What is Going To Happen To The HSTs?

[jopsuk]

I see its now been suggested that Scottish services are now likely 5/6 carriages instead of 4/5 as originally suggested.

Source?

 

[47802]

Source?

It comes from an RMweb source which has also been quoted on this forum under the 'Scotrail Turbostars moving to Southern'.

It says initially 5 car with eventually 13x6 car, seating capacities 318S/42F for the 5 car and 390S/42F for the 6 car, its not confirmed but it makes more sense to me than a 4 car set. Those seating capacities would also suggest some kind of Mini Buffet car.

 

[Chris125]

I was talking to the steward on the 11.54 HST XC service south from Sheffield last week and he said that XC were getting 12-15 HST from the FGW cascade. He said the sooner the better.

If a steward knew it would be common knowledge by now, probably misheard what someone wanted to happen for something that will.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

XC are loss making as it is. A 4 car voyager costs less per mile in track access charges than a 2+5 HST, and an 8 car voyager costs less than a 2+7 or 2+8.

(2+8 HST 167.18 ppm, 8 car class 220 Voyager 87.04 ppm)

I really doubt this is going to happen, as much as we would like it to.

A new build of Voyagers is possible as there are compliant engines, the questions is whether the cab design would meet the current crash regs

 

[Bletchleyite]

A new build of Voyagers is possible as there are compliant engines, the questions is whether the cab design would meet the current crash regs

I can't see any new UK IC stock being built other than IEP for the foreseeable future. If XC want new stock it'll be an IEP follow on order.

Neil

 

[DT611]

XC are loss making as it is. A 4 car voyager costs less per mile in track access charges than a 2+5 HST, and an 8 car voyager costs less than a 2+7 or 2+8.

(2+8 HST 167.18 ppm, 8 car class 220 Voyager 87.04 ppm)

I really doubt this is going to happen, as much as we would like it to.

probably nothing stoping a deal from being done to change those costs to make it happen? maybe the leasing costs might be lowered enough to offset the track access charges. maybe having these would be a better option all round to free up voyagers which in turn free up others, meaning a lesser need to order new DMUS for the moment. i can't say whether its likely or unlikely they will be used, i don't know. but it depends on what is decided by those actually making the decisians. we'l have to wait and see.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Are there any routes where 158 or 159s are used where Voyagers could not be used in the future (if XC were to ever get rid of their Voyagers)?

 

[The Ham]

Are there any routes where 158 or 159s are used where Voyagers could not be used in the future (if XC were to ever get rid of their Voyagers)?

Yes, the SWML. As to do so would result in a reduction in capacity. Three 159's is about 600 seats in 9 coaches compared with two 221's with about 500 seats in 10 coaches.

 

[badger1badger]

Not sure if this would work

Talking about HST over s & c

One power car and say 3 to four coaches - is it possible or not .

 

[47802]

Not sure if this would work

Talking about HST over s & c

One power car and say 3 to four coaches - is it possible or not .

From a reliability viewpoint would you want to do that? I imagine any attempt to create a driving trailer from a mk3 coach would have issues with the latest crash regulations so you would probably have to use an HST power car minus the power, a modified MK3 DVT, or build a new driving trailer. I'm not sure any of those are a particularly good option.

PS Nobody's mentioned using a 442 driving trailer yet

I don't see any reason to use HST's over the S&C other than possibly via reintroduced longer distance services and I don't see that happening with the current franchises and an open access operator given Northern's subsidy level's I expect would need a very strong case against abstraction of Northern's revenue's.

 

[badger1badger]

From a reliability viewpoint would you want to do that? I imagine any attempt to create a driving trailer from a mk3 coach would have issues with the latest crash regulations so you would probably have to use an HST power car minus the power, a modified MK3 DVT, or build a new driving trailer. I'm not sure any of those are a particularly good option.

Yeh good point

 

[Flamingo]

I hate to point out one thing that so far I don't remember seeing mentioned, but it is not as easy as just saying "XXX can use HST's, send them all up there by next Monday".

There is also the not inconsiderable cost and time of training all traincrew, drivers and maintenance staff. Also setting up the whole maintenance and support side with appropriate depots does not come cheap...

 

[jopsuk]

Quite. Track access and fuel costs are far from the only costs.

 

[43074]

I have written this blog post which goes into detail with my ideas and analysis on the future of the HSTs and 91s to save a lengthy post here, based on what we know now and what I think could happen. Clearly this is all speculation but I'd be interested to have any comments on this, or whether it is just mindless wibble. But then, that's what blogs are for.

 

[CockneySparrow]

If the ROSCOs have any sense, they will be in no hurry to scrap any HST vehicles before structural fatigue and corrosion reaches the point where it's no longer economic to maintain them.

Would any ROSCO actually buy any of these back from FGW, as I am sure FGW owns some of their HST stock and not a ROSCO
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
On another note it would be interesting to see what EMT use on the summer Skegness working after electrification of the MML and the Lincoln Christmas Market

 

[47802]

Would any ROSCO actually buy any of these back from FGW, as I am sure FGW owns some of their HST stock and not a ROSCO
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
On another note it would be interesting to see what EMT use on the summer Skegness working after electrification of the MML and the Lincoln Christmas Market

That's hardly the biggest priority though is it, you could always charter some stock for that maybe even a charter HST by then, whoever wins the next franchise might want to retain some Meridians after electrification, depending of course what actually replaces the Meridians and HST's and what service proposals they have.

 

[tadhatter]

I hate to point out one thing that so far I don't remember seeing mentioned, but it is not as easy as just saying "XXX can use HST's, send them all up there by next Monday".

There is also the not inconsiderable cost and time of training all traincrew, drivers and maintenance staff. Also setting up the whole maintenance and support side with appropriate depots does not come cheap...

Which is precisely why a route that already uses HSTs, such as XC makes sense. Who decides access charges and what are they based on? Given that HSTs are relatively light I'm surprised that they are so costly. Again what's the criteria for the access charge?
The biggest disadvantage they have is all that wasted space in the power car due to regulations at the time of design and construction relating to passengers being allowed to sit in the front vehicle (something I read somewhere but don't know how reliable that source was). Why can't seats be installed in the luggage area to increase the capacity of HST sets?

 

[jopsuk]

HSTs were designed and built before the Polmont disaster which did result in a rethink about passengers in light weight non-motor leading vehicles in high speed trains. Nevertheless the DBSOs (with ballast) remained in service.

Regardless, that would be irrelevant with regards HSTs with big heavy prime movers, alternators and motors. The main reason you wouldn't put seats in the power car is the same reason they quickly abandoned having the guard there and built the TGS vehicles instead- far too noisy!

 

[RobShipway]

I have written this blog post which goes into detail with my ideas and analysis on the future of the HSTs and 91s to save a lengthy post here, based on what we know now and what I think could happen. Clearly this is all speculation but I'd be interested to have any comments on this, or whether it is just mindless wibble. But then, that's what blogs are for.

You do not state what would replace the class 321's on he Great Eastern?

If shortened to be 2 powers cars plus 5 coaches, could some of the HST's replace some of the Class 158's on the Great Western? This then in turn allows the Class 158s to replace some of the class 150 and those Class 150's then replace the pacers.

 

[cjmillsnun]

I thought displaced Notworker turbos were going to replace 158s (at least on the Pompey - Cardiff run)

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I have written this blog post which goes into detail with my ideas and analysis on the future of the HSTs and 91s to save a lengthy post here, based on what we know now and what I think could happen. Clearly this is all speculation but I'd be interested to have any comments on this, or whether it is just mindless wibble. But then, that's what blogs are for.

A good read - thanks.

 

[BestWestern]

You'd be lucky to get more than about 10 seats in a power car luggage van, the space isn't that vast and would be even less so once you'd fitted all the the neccessary soundproofing and bulkheads etc. You'd also be cut off from the rest of the train at the TGS end as the van and Guards' area would be in the way. They're arguably just as useful as a means of carting all manner of bits n bobs from a to b, or for additional cycle space considering a TGS will only hold six (officially). There's also the not inconsiderable issue of how to provide appropriate external door access (the current sliding doors wouldn't be appropriate unless heavily modified), as well as having to fit heating and aircon systems. You would also need to have them recertified as new passenger carrying vehicles, and they almost certainly wouldn't pass.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

I have written this blog post which goes into detail with my ideas and analysis on the future of the HSTs and 91s to save a lengthy post here, based on what we know now and what I think could happen. Clearly this is all speculation but I'd be interested to have any comments on this, or whether it is just mindless wibble. But then, that's what blogs are for.

A very interesting read thanks, hover one thing you overlooked is the future use of the Class 222's freed up from MML electrification. As I see it they have two possible uses:

1) Cascade to XC to use alongside voyagers (however 222's are not comparable with 220/221's)

2) Cascade to the GW franchise to operate West of England services and replace HST's there.

 

[CC 72100]

2) Cascade to the GW franchise to operate West of England services and replace HST's there.

*Awaits the inevitable post which suggests running doubled up formations that split at Plymouth and send just 5 coaches or something daft through Cornwall*

 

[Haydn1971]

A very interesting read thanks, hover one thing you overlooked is the future use of the Class 222's freed up from MML electrification. As I see it they have two possible uses:

1) Cascade to XC to use alongside voyagers (however 222's are not comparable with 220/221's)

2) Cascade to the GW franchise to operate West of England services and replace HST's there.

...or

3) Cascade some to TransPennine for long distance routes, enabling the 185's to be doubled up and concentrated on the busiest parts of the central core sections.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

...or

3) Cascade some to TransPennine for long distance routes, enabling the 185's to be doubled up and concentrated on the busiest parts of the central core sections.

Like where? The door layout is not suitable for the core North Transpennine and I doubt it would work on South Transpennine too. The only long distance route they would be suitable on is Manchester to Scotland which is now mostly electric.

 

[swt_passenger]

... Cascade to XC to use alongside voyagers (however 222's are not comparable with 220/221's)

I think you meant not compatible? They are comparable, i.e. similar, but not in detail...

 

[tbtc]

It's not just about being sentimental about them. They are still excellent carriages by today's standards, as long as the major structural elements are still sound. If there's scope for using them somewhere, to reduce or eliminate the need to buy some new stock, that's one less thing pushing fares up or preventing national debt and budget deficit coming down. Properly maintained, there's no significant safety concerns with them, and new stock doesn't offer major improvements for passengers that are not also offered by interior refurbishment.

Age alone is a dreadful justification for scrapping well engineered and built carriages. Eventually, corrosion or fatigue may push maintenance costs too high, and that's the time where scrapping becomes the correct economic choice. Any reasonable reuse of them prior to that point is providing the public with value for money.

Maybe their time has come, maybe not, it's still far from clear to me that scrapping is the best option.

We could keep patching up anything and keep it running, but there needs to be some long term requirement for them to justify this.

Whilst I'm not doubting that they were well constructed trains when built, 100mph+ diesel trains are one thing that we won't have a shortage of by the end of the decade (as IEP replaces 225s, as electrification on the MML starts to free up 222s, as electrification on the GWML frees up 166s and 180s, as Transpennine electrification frees up 185s).

I think it should also be remembered that the Scotrail franchise was awarded 35% on quality and 65% on price, and the cheapest bid didn't win, that might not be the case for other franchises, especially the English ones although apparently the Natex bid was for new trains instead of HST's and less subsidy!

I'm a bit confused by the fact that National Express were offering to order brand new trains (and required lower subsidy), yet Abellio managed better "quality" with 1970s trains.

How rubbish were these brand new trains going to be?

Without wishing to disrupt the efforts of the popcorn marketing board, given that the S&C up until recently had an Intercity service between Glasgow and Nottingham, and given that a Sunday service between Carlisle and Nottingham has been developed to relieve cross country services, I wonder whether its time to reinstate a daily long distance service across the route (in place of the express return journey)

There's one train a day, on a Sunday morning (when there's more chance to cross the throat at Leeds from the Wakefield lines to the Shipley lines), on the day of the week when there's going to be the most leisure traffic, at a time of day most suitable for that leisure traffic (i.e. heading into the scenic Dales).

I really can't see that as evidence that any regular week-round service would work. Glasgow has a bi-hourly service from the East Midlands/ Sheffield/ Leeds (via the ECML), so there's not a massive untapped market out there.

As previously discussed, S&C diagrams aren't exactly long EMUs anyhow - a longer HST confined to a 75mph service would be overkill.

I can't help but notice other people now suggesting use of the HSTs on ATW. Such an idea got heavy criticism when I suggested it some months ago on a different thread, but now Abelio are going for such an idea...

Capacity-busting HSTs on the Marches alone will help a lot during busy periods, as I'm sure anyone who've travelled on a 2-car 175 or 158 during a rugby weekend in Cardiff will concur with! Even just a 2+4 formation would be welcome, although 2+5 on the busier days would be better

I'm still not convinced by HSTs on ATW (where I think even the fastest services are still timed for 90mph 158s to cover), but I can see merit in shortish HSTs replacing 158/175s in the way that ScotRail will use shortish HSTs to replace 158/170s.

Rugby weekends in Cardiff are only a few occasions though - I'd be more interested in ATW tackling more mundane/ everyday problems like peak capacity from Chester to Manchester (though I suspect I know which the franchise's paymasters in Cardiff Bay will think is a more pressing issue...)

Well the Chiltern MK3's seem to be regarded as some kind of panacea

Worth remembering that the much used argument that loco hauled was the future because Chiltern took on a handful of sets seems to have died a death now that Chiltern have signed a deal to taken on nine Turbostars (at a time when it'd have been easier to source some locos and unpowered coaches, if they really thought that loco hauled was the way forward).

It's all gone very quiet in that respect!

How expensive is a 2+5 HST compared to say a 4 car 158 to run and in terms of track access ?

Track access:

A 47/4 costs 59.36p per passenger mile
A 47/7 costs 57.72p per passenger mile

A 158 carriage costs 6.02p per passenger mile

So if you're running a short formation at no more than 90mph, the 158s are substantially more cost-effective.

On the other hand the faster heavier DMUs have higher track access charges

A 175 carriage costs 11.83p per passenger mile
A 180 carriage costs 14.03p per passenger mile
A 185 carriage costs 11.35p per passenger mile

So a HST in lieu of a 180 or a 6 car 175/185 formation is a more viable prospect.

Incidentally looking at the track access charges I can see why XC have disabled the tilt on their 221s - it saves them 3.7p per carriage per passenger mile.

And what about leasing costs and fuel?

Good point made by TheWalrus - just because we know about track access charges, enthusiasts tend to fixate on them - when they are only one of many costs to worry about.

Leasing costs, maintenance, number of spare trains required... these things are more important than just one metric.

Great news I would use xc more if that was the case those dreadful voyagers with the constant rumble of engine noise ! Not good :cry:

Do you really notice it?

I honestly don't tend to notice engine noise that much.

Nobody's mentioned using a 442 driving trailer yet

Sorry - let me suggest using 442s - Forum cliches have to be maintained

I hate to point out one thing that so far I don't remember seeing mentioned, but it is not as easy as just saying "XXX can use HST's, send them all up there by next Monday".

There is also the not inconsiderable cost and time of training all traincrew, drivers and maintenance staff. Also setting up the whole maintenance and support side with appropriate depots does not come cheap...

Stop letting facts get in the way of people's daft fantasy ideas - surely all drivers have to do is press a button and then get their newspaper out

(removes tongue from cheek)

On another note it would be interesting to see what EMT use on the summer Skegness working after electrification of the MML and the Lincoln Christmas Market

Same goes for Grand National services to Liverpool and the weekend service from the East Midlands to Scarborough. Not a major issue, but I think it'll make people appreciate the efforts that EMT make to try to meet these demands.

Which is precisely why a route that already uses HSTs, such as XC makes sense. Who decides access charges and what are they based on? Given that HSTs are relatively light I'm surprised that they are so costly. Again what's the criteria for the access charge?

I agree that XC seems a reasonable enough place for HSTs to end up.

Track Access charges are decided by NR - partly based on the damage that each train does to the infrastructure - since HSTs have heavy power cars, they do more damage than an evenly distributed DMU of the same length.

A very interesting read thanks, hover one thing you overlooked is the future use of the Class 222's freed up from MML electrification. As I see it they have two possible uses:

1) Cascade to XC to use alongside voyagers (however 222's are not comparable with 220/221's)

2) Cascade to the GW franchise to operate West of England services and replace HST's there.

I don't think that the inoperability with Voyagers would be a huge problem for XC - nobody expects the Voyagers to couple to their HSTs (or EMT's 222s to couple to their HSTs, or FGW/Grand Central's 180s to couple to their HSTs etc).

Maybe the solution would be to put the 222s on one specific service - e.g. doubled up on Edinburgh - Plymouth services (with just a single unit running to Aberdeen/ Glasgow etc)?

Maybe even portion working for Paignton/ Newquay etc?

 

[cjmillsnun]

I'm a bit confused by the fact that National Express were offering to order brand new trains (and required lower subsidy), yet Abellio managed better "quality" with 1970s trains.

How rubbish were these brand new trains going to be?

Probably made in Derby

 

[BurtonM]

Personally I'd like to see them replacing six-car sets on TPE, something that will never happen due to ageism, even if it's apparently a cheaper way in terms of track access. 185s just aren't right for the jobs they do IMO.

(For clarity: I really don't like 185s).