ScotRail HST Introduction - Updates & Discussion

[gingertom]

No it won't, it might at least manage 125 though

5-car Voyager equipped with 5 engines of 750 BHP. 3750 total. 5-car 802 3 engines of 940 BHP 2820. It's 1000 short, or one engine.

 

[hexagon789]

5-car Voyager equipped with 5 engines of 750 BHP. 3750 total. 5-car 802 3 engines of 940 BHP 2820. It's 1000 short, or one engine.

I think a 2+4 HST will match a Voyager and a 2+5 a Super Voyager, I'd love to test that.

Sadly I think it's inevitable that in at least 15 years, if not sooner, we will have either bi-modes or new DMUs (most likely the former) replacing the HSTs. (I hope we don't get refurbished Voyagers, that would be awful! )

 

[gingertom]

I think a 2+4 HST will match a Voyager and a 2+5 a Super Voyager, I'd love to test that.

Sadly I think it's inevitable that in at least 15 years, if not sooner, we will have either bi-modes or new DMUs (most likely the former) replacing the HSTs. (I hope we don't get refurbished Voyagers, that would be awful! )

In 15 years' time Voyagers will be past their sell-by date too.

 

[hexagon789]

In 15 years' time Voyagers will be past their sell-by date too.

Ah, but they said that about HSTs and look what happened...

 

[najaB]

Better but still won't take on an HST and win.

Given that it will carry more passengers, be better at putting the power down in adverse rail conditions and drink less fuel and produce fewer emissions, I'm happy with the Class 800's 'loss'.

 

[Paul Kerr]

It isn't a cost-cutting exercise. Two big engines cost less than six small ones. And trailer coaches are a lot easier to build and cheaper than powered ones. However distributed power means that a single engine failure has less of an impact, and also makes it easier to have more wheels powered which helps with performance.

Don't agree with you here. For the TOCs an important consideration is leasing costs. By putting the engines under the floor you cut the number of vehicles you are leasing by 2 per set, as you dispense with the locos or power cars. It's a cost consideration, pure and simple. In addition, larger engines and their alternator sets are more expensive to maintain, and track access charges are lower for multiple units due to the lighter axle load. How else do you explain the headlong charge to a multiple unit based railway in the UK in the years running up to, and since, privatisation? In my mind, it's purely based on economics. It's what drives most decisions on the modern railway, whether we like it or not.

I do agree with you that distributed power does have its advantages, especially if you have a power unit failure, but it's certainly not done with passenger comfort in mind.

 

[Paul Kerr]

Given that it will carry more passengers, be better at putting the power down in adverse rail conditions and drink less fuel and produce fewer emissions, I'm happy with the Class 800's 'loss'.

If the trains can't accelerate to full line speed at the same rate as an HST (the 2+8 HST has a 13% better power to weight ratio), they can't go over 100mph in diesel mode, and you're dealing with underfloor engines with their impacts on noise and comfort, that seems like a big backwards step to me. You'll also be dealing with severe gradients in many parts of the country (the Highland Mainline and the West Country for example) so the loss of power is going to potentially be a significant factor. We'll see how things go once the IETs are fully up and running are replaced but based on previous DMU "improvements" over HSTs it will take a lot to convince me that these trains are a step forward. Sure the HST can't last forever but why not design a new platform based on power cars and hauled stock that has been so successful for many years?

 

[GusB]

As this thread is supposed to be about Scotrail HSTs, can we please bring it back on topic? The IET is completely irrelevant.

 

[jimm]

5-car Voyager equipped with 5 engines of 750 BHP. 3750 total. 5-car 802 3 engines of 940 BHP 2820. It's 1000 short, or one engine.

Though both the 22x family and the 180s were designed with massive redundancy built in when it comes to engine power. Both can reach 125mph with one engine out of action.

If the trains can't accelerate to full line speed at the same rate as an HST (the 2+8 HST has a 13% better power to weight ratio), they can't go over 100mph in diesel mode...

How many more times do we have to do this?

How pray tell are people timing the Class 800s on GW services clocking them at speeds up to 120mph or so - even in DfT-approved constrained power and acceleration settings, as opposed to the forthcoming GWR-specified 802s - if they are "not able to go over 100mph in diesel mode"? Please do some basic fact-checking before posting.

 

[BRX]

I do agree with you that distributed power does have its advantages, especially if you have a power unit failure, but it's certainly not done with passenger comfort in mind.

The original plan (if I'm not mistaken) to have diesel generators in the end cars, feeding power to electric motors distributed along the train, was the best solution, giving you the advantages of distributed power without the under-floor engine drone...the best of both worlds.

 

[ScottDarg]

As this thread is supposed to be about Scotrail HSTs, can we please bring it back on topic? The IET is completely irrelevant.

Agreed

43148 (Inter7City livery) & 037 (debranded FGW) were reported as being beside the Craigentinny wheel lathe this morning. 43179 & 126 reportedly at Haymarket.

Additionally, a pic on Flickr taken yesterday suggests 43036 & 134 haven't done much since heading down to Doncaster. They can (barely) be seen behind the silver 67: https://flic.kr/p/24mAVrD

 

[Northhighland]

Seems like the whole project is a fair bit behind schedule. Can't see the original program holding.

 

[physics34]

As this thread is supposed to be about Scotrail HSTs, can we please bring it back on topic? The IET is completely irrelevant.

agree. finding this alot on this forum lately. please keep things on topic or create another thread. I come on this forum to see new info.

 

[najaB]

In addition, larger engines and their alternator sets are more expensive to maintain...

(This is relevant to HSTs)... Large engines are more expensive to acquire but cheaper to maintain. E.g. which is likely to take fewer man hours: removing, rebuilding and reinstalling one 12 cylinder engine or 5 eight cylinder engines? Large loco engines also spend run a large part of their time further away from redline than smaller DMU engines (e.g. the trailing power car in a HST runs at a lower power setting than the leading one).

 

[hexagon789]

(e.g. the trailing power car in a HST runs at a lower power setting than the leading one).

Other way around. The lead power car idles at 750 rpm, the rear at 1,000 rpm or Notch 2.

I would imagine that they will still be more costly to maintain than a 170, but presumably the ability to carry more passengers will negate this.

 

[gingertom]

Other way around. The lead power car idles at 750 rpm, the rear at 1,000 rpm or Notch 2.

I would imagine that they will still be more costly to maintain than a 170, but presumably the ability to carry more passengers will negate this.

more costly to run too in terms of fuel consumption. But more seats = more bums = more £

 

[Paul Kerr]

Though both the 22x family and the 180s were designed with massive redundancy built in when it comes to engine power. Both can reach 125mph with one engine out of action.



How many more times do we have to do this?

How pray tell are people timing the Class 800s on GW services clocking them at speeds up to 120mph or so - even in DfT-approved constrained power and acceleration settings, as opposed to the forthcoming GWR-specified 802s - if they are "not able to go over 100mph in diesel mode"? Please do some basic fact-checking before posting.

It was widely reported when these trains were introduced that they would be limited to 100mph in diesel mode, apparently a Hitachi representative's comments on this subject were misconstrued as he was referring to lines where the IEPs will normally run on diesel mode being restricted to 100mph or less. I apologize for getting my facts wrong.

 

[83G/84D]

Agreed

43148 (Inter7City livery) & 037 (debranded FGW) were reported as being beside the Craigentinny wheel lathe this morning. 43179 & 126 reportedly at Haymarket.

Additionally, a pic on Flickr taken yesterday suggests 43036 & 134 haven't done much since heading down to Doncaster. They can (barely) be seen behind the silver 67: https://flic.kr/p/24mAVrD

43036/134 are towards the north end of Doncaster station whilst the 67 is further south near the footbridge.

 

[JohnR]

No it won't, it might at least manage 125 though

Balancing speed seems to be 118/119 mph. IN other words, they cant reach 125. You couldnt make this up.

 

[Railperf]

Short formation HST's will easily do 125mph. But there are no Scottish routes built for 125mph that these trains will be able to exploit.

 

[swaldman]

Balancing speed seems to be 118/119 mph. IN other words, they cant reach 125. You couldnt make this up.

THERE ARE NO SCOTRAIL ROUTES OVER 100MPH! (that I'm aware of)
This thread is about Scotrail HSTs. I can just about see a discussion of how IETs would fare in Scotland in the far future being on-topic, but the performance of IETs on lines that don't exist in Scotland? Come on. Take it back to the other IET-bashing threads.

(not having a go specifically at JohnR, but at everybody who is spreading this much-repeated gripe into this thread where it is clearly irrelevant)

 

[najaB]

THERE ARE NO SCOTRAIL ROUTES OVER 100MPH! (that I'm aware of)

More importantly, none that aren't electrified (there are a couple of short sections of 125mph between Carstairs and Glasgow Central.

 

[swaldman]

More importantly, none that aren't electrified (there are a couple of short sections of 125mph between Carstairs and Glasgow Central.

Oh, I stand corrected

 

[Darandio]

(there are a couple of short sections of 125mph between Carstairs and Glasgow Central.

Where? The most I have seen on that entire section is 105.

 

[gingertom]

Where? The most I have seen on that entire section is 105.

not exactly Scottish HST territory. Perhaps having 125-capable machines will galvanise track and signalling upgrades to permit higher speeds? I doubt it somehow but we can hope.

 

[Railperf]

There is no 125mph track north of Carstairs on the WCML. Who is going to pay for the track, and signalling upgrades required to run these anywhere in Scotland at over 100mph. If the traditional Intercity services from London to Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow couldn't justify the spending, who will justify it now? And more importantly where will the money come from. It's bad enough that these short HST's will probably cost a lot more in leasing and fuel costs than the trains they are replacing. yes you might generate a few more bums on seats, but i fear that in the long term - the running costs alone may not even see them last 10 to 15 years.

 

[Railperf]

I think a 2+4 HST will match a Voyager and a 2+5 a Super Voyager, I'd love to test that.

Sadly I think it's inevitable that in at least 15 years, if not sooner, we will have either bi-modes or new DMUs (most likely the former) replacing the HSTs. (I hope we don't get refurbished Voyagers, that would be awful! )

A friend has been aboard the 2+4 GWR HST today and tells me it does 0-60mph in 70 seconds - so pretty much on a par with a Voyager, despite the driver taking around 15 secs or so to put her into full power.

 

[Paul Kerr]

There is no 125mph track north of Carstairs on the WCML. Who is going to pay for the track, and signalling upgrades required to run these anywhere in Scotland at over 100mph. If the traditional Intercity services from London to Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow couldn't justify the spending, who will justify it now? And more importantly where will the money come from. It's bad enough that these short HST's will probably cost a lot more in leasing and fuel costs than the trains they are replacing. yes you might generate a few more bums on seats, but i fear that in the long term - the running costs alone may not even see them last 10 to 15 years.

It was widely reported that the leasing costs for the HSTs are lower than the 170s as the HSTs are now 40 years old, which was why Abellio went for that option. The fuel costs will be higher certainly, but the lower leasing costs may cancel that out.

 

[ScottDarg]

43127/140/145/149 taken off lease

43127 & 145 are currently running up to Inverness on 0S44 Newcastle - Inverness: http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/O86757/2018/04/03/advanced

 

[JohnR]

There is no 125mph track north of Carstairs on the WCML. Who is going to pay for the track, and signalling upgrades required to run these anywhere in Scotland at over 100mph. If the traditional Intercity services from London to Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow couldn't justify the spending, who will justify it now? And more importantly where will the money come from. It's bad enough that these short HST's will probably cost a lot more in leasing and fuel costs than the trains they are replacing. yes you might generate a few more bums on seats, but i fear that in the long term - the running costs alone may not even see them last 10 to 15 years.

I find that hard to believe, considering they are 40 years old.