ScotRail HST Introduction - Updates & Discussion

[Highland37]

I know. I am commenting on different aspects of the service.

 

[CC 72100]

One area where Scotrail is ahead is WiFi. Let's hope the HSTs are as good in this area.

Depends who supplies it; train wi-fi has moved on leaps and bounds in the last couple of years (other posters are more knowledgeable on this) - the difference between say GWR HST wi-fi and TPE 185/350 wi-fi are the 2 ends of the spectrum. On the 350 it was a strong signal all the way up the WCML, including over Shap summit. Impressive stuff.

 

[swaldman]

[re Far North Line journey times] I know. It really is quite unbelievable that it takes that long.

Eh. It's believable, given when the line was built. It's not something I'd be inclined to make much noise over, because there's no economic argument for keeping it open at all. Fortunately the Scottish Gov recognises non-economic arguments for some lines, but I'm sure they'd rather scrap it than upgrade it to the point where it was as fast as the bus.

Having said that, getting stock on to it which could split to Wick and Thurso as used to happen would cut the Wick journey time by a useful bit...

 

[43096]

That's more a maintenance issue than build quality given that they are a decade-plus old.

Sorry, but it is down to build quality. Mark 3s are 40 years old and they don't rattle. Desiros are a decade old like the 170s and they don't rattle.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Sorry, but it is down to build quality. Mark 3s are 40 years old and they don't rattle. Desiros are a decade old like the 170s and they don't rattle.

Still not necessarily down to build quality though. After 10 years, you'd expect things to start to rattle until they get repaired however well they were put together. At that point it isn't the original manufacturers' responsibility.

 

[fgwrich]

Sorry, but it is down to build quality. Mark 3s are 40 years old and they don't rattle. Desiros are a decade old like the 170s and they don't rattle.

Still not necessarily down to build quality though. After 10 years, you'd expect things to start to rattle until they get repaired however well they were put together. At that point it isn't the original manufacturers' responsibility.

I'm afraid I do put rattling down to build quality over maintenance as well. Even when SWT has their batch of the 170s, I remember how particularly bad certain members of the fleet became with 392 being one of the worst. Enough to make me realise leaving your phone on the table on a trip to Waterloo was a bad idea, as the 170 would vibrate and rattle enough to actually send it off the table. The sad fact is, is that many manufacturers these days know about the issues of the products they produce, but only some respond to them. One example of this is Alexander Dennis who, after receiving many comments about the build quality and rattling / vibrating issues of their early Enviro Models, went to the extent of publicly proclaiming their newer MMC version was a 'Rattle Free Bus' and that they had upped the quality of their materials used in the MMC Versions. Sadly however I feel Bombardier has been more of the take your money and run approach - We'll build it for you but we won't fix any of the quality issues. Some 170s are worse than others, but they do still shake, rattle and vibrate, with one unit I had in the summer rattling quite badly (loose screws or nuts in the ceiling panels perhaps) while a Chiltern one I had last month did similar.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Well of course. An issue out-of-the-box/after 6 months/after 2 years is likely to be a build issue. After 10 or 15 years that might not be the case.

 

[route:oxford]

Sorry, but it is down to build quality. Mark 3s are 40 years old and they don't rattle. Desiros are a decade old like the 170s and they don't rattle.

Mk3s do smell something awful after heavy braking though. You don't get that on a 170.

 

[najaB]

Sorry, but it is down to build quality. Mark 3s are 40 years old and they don't rattle.

Many of the Mk3's have been extensively refurbished/rebuilt during that time though.

 

[jimm]

The Mk3s don't have the same rattling issues.

Sorry, but it is down to build quality. Mark 3s are 40 years old and they don't rattle. Desiros are a decade old like the 170s and they don't rattle.

So I must have been hallucinating while sitting under a rattling roof panel on an HST to Reading last week then... the Mk3 is a good coach, but it is not the model of utter perfection on steel wheels that some like to make out.

 

[47802]

Sorry, but it is down to build quality. Mark 3s are 40 years old and they don't rattle. Desiros are a decade old like the 170s and they don't rattle.

Hmm the 185's I've been on recently are starting to rattle a bit.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Hmm the 185's I've been on recently are starting to rattle a bit.

I would also say the 444s and 450s are also starting to rattle.

That said, they are well overdue a refurb.

 

[73206]

Just found this info through Real Time Trains. Highly doubt it will be loco hauled, most likely the first of the HST's, but could also be an error in the system, otherwise showing as loco hauled......from mon 21st may 2018.

MON-SAT
DIAG A
0547 ABD-EDB 0824 1B07.
0929 EDB-ABD 1151 1A55.
1312 ABD-EDB 1533 1B32.
1628 EDB-ABD 1904 1A79.
2009 ABD-EDB 2237 1B51.

MON-FRI
DIAG B
0530 EDB-ABD 0812 1A41.
0905 ABD-EDB 1137 1B18.
1230 EDB-INR 1518 1A75.
1525 INR-EDB 1834 1B40.
1934 EDB-ABD 2151 1A88.

MON-SAT
DIAG C
0828 EDB-INR 1128 1A49.
1134 INR-EDB 1429 1B28.
1530 EDB-INR 1817 1A78.
1845 INR-EDB 2134 1B47.

SAT ONLY.
1330 EDB-INR 1614 1A65.
1638 INR-EDB 1938 1B43.

SUNDAYS.
DIAG A
1245 ABD-EDB 1524 1B72.
1605 EDB-ABD 1838 1A77.

DIAG B
1705 EDB-ABD 1934 1A37.
2006 ABD-EDB 2243 1B34.

DIAG C
1241 EDB-ABD 1506 1A65.
1709 ABD-EDB 1930 1B43.

Thanks.

 

[73206]

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G10261/2018/05/21/advanced

 

[najaB]

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/G10261/2018/05/21/advanced

Could be. Though most of the training runs have been entered as HSTs, and I would've thought that a 5+2 HST with power doors would use more ambitous timings than loco hauled 100mph max train.

 

[AndrewE]

Could be. Though most of the training runs have been entered as HSTs, and I would've thought that a 5+2 HST with power doors would use more ambitous timings than loco hauled 100mph max train.

What is the highest line speed on the route? Is it possible that a good dmu schedule would be faster?

 

[najaB]

What is the highest line speed on the route? Is it possible that a good dmu schedule would be faster?

There are a few stretches of 100mph, nothing higher. I would've thought they'd use the 170/158 timings to start with in case of substitutions and then improve on them if possible.

 

[43096]

So I must have been hallucinating while sitting under a rattling roof panel on an HST to Reading last week then... the Mk3 is a good coach, but it is not the model of utter perfection on steel wheels that some like to make out.

Could have been the bits FGW changed on refurb. I have noticed they do rattle sometimes - think it is the light fittings.

 

[BRX]

As I sit on this dirty 170, I am reading about the Gotthard tunnels, Lotschberg etc, which I have been through many times.

Geography is not a challenge in Scotland in comparison with the Alps or Norway but somehow we have ended up with a very much inferior situation.

Was going to point out that the revenue-earning potential of a major cross-alpine route is ever so slightly greater than the far north line, which could explain some of the differences.

Which is true, but what's also true is that in Switzerland at least they seem to be hugely more imaginative in exploiting the tourism potential of their smaller lines, whilst also using them to provide a genuinely useful public transport function. A suggestion of anything more than the most basic operation in the highlands seems to be dismissed as unrealistic or too complicated. A multitude of small basic things like trains co-ordinating with ferries (or even other trains - see the lack of connection with the sleeper arriving in fort william in the morning for example) that conspire to make rail unfriendly to those who want to use it to get around. And with some of Europe's most scenic routes we can't even manage to have something like an observation car any more. Just making the new HSTs proactively friendly for cyclists seems beyond the bounds of many people's imaginations.

When you travel on the rural lines in Switzerland they have carriages that are designed so you can see the view, space for bikes, space for skis, flexible consists, they co-ordinate with the local buses even in the smallest places, they have special tourist-oriented services, they are integrated with your ski pass in many areas, and they do all this in very challenging geography and climate and all under electric power too. And the other day I was looking at the picture of either the Glacier or Bernina express where there are a load of intermodal containers fixed to the back of a passenger train, this being a pragmatic way of getting supplies to supermarkets along the route. If you suggested doing something like that in the Highlands people would say you were a lunatic. Another thing of mine - no opening windows on new trains: one of the reasons I argue that there should be is that tourists like them for taking photos. It's batted away as a health and safety issue. Again in Switzerland it's standard to have them even on the most modern stock. I know there are lots of ways in which Switzerland is not comparable with the Highlands but each time I'm there I think just what a world away it seems to be, in the attitude to rail and public transport in general. And that surely we could do at least a bit better in the north of Scotland, if enough people could just be bothered?

 

[Highland37]

I think you have just explained the lower productivity of a British worker.

 

[najaB]

If you suggested doing something like that in the Highlands people would say you were a lunatic.

Well you would be. Imagine the acceleration of a Class 158 with two intermodals stuck on the back!

 

[Highland37]

You have just proven his point as that's not what he was suggesting.

 

[najaB]

You have just proven his point as that's not what he was suggesting.

Well, given that there aren't loco-hauled services to attach intermodals to the back of, that's exactly what the suggestion ends up as. Unless you want to go back to loco-hauled services - which means introducing new stock, increasing costs and reducing operational flexibility on the off-chance that someone has some containers that they want moved?

If Scotrail had loco-hauled services and the loading/unloading facilities, runaround loops, etc. already existed then it might be a valid point. But they don't so it isn't.

 

[BRX]

You have just proven his point as that's not what he was suggesting.

Yes, exactly.

 

[BRX]

Well, given that there aren't loco-hauled services to attach intermodals to the back of, that's exactly what the suggestion ends up as. Unless you want to go back to loco-hauled services - which means introducing new stock, increasing costs and reducing operational flexibility on the off-chance that someone has some containers that they want moved?

If Scotrail had loco-hauled services and the loading/unloading facilities, runaround loops, etc. already existed then it might be a valid point. But they don't so it isn't.

Part of the point is, that the attitude to rail, and public transport, in the highlands/scotland/uk has built us into a corner where we have such a stripped-back system that has limited flexibility. Yes the loading facilities and runaround loops and so on, which used to be there, have gone. Why have they gone? Because we've not recognised the potential future (or current) value of that infrastructure. Just stick everything on the roads, and keep a minimal train service that's there to satisfy a political demand not to actually quite close anything completely.

So, yeah, we have a system that's optimised to do one thing, to run a minimal passenger service at the lowest possible cost, and once you start trying to think of ways of using the railways better this doesn't help. Partly what I'm talking about is a long-term issue with investment. But even so I think there are lots of things that could be done that don't rely on fundamental changes to infrastructure. A proactive approach to bikes on HSTs was one example I gave. Somewhere earlier in the thread there was a comment that using the power car compartments was a silly idea because the doors on them are a bit tricky to maintain. That typifies the no-can-do attitude to me. And when I'm in Switzerland what I see seems to be the opposite.

Of course, you can't overnight start sticking intermodals on the back of 158s. On the other hand, Inverness and Fort William both have a daily loco-hauled service. Wasn't in fact common at one time for the Fort William sleeper to carry freight vans from Mallaig? Again, it might be that it doesn't actually help to go with a mixed passenger/freight approach. I'm npt suggesting it necessarily as a solution for the highlands. My point is that many people would rule out the very concept as outlandish but there in Switzerland, there's obviously a situation where it *does* make sense, and I can imagine that when it was initially suggested people didn't laugh but sat down and thought it through.

Regarding unloading facilities - I also recently read about a system - again in Switzerland I think - which allows you to move a container from the back of a lorry to a rail wagon, in under 5 minutes, all using equipment integral to the lorry, which just has to position itself adjacent to the wagon. So all you need is a rail track with a road alongside it. Again, who knows if that would make any difference to the viability of freight on highland rail lines. But somewhere someone's thought about the issue of the time/infrastructure cost of moving small loads from road-rail, and instead of coming to the conclusion that single-container loading points simply can't add up, has come up with a solution that makes it work. I just think that with a bit more effort/imagination, maybe we could get a lot more use out of the railways in the highlands.

It's with some despair that I read about the brand new manufacturing plant at the aluminium works in Fort William, with a railhead already there, and a plan to ship it all out by road in however many lorries a day down the A82.

 

[BRX]

Surely I can't be the only one who reads stuff like this and wonders whether with enough enthusiasm something similar couldn't work in the Highlands?

https://newrailwayreport.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/mixed-traffic-on-schwabische-alb-bahn.html

 

[najaB]

Part of the point is, that the attitude to rail, and public transport, in the highlands/scotland/uk has built us into a corner where we have such a stripped-back system that has limited flexibility.

I don't disagree with you there, but we are where we are. So we (people who want to see public transport improvements) need to focus our efforts on what we have, not what we could have had. I would love to see intermodals on the FNL, but it isn't going to happen any time soon.

 

[najaB]

Surely I can't be the only one who reads stuff like this and wonders whether with enough enthusiasm something similar couldn't work in the Highlands?

well, 170s can barely haul themselves, so it's out on the HML. The idea of using redundant 159s in 158 formations has some legs though.

 

[Highland37]

I echo BRX's comments. Last night the train I was on was delayed due to "severe weather at Dalwhinnie". It wasn't severe. It was normal and as someone with considerable experience of mountaineering all over the world I can vouch for this. It typifies the poor knowledge and weak attitude around these days. The Norwegians would laugh.

Regarding the HSTs that there is even a reasoning for not using the additional space for bikes is absurd. Use it and work out a solution.

 

[mcmad]

It might be normal conditions for Norway but not in January in Scotland.