Diesel behind ?

pardon my ignorance , but waht is the purpose of a diesel being attahed to the rear of rail tour , is it to give assistance when required , and is it mandatory ?

 

It can be for a variety of reasons and may or may not be attached. Providing electric train heating or to assist in the reversal of the train without having to attach the loco by an additional movement is generally the main reason although if locos may require assistance on the journey due to unforseen circumstances, then they can also be used for that.

No it is not normally mandatory - but if passengers want heating and some of the coaches only have electric heating then it needs to be there. Occasionally Network Rail may insist on a diesel - such as in high summer where there is a greater risk of fire's being set when the loco is working hard on a grade.

 

Isn't there something in the NR rule about governing use of any coupled locomotive at the rear of the train, specifically what is allowed (ie heating etc) and what isn't and rules about crews.

 

It also allows you to run a longer train, which means more bums on seats, but is it connning the punters?

 

Oh dear, I know where this is going!

 

VT managed with 7 coaches yesterday, easy for a Hall unlike the Black 5 yesterday (same power & wheel size) which had double the load plus box.

 

I guess the point is, if VT can make a tour financially viable with only 7 coaches (and therefore easily within the capabilities of the loco), why do other operators feel the need to load up to 14 with near-equivalent motive power (and therefore also need to stick a diesel on)?

Tom

 

Few differences between yesterdays VT tour and the Black 5.

Firstly the East Mids circular trains are more dining/1st orientated so although there's less seats, the average price would be higher, secondly VT have considerably lower overheads, not needing to budget for stock or loco hire as well as other incomes such as contract work at Tyseley, all other promoters bar WCRC themselves have to budget for this as well.

 

I doubt contract work at Tyseley is subsidising the mainline operation: if it was, they could be undercut by some other contractor not needing to put that markup on work, and therefore they would lose work.

I guess the more substantive point is that, by concentrating ownership of loco, stock and promotion of the trips in one company; and choosing an appropriate market, VT are able to offer financially viable trips that don't overtax the loco nor necessitate a diesel on the back to cope with the load. Which begs the question as to why others aren't following that model. (I seem to recall an article some years back that also made the point that by limiting the amount of work their engines did both in number of days and load, they finished their ticket still in quite good condition and therefore were cheaper to overhaul - in other words, each day's running needed to put "less in the bank" . Which is an interesting business model relative to one that tries to get the very maximum income out of a loco each year (in terms of days run and loads hauled) to cope with the inevitably expensive overhaul. Not saying one business model is better than the other, simply interesting that different loco owning groups and tour operators can end up with very different views of how to make the business work.

Tom

 

Can't say I examined the spec too closely given it neither passes near me or I took an interest in booking, anyway the point is different operators have different circumstances and therefore overheads.

 

Fair point Ralph, when you go into it, there's quite a few detail differences between two tours both hauled by class 5 loco's.

 

Been offline & only just seen this.
Ralph, why do you always question every post I make on here. Usually with another sarcastic counter question.
This time I will mention the fact you are a mod, does this position entitle you to put "us mortals" down. You seem to have a one man campaign against myself.
Doesn't really encourage people to post their opinions on here does it?

 

Fair enough, I was thinking of doing the same. Just about to read it.

 

well i would never have thought that asking such a simple question would open such a can of worms !!!

 

My understanding - they achieve the following, in roughly ascending order of contentiousness:

1) They make station work at each end quicker and simpler, especially as many termini don't have easy access for run-rounds or a station pilot to help release the train engine.

2) They provide heating if the stock has electric rather than steam heating

3) They provide a ready "thunderbird" if something goes slightly wrong with the steam engine: for example, if the steam engine started to run low on water, with a diesel on the back, communication between drivers could allow the train to run to its next stop at scheduled speed but with the steam engine eased back; without a diesel you might have to slow right down or make an unscheduled stop and wait for assistance.

4) They allow a given engine to take a bigger load, or accelerate the same load quicker, or maintain momentum over hills, any and all of which might allow a charter to follow a path that might not otherwise be possible; or take a big enough load to be financially viable.

It's not mandatory: it is down to the operational requirements needed (for example, in respect of point 1) and no doubt a risk assessment by the relevant parties in the light of the load, route, timings etc.

Tom

 

LOL. You brought up one of the most sensitive topics on here - second only to a debate on locomotive livery!! Have a search for 'diesel's on the back' or similar for reams of waffle on the subject. Jamessquared gives a good summary of why the box is sometimes there.