed Train) to Avonmouth and back to Paddington. Thus freeing up a 150 (Example). For the same route you could run a PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) - Cardiff/Swansea service via that line calling at SVB Line stations as an alternate route?

Could the same be done for Gunnislake and Okehampton branches?

I've also thought about running a HST (Possibly 5 car set)  from Paddington to Weymouth non stop to Bristol Parkway and Bristol Temple Meads. Then take the path of say the 17:49 which can be a very cosy service down the Trowbridge line! Of course that would assume a set which didn't have any LSL^‡(resolve) (Long Swing Link) Bogies in the consist...

increases capacity on an already busy service with a comfortable train. Whilst elliviating overcrowding for passengers travelling just to Bristol by having a dedicated Fast service. But also for Bath Spa & Chippenham passengers who have more seats on existing Bristol Trains. And the best bit. You've done 2 diagrams with 1 set

I think these are rather far-fetched, if I've interpreted you correctly.

Extending London - Bristol services to Avonmouth. Needs an extra 2 HST diagrams - services much slower on the Avonmouth line due to selective door opening, only 2 doors per coach meaning longer dwell times, and the need to ensure all the doors are shut at each station.

Routing London to Swansea services via Avonmouth (I think that's what you were suggesting?)  Similar problems to above and would add about 90 minutes to South Wales journey times.

London to Weymouth via Bristol.  Again, same problems with dwell times and needs an extra HST in the peak usage period.

Why would you use an HST on local lines for which they are wholly inappropriate?  The only reason Newquay gets one is because of the particular need for a through service from London, the volume, and the fact that luggage is a key factor on that route.