What is Going To Happen To The HSTs?

[SpacePhoenix]

How much work would be involved with making the 222s compatible with 220s and 221s in service? Could a 222 operate on a route that uses 220s and 221s or would they have to go through the full clearing process?

 

[43074]

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.

Thank you for your comments, I have followed my previous post with another one considering challenges in the redeployment of the 222s (and Voyagers), which can be found here.

 

[The Ham]

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

Possible, but with the likely arrival of EMU's (or at the very least the option for them to be run by them) on some routes with more to come early in the next XC franchise I would be surprised if XC ended up with any 222's.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Thank you for your comments, I have followed my previous post with another one considering challenges in the redeployment of the 222s (and Voyagers), which can be found here.

I think you have your sums wrong for the HSTs...

Coaches (regardless of Mark) cost 11.56ppvm.

 

[43074]

I think you have your sums wrong for the HSTs...

Coaches (regardless of Mark) cost 11.56ppvm.

Which makes them roughly equal in ppvm to a Class 175 vehicle, according to the price list on the NR website? Can you share your source?

EDIT: My figures are the same as those shared by jcollins up the thread.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Which makes them roughly equal in ppvm to a Class 175 vehicle, according to the price list on the NR website? Can you share your source?

EDIT: My figures are the same as those shared by jcollins up the thread.

The track usage price list on Network Rail's cp5 access charges list.

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/using-our-network/cp5-access-charges/

Columns C and D Row 178

Coach 11.56ppvm

EDIT: just seen your source... I am wrong

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Possible, but with the likely arrival of EMU's (or at the very least the option for them to be run by them) on some routes with more to come early in the next XC franchise I would be surprised if XC ended up with any 222's.

Would 222s be any good on the Waterloo-Exeter route (to free up 159s to boost capacity for TOCs using 158s and 159s)?

 

[NSEFAN]

Would 222s be any good on the Waterloo-Exeter route (to free up 159s to boost capacity for TOCs using 158s and 159s)?

Here's your answer:

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.

We seem to suffer a lack of local DMUs, but we have no shortage of intercity diesels! Looks like those Pacers are going to be needed, or we shall see some routes ending up with unsuitable intercity trains.

 

[northwichcat]

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.

A lot of posts appear where someone claims Northern can't afford new DMUs like 172s because they cost a lot more to lease than Pacers. However, they don't give any actual figures and sometimes they make claims like a new train costs twice as much to lease as a Pacer. However, does that allow for a 3 car 172 being the same length as a 4 car 142? When you ask such a question the other person either goes quiet or simply says something like a new DMU is still more expensive. It would be nice to see actual figures but I guess those are commercially sensitive.

For fuel costs for a HST I'd be surprised if they didn't follow the same principle as track access costs, in that a short formation would be a lot more expensive than a DMU but a long formation the gap would be much less. Although, what speed you run the HST at will come in to it - limiting it to 100mph like a 172 will require less fuel than allowing 125mph running.

Another general principle is that newer trains are more fuel efficient than older trains because older trains didn't have the same regulations to meet.

 

[47802]

Here's your answer:

We seem to suffer a lack of local DMUs, but we have no shortage of intercity diesels! Looks like those Pacers are going to be needed, or we shall see some routes ending up with unsuitable intercity trains.

While it is true that Meridian's don't have particularly good seating capacities lets remember that they are designed for a major London routes with fairly high first class and features such as a galley and a buffet area etc, if some of these features were removed and fist class reduced then on a 5 car you could probably add at least 15 seats for reduced first class to 30+ seats for a standard class only 5 car.

In any case with electrification likely to be running late they may well stay longer on their original route than intended, I see HST's as an intrim measure and not a long term solution so I think there is certainly a possibility of them replacing HST's on other routes maybe even HST's in Scotland, that remain un electrified. I think there's also a possibility that the MML franchise might want to retain a small fleet post electrification.

 

[Murph]

While it is true that Meridian's don't have particularly good seating capacities lets remember that they are designed for a major London routes with fairly high first class and features such as a galley and a buffet area etc, if some of these features were removed and fist class reduced then on a 5 car you could probably add at least 15 seats for reduced first class to 30+ seats for a standard class only 5 car.

In any case with electrification likely to be running late they may well stay longer on their original route than intended, I see HST's as an intrim measure and not a long term solution so I think there is certainly a possibility of them replacing HST's on other routes maybe even HST's in Scotland, that remain un electrified. I think there's also a possibility that the MML franchise might want to retain a small fleet post electrification.

I've not looked up the relative number of seats to be certain, but a 5-car 222 would be a downgrade in capacity from a 2+5 or 2+6 HST (as being suggested for ScotRail), wouldn't it? 5-car 22x is effectively approx 4-car LHCS since you only get a half-car at each end. Even if there's not much in it in terms of number of seats, the quality of accommodation is much higher in a properly refurbed HST. There shouldn't be much in it in terms of fuel efficiency either, with 5*750=3750bhp for the 222, and 2*2250=4500bhp for the HST, but the HST engines should probably give higher fuel efficiency per bhp (I think, but could be wrong, that a small number of large engines is more efficient than a large number of small engines).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Another general principle is that newer trains are more fuel efficient than older trains because older trains didn't have the same regulations to meet.

The emissions regs have nothing to do with fuel efficiency, they are all about what's in the exhaust gases. The earlier stages of the regs are not even really about being "green", only reducing the toxic stuff. Technology will have improved the fuel efficiency a bit, but not necessarily by a huge amount.

 

[The Ham]

While it is true that Meridian's don't have particularly good seating capacities lets remember that they are designed for a major London routes with fairly high first class and features such as a galley and a buffet area etc, if some of these features were removed and fist class reduced then on a 5 car you could probably add at least 15 seats for reduced first class to 30+ seats for a standard class only 5 car.

In any case with electrification likely to be running late they may well stay longer on their original route than intended, I see HST's as an intrim measure and not a long term solution so I think there is certainly a possibility of them replacing HST's on other routes maybe even HST's in Scotland, that remain un electrified. I think there's also a possibility that the MML franchise might want to retain a small fleet post electrification.

Even with reforming the 222's to their original 9 coach configuration and adding on an extra coach to minimise the end coaches then the number of seats would be about 550 seats.

I could however see them being used along with 5 coach EMU's (similar to SWT's 444's) running over the electrified sections once Salisbury (or better still Yeovil) is electrified. Probably on a hourly pattern for the Salisbury service, an bi hourly Exeter to London DMU joining with one from Bristol with the alternative hourly service from Exeter requiring passengers to switch to an EMU.

 

[47802]

I've not looked up the relative number of seats to be certain, but a 5-car 222 would be a downgrade in capacity from a 2+5 or 2+6 HST (as being suggested for ScotRail), wouldn't it? 5-car 22x is effectively approx 4-car LHCS since you only get a half-car at each end. Even if there's not much in it in terms of number of seats, the quality of accommodation is much higher in a properly refurbed HST. There shouldn't be much in it in terms of fuel efficiency either, with 5*750=3750bhp for the 222, and 2*2250=4500bhp for the HST, but the HST engines should probably give higher fuel efficiency per bhp (I think, but could be wrong, that a small number of large engines is more efficient than a large number of small engines).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The emissions regs have nothing to do with fuel efficiency, they are all about what's in the exhaust gases. The earlier stages of the regs are not even really about being "green", only reducing the toxic stuff. Technology will have improved the fuel efficiency a bit, but not necessarily by a huge amount.

Yes It probably would be a downgrade on capacity of HST's especially if you bin the full size Buffet or Full Size Restaurant car as seems likely in Scotland, however Meridians are over 20 years newer and you can run them in pairs.

 

[Murph]

Yes It probably would be a downgrade on capacity of HST's especially if you bin the full size Buffet or Full Size Restaurant car as seems likely in Scotland, however Meridians are over 20 years newer and you can run them in pairs.

You won't be running them in pairs of 5-cars out of Glasgow Queen St, and I'm not sure that the western bays at Waverley would cope with a pair of 5-cars, especially after they were shortened a while ago. Pairs of 4-cars would probably fit after the Queen St rebuild, but that's not going to be any better than a 2+6 for capacity, and inferior on the quality of the accommodation.

I'll be a little surprised if they were to run the HSTs without buffets, although not too surprised if there's some compromise (e.g. buffet without restaurant), as part of the bid was enhanced catering. To me, it seems fairly likely that they will stick with HSTs for the duration of the franchise after the investment to refurb them, do the PRM-TSI mods, and probably ERTMS retrofit; assuming that they are successful and reliable. If the general condition is reasonable as far as corrosion goes, the HSTs are arguably newer in terms of motive power than the 22x units.

 

[47802]

You won't be running them in pairs of 5-cars out of Glasgow Queen St, and I'm not sure that the western bays at Waverley would cope with a pair of 5-cars, especially after they were shortened a while ago. Pairs of 4-cars would probably fit after the Queen St rebuild, but that's not going to be any better than a 2+6 for capacity, and inferior on the quality of the accommodation.

I'll be a little surprised if they were to run the HSTs without buffets, although not too surprised if there's some compromise (e.g. buffet without restaurant), as part of the bid was enhanced catering. To me, it seems fairly likely that they will stick with HSTs for the duration of the franchise after the investment to refurb them, do the PRM-TSI mods, and probably ERTMS retrofit; assuming that they are successful and reliable. If the general condition is reasonable as far as corrosion goes, the HSTs are arguably newer in terms of motive power than the 22x units.

I'm sure they probably will run HST's for their franchise period but after that a replacement would be likely for routes which aren't seeing much sign of electrification, but then again what are the overall costs and reliability of an HST compared to a Meridian?

If the seating capacities quoted from the 'RMweb' article are correct then I doubt it will be a full buffet car, more likely some form of Mini Buffet possibly also incorporating Guards accommodation so you can get rid of the TGS, wouldn't a decent coffee machine and the ability to microwave a bacon sandwich represent an improvement on current catering anyway.

 

[Murph]

I'm sure they probably will run HST's for their franchise period but after that a replacement would be likely for routes which aren't seeing much sign of electrification, but then again what are the overall costs and reliability of an HST compared to a Meridian?

If the seating capacities quoted from the 'RMweb' article are correct then I doubt it will be a full buffet car, more likely some form of Mini Buffet possibly also incorporating Guards accommodation so you can get rid of the TGS, wouldn't a decent coffee machine and the ability to microwave a bacon sandwich represent an improvement on current catering anyway.

Yeah, it's anyone's guess what will happen 10-15 years down the line. No reason to believe that there would necessarily be sufficient 22x available then. I imagine that it will depend greatly on how successful the HSTs are, and what sort of condition they are in by that time. Replacement with something newer wouldn't be entirely surprising. If the new ScotRail-IC concept works well, it could easily be some sort of new-build proper IC-class trains.

Given the journey times from Edinburgh/Glasgow to Inverness/Aberdeen, I'd rather hope for some more substantial offerings than a microwave bacon butty. It seems to me that the journey is long enough to squeeze in a half decent plate of something, if they are truly committed to doing a proper IC service. I don't know about anyone else, but the idea of a nice plate of haggis, neeps, and tatties while watching the landscape on the way up to Inverness is quite appealing, or maybe a nice bit of fresh salmon.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Yeah, it's anyone's guess what will happen 10-15 years down the line. No reason to believe that there would necessarily be sufficient 22x available then. I imagine that it will depend greatly on how successful the HSTs are, and what sort of condition they are in by that time. Replacement with something newer wouldn't be entirely surprising. If the new ScotRail-IC concept works well, it could easily be some sort of new-build proper IC-class trains.

Assuming the refurbished Scotrail HST's last another 10-15 years (up to about 2030) then Scottish Electrification should be reaching Aberdeen, so the next franchise after Abelio will probably want some Intercity EMU's for Glasgow/Edinburgh to Aberdeen. That only leaves the Glasgow/Edinburgh to Inverness and Aberdeen to Inverness services with can be replaced by 22x units.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Thank you for your comments, I have followed my previous post with another one considering challenges in the redeployment of the 222s (and Voyagers), which can be found here.

Thanks Huw for another interesting read. Shows the problems with using a surplus of 125mph DUM's to replace to replace <100mph DUMs on regional routes of which there will be a shortage.

Regarding 222's being used on Services to Devon and Cornwall I suppose it will boils down to the cost of running and refurbishing HST's to DDA compliance vs. leasing 222's which already meet most of those requirements.

EDIT: If Electrification to Hull does go ahead then I think it is probable that Grand Central will take on the remaining 4 180's.

 

[centraltrains]

Would go-op be wanting HSTs? They say they want new rolling stock on their website but when I emailed them awhile ago they said they hadn't started yet because no rolling stock could be assigned to them yet?

 

[The Planner]

They are still looking at DMUs last I heard, or at least basing a timetable bid on them.

 

[TheWalrus]

IMO the meridians should go to the GW for all London-West of England Intercity services and a semi-fast Exeter service. Would there be enough 222s for this? Also taking into account we could be running 8car 319s between Newbury and London which would relieve the Exeter semi-fats a considerable amount.

 

[JamesRowden]

IMO the meridians should go to the GW for all London-West of England Intercity services and a semi-fast Exeter service. Would there be enough 222s for this? Also taking into account we could be running 8car 319s between Newbury and London which would relieve the Exeter semi-fats a considerable amount.

Using my calculations from a couple of years ago, I think that the number of 222s in existence are exactly the number (including spares) which would be required to operate an hourly Paddington-Plymouth-Penzance service. My calculations assumed doubled up sets between Paddington and Plymouth, and the train splitting at Plymouth with a single set continuing to Penzance. The trains could be 5+5 or 5+6 between Paddington and Plymouth, and 5-car or 6-car between Plymouth and Penzance.

My calculations are as follows:

Paddington<->Plymouth = 4 Hours (with 1A91s diversion via Swindon and its extended journey time between Paddington and Reading)
Plymouth<->Penzance = 2 Hours

Therefore, if an average turn-around time of 60 minutes was provided for each unit at its termini, the number of sets required would equal:
(4+1)X2+(4+2+1)X2=24

There are twenty seven 222 sets and a total of 143 carriages. Therefore they can be configured into:

• 8 6-car Sets
• 19 5-car sets

I think that three spare sets seems reasonable.

Two sets could be released from the service if the termini turn-around times were reduced from an average of 60 minutes to an average 30 minutes (during the engineering works used for the calculations). But I doubt that this would produce a robust service during such engineering works. Obviously there would be greater turn-around times when there aren't any engineering works. So therefore there could be some excess units on a weekday (or a non-engineering-work-weekend) to run an additional service or to strengthen a service west of Plymouth.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Obviously using the 222s rather than HSTs would affect the journey times with:

• Additional time required for splitting/joining
• The greater acceleration of the 222s reducing the journey times between stations

 

[BestWestern]

Would go-op be wanting HSTs? They say they want new rolling stock on their website but when I emailed them awhile ago they said they hadn't started yet because no rolling stock could be assigned to them yet?

Of all the many, many reasons why they 'haven't started yet', I think a lack of trains is quite some way down the list...

 

[CC 72100]

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

My calculations assumed doubled up sets between Paddington and Plymouth, and the train splitting at Plymouth with a single set continuing to Penzance. The trains could be 5+5 or 5+6 between Paddington and Plymouth, and 5-car or 6-car between Plymouth and Penzance.

My calculations are as follows:

Paddington<->Plymouth = 4 Hours (with 1A91s diversion via Swindon and its extended journey time between Paddington and Reading)
Plymouth<->Penzance = 2 Hours

Therefore, if an average turn-around time of 60 minutes was provided for each unit at its termini, the number of sets required would equal:
(4+1)X2+(4+2+1)X2=24

There are twenty seven 222 sets and a total of 143 carriages. Therefore they can be configured into:

• 8 6-car Sets
• 19 5-car sets

Well that didn't take too long

 

[Xavi]

222s to Devon & Cornwall would be a huge political own goal (more old stock for the south west and underfloor engines) and a capacity nightmare. You'd never reliably get 10/11 carriage sets on all busy services and for 2/3 of the year (March - October and holiday periods) you're lucky to get a seat without a reservation anywhere east of Taunton between the 1506 and 1903 off Paddington with the current HSTs which must have nearly 500 standard class seats. The south west needs real investment not unsuitable cast-offs.

 

[Ingleborough]

Being directly involved in this, let's just say it may well not be ex FGW HSTs going to Scotland, and that older vehicles, albeit rebuilt, are often much cheaper to lease and maintain to a degree that the economics of using HSTs beat the economics of using a DMU, especially as DMUs are very labour intensive.
GWML electrification is behind schedule, and it's widely recognised that we do not have enough IEP vehicles on order for GW services.

 

[JamesRowden]

Well that didn't take too long

TheWalrus requested the exact data

222s to Devon & Cornwall would be a huge political own goal (more old stock for the south west and underfloor engines) and a capacity nightmare. You'd never reliably get 10/11 carriage sets on all busy services and for 2/3 of the year (March - October and holiday periods) you're lucky to get a seat without a reservation anywhere east of Taunton between the 1506 and 1903 off Paddington with the current HSTs which must have nearly 500 standard class seats. The south west needs real investment not unsuitable cast-offs.

I'm not saying that 222s on these services would be a good/bad idea. I'm merely stating that it is possible.

I expect that a 5+6 222 would have a similar capacity to a 1+9+1 HST, but have significantly greater acceleration. The Draft Western Route Strategy didn't appear to suggest a 2tph fast service between Paddington and Plymouth via the Berks and Hants in its long term planning for the next 30 years. If it was required, perhaps the planned Super Express Train operated Paddington-Westbury semi-fast service could be extended whilst removing some stops from the Paddington-Plymouth/Penzance service.

 

[Ingleborough]

The powercars have been re-engined in the not too distant past, and Abellio are (I believe) proposing a complete rebuild of the coaches. So they are old, but not what I'd describe as clapped out.

Strain guage testing has proved that structurally they are good at the present usage rate to last until AT LEAST 2035, could be a lot longer as the programme was only run to that point.

 

[CC 72100]

TheWalrus requested the exact data

Consider yourself let off the hook!

 

[starrymarkb]

Strain guage testing has proved that structurally they are good at the present usage rate to last until AT LEAST 2035, could be a lot longer as the programme was only run to that point.

Ah there's that 2035 figure that so many cling to.

Mechanics aside do you thing it would be politically acceptable for 60 year old stock to be in front line service in the SW with new fleets elsewhere? Already the local councils and MPs in the SW of all colours are making noise about the lack of improvements SW of Bristol/Bedwyn and no HST replacement in sight.

 

[edwin_m]

Already the local councils and MPs in the SW of all colours are making noise about the lack of improvements SW of Bristol/Bedwyn and no HST replacement in sight.

Perhaps they should be careful what they wish for.