ScotRail HST Introduction - Updates & Discussion

[Altnabreac]

While this is undoubtedly true, it still has nothing to do with where the engines are, and it's possible to deliver that level of service/comfort using a range of options.

Indeed. The Franchise spec was silent on engine positioning but talked about quiet saloons, door - saloon separation, seat window alignment, toilet odour avoidance etc.

Abellio chose HST as the best way to deliver that "posh trains" spec. Other options could also have worked.

 

[Journeyman]

Indeed. The Franchise spec was silent on engine positioning but talked about quiet saloons, door - saloon separation, seat window alignment, toilet odour avoidance etc.

Abellio chose HST as the best way to deliver that "posh trains" spec. Other options could also have worked.

Absolutely. The biggest flaw in the 170 on a long-distance run is the positioning of doors (nice blast of cold air straight into the saloon) and the toilets (no fun sitting next to them). CAF are offering an end-door version of the Civity DMU platform which looks like it could have been ideal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wasn't there a Chinese consortium that produced some rather interesting designs of electric power cars, diesel power cars and a hybrid version?

CSRE, I believe, which does seem to keep chucking out interesting designs but then not really going any further with them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris_(train)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Abellio chose HST as the best way to deliver that "posh trains" spec. Other options could also have worked.

68+Mk5 is probably the other option that would fit that spec well - it was clearly aimed at it being LHCS of some kind and not underfloor engined DMUs. There could have been a side benefit of a Mk5 order - might as well have one extra TSO so a separate day coach could be added to the Fort Bills.

 

[Journeyman]

68+Mk5 is probably the other option that would fit that spec well - it was clearly aimed at it being LHCS of some kind and not underfloor engined DMUs. There could have been a side benefit of a Mk5 order - might as well have one extra TSO so a separate day coach could be added to the Fort Bills.

I agree, the spec of the Mark 5 looks perfect, and I'm looking forward to sampling the TPE ones. I think the biggest problem here is loco availability - isn't there a limit to the number of 68s that were allowed to be built, because of the emissions? You'd have needed a lot of them for sufficient sets to serve all the HST routes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree, the spec of the Mark 5 looks perfect, and I'm looking forward to sampling the TPE ones. I think the biggest problem here is loco availability - isn't there a limit to the number of 68s that were allowed to be built, because of the emissions? You'd have needed a lot of them for sufficient sets to serve all the HST routes.

Fair point, though I'm sure a different design of locomotive with the appropriate emissions kit would have been possible.

 

[Journeyman]

Fair point, though I'm sure a different design of locomotive with the appropriate emissions kit would have been possible.

How many spare 67s are there at the moment? They've never exactly been overworked.

 

[marks87]

68+Mk5 is probably the other option that would fit that spec well - it was clearly aimed at it being LHCS of some kind and not underfloor engined DMUs. There could have been a side benefit of a Mk5 order - might as well have one extra TSO so a separate day coach could be added to the Fort Bills.

While I'm supportive of the HSTs, 68+Mk5 would have addressed the "stopgap" issue as well because in that scenario it's the 68 that becomes the stopgap rather than the entire train.

You'd then be able to either swap traction at Perth and/or Arbroath (or Dundee, if its easier) once the wires get that far, or hope that an 88-like loco with a more powerful diesel engine is developed.

I suppose in theory if the Mk3 refurb has been such a success so as to effectively make them brand new carriages, it wouldn't be entirely unfeasible to develop new hybrid power cars.

 

[Indigo Soup]

68+Mk5 is probably the other option that would fit that spec well - it was clearly aimed at it being LHCS of some kind and not underfloor engined DMUs. There could have been a side benefit of a Mk5 order - might as well have one extra TSO so a separate day coach could be added to the Fort Bills.

68s & Mark 5s would have given the LHCS enthusiasts kittens, especially if the sleeper hadn't been split out of the ScotRail franchise. We'd now be seeing demands for all sorts of weird portion working.

 

[najaB]

You'd then be able to either swap traction at Perth and/or Arbroath (or Dundee, if its easier) once the wires get that far, or hope that an 88-like loco with a more powerful diesel engine is developed.

I don't think swapping traction would be a good option due to extending the dwell time from a minute or two up to 5 to 10 minutes. And I'm not sure how feasible a more powerful engine would be be, given that the 88 has about the biggest possible engine that meets emission standards.

What might work, rather than a complete traction swap, would be adding/removing a generator car. Passing a MW or two through a coupler shouldn't be beyond the wit of man.

 

[boabt]

Why, because I disagree with you?

The HSTs have been hugely delayed.
GWR have palmed off the least reliable power cars to ScotRail.
GWR's fleet is the least reliable anyway.
ScotRail have skimped by not installing upgrades that improve comfort and reliability.
The trains are 40 years old!

This whole project is madness.

He said repeatedly and irritatingly.

 

[Journeyman]

He said repeatedly and irritatingly.

Doesn't stop it being true. I'm irritated by all the "HSTs are fundamentally better than all other trains" comments.

 

[jingsmonty]

Yes. The LNER ones (432xx and 433xx) have been fitted with control mods that allow improve performance. They're allowed to operate on the Highland Main Line on one power car with no assistance.

The ex-GWR ScotRail ones don't have these mods, and can't operate with one power car on the HML...even in short formations. Oops.

The training train already has...hmmmm.
I think that instruction may have been removed - I'll have to have a look at the sectional appendix next time I'm spare!

 

[jingsmonty]

Doesn't stop it being true. I'm irritated by all the "HSTs are fundamentally better than all other trains" comments.

That's because they tend to be....I can't think of a so called 'modern' train I'd rather travel on (or drive, for that matter). Nothing modern could beat a short formed HST for acceleration/performance (partly due to emmissions legislation, I think) & I, for one, would prefer a Mk3/HST to a modern train with underfloor engines, ironing board seats & a plasticky interior (which I noticed on 185s & 380s).

Can we please STOP carping about the rights & wrongs of the Scotrail HSTs, please - they are here, the decision (for better or worse, that remains to be seen) has been taken!

 

[GrimShady]

I don't think swapping traction would be a good option due to extending the dwell time from a minute or two up to 5 to 10 minutes. And I'm not sure how feasible a more powerful engine would be be, given that the 88 has about the biggest possible engine that meets emission standards.

What might work, rather than a complete traction swap, would be adding/removing a generator car. Passing a MW or two through a coupler shouldn't be beyond the wit of man.

Much like the tender idea a forward thinking member on these boards suggested.

 

[Journeyman]

Can we please STOP carping about the rights & wrongs of the Scotrail HSTs, please - they are here, the decision (for better or worse, that remains to be seen) has been taken!

Why? The word "discussion" is in the title. As a Scottish taxpayer and traveller I have every right to express my view on this, and it's undeniable that the project has had some serious problems. The more I hear about it, the more I see unresolved issues that are likely to blow up and make this go pear-shaped.

As others have said, if you've got the most comfortable train in the world, it's not a lot of good if it breaks down regularly - and the GWR fleet reliability is appalling. If ScotRail are doing as little as they can get away with to the power cars, how is that reliability going to magically improve?

I say this as someone who likes HSTs and considers them a great success, but I refuse to accept blindly that they're always the best option, because they're forty years old! The more I see of this, the more I consider it a mistake. I'm not going to shut up because it doesn't fit with enthusiast opinion.

 

[najaB]

I say this as someone who likes HSTs and considers them a great success, but I refuse to accept blindly that they're always the best option, because they're forty years old!

Equally, they aren't automatically the worst option just because they're 40 years old.

 

[Journeyman]

Equally, they aren't automatically the worst option just because they're 40 years old.

True. But the project has run into serious delay and difficulty, and I'm seeing more and more evidence that the problems haven't been properly addressed.

 

[connormill]

The HSTs will serve as a suitable stop-gap until electrification reaches the point that bi-mode units make sense: wires as far as Carnoustie/Arbroath, Ladybank, and Perth.

I find it amazing that electrification all the way to Aberdeen isn't on the table .

It seems perfectly logical to me as it would allow ScotRail to run electric Aberdeen-Edinburgh/Dundee/Glasgow and allow LNER to streamline their fleet greatly

Seems daft to me that LNER have to run a diesel train all the way from London to Aberdeen purely because the last 120 miles aren't electrified .

Of course, that may change when (if) bi mode IETs come on the scene

 

[Journeyman]

that will change when bi mode IETs come on the scene

Fixed that for ya.

Biggest problem is wiring across the Forth Bridge.

 

[najaB]

I find it amazing that electrification all the way to Aberdeen isn't on the table .

It is. However it will likely have to wait until Usan-Montrose is sorted out.

 

[GrimShady]

CSRE, I believe, which does seem to keep chucking out interesting designs but then not really going any further with them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris_(train)

That's the one! Thanks!

 

[jopsuk]

CSRE, I believe, which does seem to keep chucking out interesting designs but then not really going any further with them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris_(train)

They seem to be dead now, their websites are gone

 

[jingsmonty]

I don't have a beef in the DMUs vs Locos debate and I think we overestimate how much "normals" care about what train they are on. However all the evidence from the HML is that people have a significant preference for the Chieftain and this is primarily why the Intercity Fleet requirement was written into the Scotrail franchise.

If the HSTs can be made to work reliably I think they will be viewed as a big improvement by passengers who will be pleased with their new "posh trains".

I think this is a point well worth reiterating...passengers LIKE the HST & personally, I think this was the most cost effective way & certainly the quickest (on paper, anyway...) of giving Scotrail the true InterCity service we have been crying out for years for!

Yes, the project has had issues, but what project doesn't? I give you the fiasco with the Class 385s & the curved windscreens as a good example. I'd agree that a lot of the infrasturcture stuff (such as stabling points) hasn't been thought through properly.

But, they are here now - how nuch money would be wasted & how much longer would Scotland be saddled with a 2nd rate train service if the HST was abandoned now?

Reliability is my main concern too - the points raised about the GWR power cars is perfectly valid. I just think they were the 1st available...who knows, it may be possible to supplant them with, for example, some ex LNER ones later on? It should also be remembered that the power cars will be much less intensivy used in Scotland - they were hammering about GWR at 125mph for long stretches with 8 coaches....100mph & 4/5 coaches will be like a semi retirement! Speaking as someone who's driven the training train, I can couch that you spend a lot of time coasting & not a huge amount at full throttle (it feels like it will take off at times!).

As an aside, it was always the plan back in BR days for the HST to be cascaded to 'secondary routes' - it's a reflection on just how good they are that this is only happening 20+ years later than planned!

GWR are using them as a fast, powerful & high quality 'inter regional' DEMU now as well(the 'Castle' class) in the same way as Scotrail will be doing.

 

[jingsmonty]

I agree, the spec of the Mark 5 looks perfect, and I'm looking forward to sampling the TPE ones. I think the biggest problem here is loco availability - isn't there a limit to the number of 68s that were allowed to be built, because of the emissions? You'd have needed a lot of them for sufficient sets to serve all the HST routes.

Surely a Class 68 + Mk5 combo wouldn't have had the performance of a 2+4/5 HST, particularly on the HML gradients?

Were there not issues with Class 68s on the HML when DRS used them on the 'Tesco Train'? They ended up going back to Class 66s. Granted, it's a much heavier load than 5 coaches would be.

I do look forward to trying out the TPE Mk5s too....who knows, they may come close to a high quality refurbished Mk3 for comfort....!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I do look forward to trying out the TPE Mk5s too....who knows, they may come close to a high quality refurbished Mk3 for comfort....!

I'll put you out of your misery (or into it), then - they have poor window alignment and the same awful seats as the Class 800. So no, they won't, not even close.

Nothing of course stopping ScotRail ordering a version with an interior without those issues, though.

 

[Journeyman]

I'll put you out of your misery (or into it), then - they have poor window alignment and the same awful seats as the Class 800. So no, they won't, not even close.

Nothing of course stopping ScotRail ordering a version with an interior without those issues, though.

Likewise, it's possible to ruin a Mark 3 by putting a lousy interior into it - exhibit A: the GWR high-density layout. Ghastly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Likewise, it's possible to ruin a Mark 3 by putting a lousy interior into it - exhibit A: the GWR high-density layout. Ghastly.

Or the Class 153, which is just a fairly generic DMU but has an excessively high density interior. And it should be hard to get that one wrong, because it (like its cousin the Pacer) has a closely spaced set of small windows, so is one of the very few designs out there where window alignment really does make no difference whatsoever.

 

[mcmad]

I'll put you out of your misery (or into it), then - they have poor window alignment and the same awful seats as the Class 800. So no, they won't, not even close.

Nothing of course stopping ScotRail ordering a version with an interior without those issues, though.

And what seats are Scotrail fitting in the mk3? Is it not the same ironing boards.....

 

[Bletchleyite]

And what seats are Scotrail fitting in the mk3? Is it not the same ironing boards.....

No, it's not. They are the Grammer IC3000s that GWR already had, just at a lower density spacing with more tables and new seat covers.

http://www.grammer.co.uk/IC3000.html

(And in any case 800s don't have ironing boards, they have a different design that is harder still, lower backed and has a contoured back cushion that only suits someone whose back is exactly the right length and shape)