My suggestions for the future for HSTs

[jimm]

Guess you've not seen ''' Apart from a few going to Scotrail, Whats the future for the rest of them when they cascaded from Great Western Railway, Grand Central and Virgin Trains East Coast?''''

The 27 sets Scotrail is taking are hardly 'a few'. When it comes to Class 43s, to operate a fleet that size you will need 54 of them, plus an allowance for heavy maintenance given the age of the things, say half-a-dozen, so that's more than half of GWR's 118 GWR Class 43s accounted for already.

Add in the 11 2+4 sets GWR (again with a few spare Class 43s) is expected to retain for an undetermined interim period while electrification and the resulting stock transfers are completed and that's 80-odd Class 43s that will still have a use for the time being once they are removed from GWR express services.

Ah, ha, you say, that still leaves 25 or 30 of the GWR Class 43s to play with, but there is a fly in the ointment in that 29 GWR Class 43s are fitted with GEC traction motors, which have always required extra maintenance, and have all been allocated to Landore depot since 2002 precisely so that its staff can keep a close eye on them.

It seems unlikely that GWR or Scotrail will want anything to do with the GEC traction motors if they can help it (and I don't think it's a coincidence that when you subtract 29 from 118, you get 89, basically enough to cover the two TOCs' likely requirements for Class 43s), so why would anyone else?

Similarly, in terms of being 'non-standard', all the EMT sets are fitted with VP185 engines, rather than the MTUs that were used to re-engine all the other Class 43s, so that immediately makes EMT sets less attractive to any other potential operator.

Which leaves the East Coast and GC sets with the MTU engine/Brush traction motors package that might be attractive to someone else, but that's about 15 sets in total, so maybe enough to bail out XC, if the Government would agree that it could have them in the first place.

Factor in the running costs of trains that were built between 1976 and 1982 and the question of maintenance, with expertise only likely to be available in the long term at Craigentinny and Laira - no one is likely to want to tool up a depot and train staff to maintain HSTs from scratch at this stage in their lives - and the options for future use are frankly pretty limited, beyond what we already know about.

The Scotrail sets have no guaranteed future beyond 2025, when the current franchise ends, and the GWR 11 are still subject to confirmation and have been described as an interim solution on a number of occasions by GWR managers, hardly suggesting they are expected to remain in use for a long time if they can help it.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Before suggesting too much, remember the restriction on HSTs with long swing link couplings and their ban over third rail routes.

And in addition to the reply by swt_passenger, Mark 3 stock was also built with Short Swing Link (SSL) bogies where are perfectly acceptable for use on third rail.

There was a bit of re-jigging went on under British Rail and then post privatisation, most of the SSL bogies should be with Great Western on their HST sets, most of the LSL bogies are with East Coast, East Midlands and Grand Central on their HST sets, or with Greater Anglia on the LHCS stock.

There's plenty of opportunity to swap bogies or entire coaches around to get SSL stock to where it's needed, if needs must, when HST stock starts coming out of service.

 

[Domh245]

Why would it be necessary to run off third rail, as opposed to just diesel.

I recall a discussion on here about third rail capability for these trains and the conclusion that I remember was that it would leave them underpowered, leading to shutdowns of AC and other hotel services, whilst also depriving other units in the area of power.

 

[43096]

Which is exactly why the Turbos were purchased instead of the proposed 'mini HSTs'.

And as sprinterguy points out, don't forget about the shortened HSTs that GWR will be retaining.

The 159s were acquired because InterCity wouldn't release any HST sets. The Mule idea was proposed but IC realised (rightly) that the HSTs were too good to let go.

 

[tbtc]

There's also the small matter of the 27 Class 222 units to deal with, they're likely to end up with XC post MML electrification, making any plan for XC to use HST stock pretty futile. The acceleration of HST stock is a pathing nightmare as it is.

I'm not sentimental; I'm happy for my razor blades to be made up of any stock that is no longer fit for purpose.

However, the above post has got me thinking...

We know that MML electrification is being pushed backwards and backwards (not as important last he GWML, not as politically high profile as the "powerhouse" TPE line - though that may be less of a priority post-Osbourne...).

HSTs aren't much of a solution on XC, given that they can't match Voyager timings on each diagram, unless you take out so many carriages that you end up with an HST that is no longer than a Voyager in the first place.

222s would be good on XC, given their ability to match Voyagers.

So what about putting all of the 222s on XC, put HSTs on all EMT services from Sheffield/ Nottingham/ Derby to London? An HST may be overkill on the Corby service, maybe there's an argument for a small fleet of 100mph DMUs on it (any 170s kicking around?), but this would tie in the stock requirement (maybe another ten years before they seriously start falling to pieces) with the route requirements (maybe another ten years before the wires reach Sheffield?).

Start putting IEP (or equivalent long distance EMUs) on the MML once you've wired towards Nottingham, as the weakest HSTs will probably need to be withdrawn.

Someone with better crayons than me can propose how XC could best use the 222s (doubled up units in the core?) - I'm not suggesting that they interwork with Voyagers as I appreciate that they can't - but the "number of years left for HSTs to be operational" and "number of years before the CP5 commitment to wire the MML" are in the same ball park.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I'm not sentimental; I'm happy for my razor blades to be made up of any stock that is no longer fit for purpose.

However, the above post has got me thinking...

We know that MML electrification is being pushed backwards and backwards (not as important last he GWML, not as politically high profile as the "powerhouse" TPE line - though that may be less of a priority post-Osbourne...).

HSTs aren't much of a solution on XC, given that they can't match Voyager timings on each diagram, unless you take out so many carriages that you end up with an HST that is no longer than a Voyager in the first place.

222s would be good on XC, given their ability to match Voyagers.

So what about putting all of the 222s on XC, put HSTs on all EMT services from Sheffield/ Nottingham/ Derby to London? An HST may be overkill on the Corby service, maybe there's an argument for a small fleet of 100mph DMUs on it (any 170s kicking around?), but this would tie in the stock requirement (maybe another ten years before they seriously start falling to pieces) with the route requirements (maybe another ten years before the wires reach Sheffield?).

Start putting IEP (or equivalent long distance EMUs) on the MML once you've wired towards Nottingham, as the weakest HSTs will probably need to be withdrawn.

Someone with better crayons than me can propose how XC could best use the 222s (doubled up units in the core?) - I'm not suggesting that they interwork with Voyagers as I appreciate that they can't - but the "number of years left for HSTs to be operational" and "number of years before the CP5 commitment to wire the MML" are in the same ball park.

The problem, as ever, is post 2020 PRM-TSI compliance for HST sets.

 

[broadgage]

With the present severe overcrowding on many parts of the network, and the oft repeated railway mantra that "no spare or additional stock is available" I can not support the scrapping of ANY serviceable HSTs.

In many cases, HSTs could replace short DMUs and thereby free those DMUs to lengthen other services.
On routes where the 125 MPH capability is not needed, it might be possible to utilise 2+9 HSTs thereby further improving capacity.

In view of the age of the HST fleet I doubt that any major and costly modifications could be justified, simply do the minimum and keep them "as is" to relieve overcrowding on some of the routes for which "no spare stock is available"

 

[physics34]

With the present severe overcrowding on many parts of the network, and the oft repeated railway mantra that "no spare or additional stock is available" I can not support the scrapping of ANY serviceable HSTs.

In many cases, HSTs could replace short DMUs and thereby free those DMUs to lengthen other services.
On routes where the 125 MPH capability is not needed, it might be possible to utilise 2+9 HSTs thereby further improving capacity.

In view of the age of the HST fleet I doubt that any major and costly modifications could be justified, simply do the minimum and keep them "as is" to relieve overcrowding on some of the routes for which "no spare stock is available"

HSTs should take over from all cross country voyager services basically, with the voyagers being used on other long distance DMU services to free up 158s etc etc.

 

[najaB]

HSTs should take over from all cross country voyager services...

As has been pointed out several times - HSTs can't match Voyager timings.

 

[D365]

And Voyagers can't make use of Sprinter differentials.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Grand Central would rather take on additional class 180s than add power doors to their HST sets, so I think that it's inevitable that we start to look towards the scrapping of life expired mark 3 vehicles: Some of the oldest are forty years old now, after all.

Just to be slightly pedantic, but there are 5 coaches from the prototype HST that are in service on the HST fleet. They are 44 years old.

 

[class387]

Just to be slightly pedantic, but there are 5 coaches from the prototype HST that are in service on the HST fleet. They are 44 years old.

Just out of interest, may I ask which coaches these are?

 

[PHILIPE]

Where are you getting this 'swing link couplings' stuff from? It is nothing to do with the couplings, please refer to SpacePhoenix's earlier reply.

The correct term is 'long swing link' bogies.

Sorry, I meant to say bogies

 

[43074]

As has been pointed out several times - HSTs can't match Voyager timings.

Depends on the formation though, anything up to 2+6 should more or less match Voyager timings, but if you're running 6-car HST sets around there isn't much point replacing Voyagers in the first place - 4 or 5 car 22x units offer much more flexibility than HSTs of any length. If anything replaces the Voyagers, which mechanically speaking are perfectly adequate and still have plenty of life in them, then it would be a number of AT300 or '222' sets to allow more multiple working on XC.

Replacing 15x and 17x units with Voyagers doesn't make sense, there isn't really a capacity benefit - a 3-car 170 has more seats than a 4-car 220 - and Voyagers cost much more to run - they're heavy and fuel hungry.

 

[The Planner]

I wouldn't want anything more than a 2+5 to match a Voyager schedule.

 

[yorksrob]

The problem, as ever, is post 2020 PRM-TSI compliance for HST sets.

Just get a derogation.

If anyone complains, blame economic uncertainty, the weak pound, recession, Brexit, sunspots, laylines, throw anything at it. Then say, it's a choice of either keeping the old trains a bit longer or overcrowding.

 

[najaB]

Depends on the formation though, anything up to 2+6 should more or less match Voyager timings...

Does that include the additional dwell time due to the Mk3's being slam door stock?

 

[physics34]

As has been pointed out several times - HSTs can't match Voyager timings.

well they should alter the timings accordingly then...or run with less coaches.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Does that include the additional dwell time due to the Mk3's being slam door stock?

automatic doors could be fitted like n osome of the other future HST projects

 

[D365]

well they should alter the timings accordingly then...or run with less coaches.

Which defeats the object of using them as Voyager replacements

 

[Philip Phlopp]

well they should alter the timings accordingly then...or run with less coaches.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


automatic doors could be fitted like n osome of the other future HST projects

The problem with running with fewer coaches is you need to go down to 2+5 to match Voyager timings, which pretty much eliminates the additional capacity, you can't double up stock and the costs become biblical - 2 x 2,250hp engines which you need to run at full power to keep the timings in check, and 140 tonnes of dead weight, 40 metres of dead length, just in the powercars. It doesn't add up or really benefit anybody.

Power doors, retention toilets and other life extension modifications aren't cheap, and realistically another 10 years of high speed service is about all you'll get before fatigue issues mean more things like bogie rebuilds, which aren't cheap.

 

[najaB]

well they should alter the timings accordingly then...or run with less coaches.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


automatic doors could be fitted like n osome of the other future HST projects

So we end up spending several tens of millions of pounds to end up with slower trains with fewer seats than the trains they are replacing. Yeah, can't see anything wrong with that plan.

 

[physics34]

So we end up spending several tens of millions of pounds to end up with slower trains with fewer seats than the trains they are replacing. Yeah, can't see anything wrong with that plan.

keeps the hst's going for another 10 years, and provides additional stock elsewhere around the country. Slower trains maybe but more adequate for longer distance XC work.

 

[tbtc]

The problem, as ever, is post 2020 PRM-TSI compliance for HST sets.

Of course - no getting away from the expensive fact.

I was just wondering whether it'd make sense to tie two problems together ("a line that won't get properly electrified for almost a decade" and "stock that has about a decade of life left in it").

You'd need to spend a lot of money on bringing it up to scratch, it may be more efficient to but 80xs for everything, I'm not getting sentimental about the HSTs - good in their time (but then you could say the same about the Deltics and everything else that was once "flagship" but then scrapped).

Either stick them on the MML at Sheffield or take them to the nearby Booths yard at Rotherham!

In many cases, HSTs could replace short DMUs and thereby free those DMUs to lengthen other services.
On routes where the 125 MPH capability is not needed, it might be possible to utilise 2+9 HSTs thereby further improving capacity

HSTs are good at cruising speed - less good at stop/start services.

Which current DMU services would you put them on, given that they'd be slower getting up to line speed in some circumstances?

HSTs should take over from all cross country voyager services basically, with the voyagers being used on other long distance DMU services to free up 158s etc etc.

well they should alter the timings accordingly then...or run with less coaches

ScotRail have the relatively freedom to rip the timetable up and start from scratch (ignoring single track bottlenecks on the HML and at Usan and also the handful of VTEC/XC services a day north of Edinburgh).

XC can't simply add five minutes here and there to their paths, since a slower Bristol - Leeds service will miss its current slot at Bromsgrove, end up sitting behind a Cross City service to New Street, which then causes constraints at Water Orton which then...

...i.e. you can't just casually add a few minutes here and there to the times without bumping up against other services or making services massively unreliable.

Voyagers have a couple of faults, but they are nippy trains - I don't think HSTs will be able to fill their boots on every diagram.

 

[najaB]

keeps the hst's going for another 10 years, and provides additional stock elsewhere around the country. Slower trains maybe but more adequate for longer distance XC work.

Rather than spending tens of millions to get a decade or less of service out of unsuitable, increasingly unreliable old stock, it makes more sense to spend couple hundred million on new, reliable stock that you'll get thirty or forty years of service out of.

If HSTs were as well suited to XC's operations as you imply, why do they try to as hard as they do to avoid using them?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

XC would be better off going for a build of IEPs unless there'd be too many places where the length of the coaches would foul stuff

 

[43096]

If HSTs were as well suited to XC's operations as you imply, why do they try to as hard as they do to avoid using them?

Cost.

 

[edwin_m]

So what about putting all of the 222s on XC, put HSTs on all EMT services from Sheffield/ Nottingham/ Derby to London? An HST may be overkill on the Corby service, maybe there's an argument for a small fleet of 100mph DMUs on it (any 170s kicking around?), but this would tie in the stock requirement (maybe another ten years before they seriously start falling to pieces) with the route requirements (maybe another ten years before the wires reach Sheffield?).

Start putting IEP (or equivalent long distance EMUs) on the MML once you've wired towards Nottingham, as the weakest HSTs will probably need to be withdrawn.

The MML is probably a more demanding route than most of the XC network, with stop-start running, some severe gradients and 125mph sections too. HSTs can't keep to Meridian timings, particularly on the semi-fasts but also on the Sheffield trains, and the locals are likely to be very unhappy if recent gains in journey time are reversed.

Also, whereas a Meridian with one engine out doesn't lose much time, losing one power car on an HST puts a real hole in running times on a route that becomes reliability-critical with the more intensive Thameslink service. They are pretty reliable these days but any running down in their final years could take us back to the situation before the new engines.

 

[najaB]

Cost.

But I thought they were the perfect wonder train, ideally suited for Cross Country's operation at any cost?

Reality is, XC use HSTs because they have to, not because they want to. The idea that they give up their Voyagers and replace them all with HSTs is simply ridiculous.

 

[yorksrob]

But I thought they were the perfect wonder train, ideally suited for Cross Country's operation at any cost?

Reality is, XC use HSTs because they have to, not because they want to. The idea that they give up their Voyagers and replace them all with HSTs is simply ridiculous.

I thought it was more due to a dodgy leasing agreement that XC were reluctant to use their HST's more often.

 

[najaB]

I thought it was more due to a dodgy leasing agreement that XC were reluctant to use their HST's more often.

It isn't dodgy, as I understand it - it's a PAYG type arrangement. So it's cheaper to leave the HSTs idle and use a Voyager instead. But that just makes the point: if they were the perfect wonder-train then XC would be using them all the time. And if they weren't, the leasing ROSCO would be able to place them with another operator very easily.