ScotRail HST Introduction - Updates & Discussion

[Northhighland]

I don't think you can separate the two, though. Yes, the product is good, but making it has proven to be almost impossible because of the state of the donor vehicles, which has clearly led to Wabtec's problems. You can make an attractive looking train out of just about anything you like, but that doesn't mean it will work.

That is supposition on your part. Nowhere have i seen anyone publicly state that the HST refurb programme has stalled purely down to the condition of the stock. I assume that GWR and Country who have a refurbed set each as well are having the same issues. It really looks like there is a problem with contract delivery, which is also supposition on my behalf. The taxpayer and passengers who ultimately pay for the mess have a right to know what is going on.

If it is purely down to corrosion and the best Wabtec can do is three sets a year, then surely the whole programme is dead in the water?

Come December which is 4 weeks away if the number of 170's is reduced and we have even worse capacity issues in the run up to Xmas which is a busier period on the northern routes then the public will be asking questions. It starts to look like there is just a constant feed of problems with Scotrail, replacement buses are far too frequent. Makes it look like no-one is in control.

So in truth we need answers.

 

[Highland37]

Absolutely. This whole project raised eyebrows among those in the know right from the start, for the very reasons you've pointed out, and it's an object lesson in why using very old rolling stock is generally a bad idea. However good the finished product is, it's still not appeared in numbers and there could well be more problems along the way.

I think the "people prefer East Coast HSTs to ScotRail 170s" argument has been taken far too literally by decision-makers. The average punter doesn't prefer them because they're HSTs, they prefer them because they have more seats, are more comfortable and have better catering, and none of those are features unique to HSTs - they can be replicated in just about any train design you like, if it's specced properly. TS were flexible on the matter - their requirements could have been met perfectly by a decent refurb of the 170. It may not be a particularly popular or classic train, but at least it's here, and it works.

I disagree. The ship has sailed on using multiple units more suitable for shorter journeys. People prefer coaches as there is less noise and vibration. I note that no passenger surveys or data have come out supporting retention of the 170s. I for one am glad they are going.

However I take your point and nice seats and ambiance are pointless unless the vehicles and service is reliable.

You what? Of course it is still valid! Every vehicle is probably going to take longer than planned as a result of additional work arising.

Of course the corrosion argument is relevant but open ended and painfully slow progress is not good. Maybe people haven't noticed, but at the current rate of delivery (regardless of the reason), the refurbished HST set will not enter service for a VERY long time! Arguing about the reasoning is irrelevant. Dealing with the issue is critical and it appears that issues that have been historic, are still current (not enough staff).

 

[Journeyman]

That is supposition on your part. Nowhere have i seen anyone publicly state that the HST refurb programme has stalled purely down to the condition of the stock. I assume that GWR and Country who have a refurbed set each as well are having the same issues. It really looks like there is a problem with contract delivery, which is also supposition on my behalf. The taxpayer and passengers who ultimately pay for the mess have a right to know what is going on.

Agreed, I am doing a fair bit of supposing, but it's all we can do at this stage. I know there's been some problems getting enough skilled workers in, and I suspect that's been a problem too, but yes, someone needs to ask some awkward questions and tell us what's going on, because there's a crisis looming.

If it is purely down to corrosion and the best Wabtec can do is three sets a year, then surely the whole programme is dead in the water?

I'm of the opinion it is, yes.

Come December which is 4 weeks away if the number of 170's is reduced and we have even worse capacity issues in the run up to Xmas which is a busier period on the northern routes then the public will be asking questions. It starts to look like there is just a constant feed of problems with Scotrail, replacement buses are far too frequent. Makes it look like no-one is in control.

It's certainly a major problem that is only going to get worse. Up until now I think they've just about managed, but the proverbial may well hit the fan next month. The combination of delayed 385s and non-existent HSTs is going to make life extremely difficult.

To be fair, I don't think ScotRail can be blamed for the 385 problems - they bought from a reputable supplier and had reasonable expectations of a quality product, and Hitachi are the ones totally at fault here. But the HST was a dodgy-looking idea from the start, and a lot of these issues could and should have been anticipated.

 

[Journeyman]

Regardless, ScotRail have chosen HSTs and internal Scottish InterCity services will be all the better for it.

Eventually, if Wabtec can deliver, and if they don't break down all the time.

Both very big ifs.

 

[Northhighland]

I disagree. The ship has sailed on using multiple units more suitable for shorter journeys. People prefer coaches as there is less noise and vibration. I note that no passenger surveys or data have come out supporting retention of the 170s. I for one am glad they are going.

However I take your point and nice seats and ambiance are pointless unless the vehicles and service is reliable.



Of course the corrosion argument is relevant but open ended and painfully slow progress is not good. Maybe people haven't noticed, but at the current rate of delivery (regardless of the reason), the refurbished HST set will not enter service for a VERY long time! Arguing about the reasoning is irrelevant. Dealing with the issue is critical and it appears that issues that have been historic, are still current (not enough staff).

If the rate of production is three sets a year then the project is a dead duck. Simple as that. No matter the cause of the issue. Then there is a huge problem. Because if corrosion is so bad are they really safe to run in current condition?

Someone somewhere needs to come clean and tell us what is happening.

 

[43096]

If the rate of production is three sets a year then the project is a dead duck. Simple as that. No matter the cause of the issue. Then there is a huge problem. Because if corrosion is so bad are they really safe to run in current condition?

Someone somewhere needs to come clean and tell us what is happening.

You've been reading too many RMT press releases.

Not sure why you think you've got some divine right to know what's going on in what is essentially a commercial contract. Put in an FoI request if it bothers you that much (as one party is receiving subsidy from the state) and see what response you get.

 

[mde]

Put in an FoI request if it bothers you that much (as one party is receiving subsidy from the state) and see what response you get.

Before someone actually tries... FoI would only apply to Transport Scotland in this context who will have the “information not held” and “commercial interests” paragraphs ready to hand.

 

[hexagon789]

Eventually, if Wabtec can deliver, and if they don't break down all the time.

Both very big ifs.

I think it will happen, but not by May.

 

[hexagon789]

and the HSTs cant use sprinter speeds anyway.

True, but that only affects the Highland Mainline.

 

[Northhighland]

You've been reading too many RMT press releases.

Not sure why you think you've got some divine right to know what's going on in what is essentially a commercial contract. Put in an FoI request if it bothers you that much (as one party is receiving subsidy from the state) and see what response you get.

See your response is what is wrong with he rail industry in a couple of sentences. The travelling public have been promised as has the taxpayer by the TOC increased capacity on the lines feeding Inverness and Aberdeen. At present these trains are regularly overcrowded. That was supposed to happen in May. It hasn't happened.

Most businesses would be communicating with their customers. Not constantly spinning the jam tomorrow line even when it is threadbare and devoid of credibility. Rail does nothing much on time on budget. it treats its customers with disdain and in many cases doesn't even recognise who its customers actually are.

But I suppose that is the success of a private monopoly.

 

[johnnychips]

I really can’t see why Wabtec can’t say, “Sorry, we’re having unforeseen problems because of X, Y and Z, we are trying to solve them by doing A, B and C.”

 

[Chrism20]

I really can’t see why Wabtec can’t say, “Sorry, we’re having unforeseen problems because of X, Y and Z, we are trying to solve them by doing A, B and C.”

They more than likely have said “Sorry we are having unforeseen problems because of X, Y and Z” - to their customer ScotRail.

Wabtec have no legal or moral requirement to give the public a running commentary on their work.

Any communication regarding late running of the project to the public should be coming from either ScotRail or The Scottish Government and their associated agencies where applicable and they are clearly in the loop given they have sanctioned the running of the classic sets.

 

[asm0909]

Surely this whole farce illustrates the shortcomings of the structural issues at the heart of our fragmented railway system.

We are faced with a situation where the operators do not own the rolling stock, where major repair and construction facilities are also under outside control, and where service levels and improvement needs are enmeshed in complex political and contractual arrangements.

The result? No flexibility.

We have a UK train fleet where rolling stock renewals have been decided in relation to the winning of fixed term franchise contracts. Result: boom and bust in the rolling stock industry, with manpower shortages, capacity restrictions and extended lead times.

Trains go off lease on the basis of contracts, not dependent on need or capacity. Rolling stock levels are kept at the minimum, so as to minimise lease costs, so there are no backup plans in situation such as this. Stock cannot be transferred from area to area depending on need: complex commercial contracts need careful negotiations with uncertain outcomes.
.
Companies - or their PR departments - play the 'pass the blame' game, or even just refuse to discuss it. The can plead commercial sensitivity to avoid scrutiny by those who ultimately pay for the service - i.e. the passengers (and we are paying like never before!)

We are seeing the results across the UK system - overrunning contracts, delays, capacity crises, inability to react effectively - in spite of the hard work which goes on day by day at 'ground level' to keep the system running.

Whether the decision to refurbish HSTs was the right one operationally is one which now will have to wait until we have experience traveling on them.
The current issue, the horrendous lateness in delivery and the lack of information surrounding it is one about which we are all entitled to be irate - Not about which political party can be blamed, but about the fact that we have all been let down by those responsible, and demand appropriate reform for the public good.

We are faced with the need to revolutionise our economy in the face of environmental issues about which most of us are only vaguely aware - and yet we have a rail transport industry wedded to the short term profit model. Surely we have the right to expect better?

Sorry for the rant, needed to get that off my chest.

 

[Rail Blues]

I disagree. The ship has sailed on using multiple units more suitable for shorter journeys. People prefer coaches as there is less noise and vibration

That isn't the case. If Scotrail had been ordering brand new stock for this route they'd have almost certainty have ordered intercity style DMUs. The ship certainly hasn't sailed on MUs forlong distance travel and future orders for long distance stock will be almost exclusively MUs aside from the odd niche operations.

I have literally never heard a normal passenger complain about underfloor engine noise, because in the majority of cases they neither know nor care where the engine is located. I won't rehash my views on mk3s on here again, but to say that in their current state they represent a reduction in levels of noise and (in particular) vibration simply isn't true.

 

[hexagon789]

If people are turning up their noses at additional capacity then they can't have a really serious overcrowding problem.

Precisely, considering how overcrowded some services are they extra capacity should be very welcome indeed!

 

[Class83]

Is there any indication when Wabtec might have the next set available? As if the current rate is to be continued, Scotrail will have to look into 185s as the only stock which will be compliant and available, from January 2020. Is there any diesel loco which can haul Mark 4 carriages (I seem to recall that they're not compatible with Class 43s) and will East Coast have released many by the end of next year? That would be the only other option I can see.

The long term solution for the Scotrail Intercity services is presumably a bi-mode such as the 800/1/2, but availability of those prior to 2020 would always have been difficult with Great Western and East Coast already in the queue. Once the HSTs are done in about 10 years I presume there will be an order of this type of train.

 

[gingertom]

Is there any diesel loco which can haul Mark 4 carriages (I seem to recall that they're not compatible with Class 43s)

67s and 68s would work. There's sufficient 67s, not too many 68s. I'd be interested to see what the new 93 could do.

 

[ld0595]

I can’t imagine that the 67 could match the required timings. Then again, 67+mk4s will be much better than an overcrowded 170 or a cancellation.

 

[gingertom]

I can’t imagine that the 67 could match the required timings. Then again, 67+mk4s will be much better than an overcrowded 170 or a cancellation.

singly they would struggle. A 2+5 or 2+6 would be manage but be hideously expensive in fuel.

 

[cf111]

singly they would struggle. A 2+5 or 2+6 would be manage but be hideously expensive in fuel.

And track access charges.

 

[gingertom]

And track access charges.

maybe a lightweight 3300bhp 100mph loco. Class 55 ?

 

[43096]

maybe a lightweight 3300bhp 100mph loco. Class 55 ?

And needs to be reliable.

 

[jopsuk]

Mark 4s are even less currently available than refurbished short HSTs, of course.

Let's be honest, if the choice had been to go for a new build loco and coaches (CAF mark 5 + 68 or otherwise- who knows?) there's a fair chance that right now we'd be having a similar discussion about delays and many of those calling for the management of Wabtec to have their heads mounted on pikes by the mainline in Doncaster as a warning would be yelling about how shortened HSTs with power doors should have been the answer.

 

[47271]

Well, come next month they'd better have enough stock to operate a reliable intercity service at least up to its current standards, or that's when me and the rest of Scotland will suddenly become interested in this subject.

I don't care whether it's a 170 or a unrefurbished HST that I catch on the Highland Main Line but it needs to be there, not break down after I get on it, and I want to be able to sit down in reasonable space and use my laptop.

No pressure.

 

[Highland37]

Surely this whole farce illustrates the shortcomings of the structural issues at the heart of our fragmented railway system.

I think it's even bigger than that and is a symptom of the industrial decline of the UK to very much a secondary nation building hardly any ships, rail vehicles or other similar heavy engineering.

I am with 47271 - regardless of the solution, there needs to be one.

 

[Paul Kerr]

That isn't the case. If Scotrail had been ordering brand new stock for this route they'd have almost certainty have ordered intercity style DMUs. The ship certainly hasn't sailed on MUs forlong distance travel and future orders for long distance stock will be almost exclusively MUs aside from the odd niche operations.

Don't agree with your statement there. First tried specifying Desiro style DMUs for their bid which are supposedly intercity style DMUs (said with tongue firmly in cheek) and they were booted into touch.

I have literally never heard a normal passenger complain about underfloor engine noise, because in the majority of cases they neither know nor care where the engine is located. I won't rehash my views on mk3s on here again, but to say that in their current state they represent a reduction in levels of noise and (in particular) vibration simply isn't true.

How you can say that travelling in a MK3 does not result in a reduction in noise and vibration compared to an almost 20-year old Class 170 struggling up Cowlairs Bank or on the steeply graded approaches to Druimuachdar or Slochd? With the last Class 170 I had the misfortune of travelling on from Inverness to Perth, it was comparable to sitting on top of a washing machine on the uphill sections!

Anyway, back on topic... I do agree with you that running unrefurbished stock (and I agree with you 100% that we should be calling it that) is far from ideal. It would certainly help if ScotRail would give an estimated duration on how long they expect that to last. They are bound to know that by now... or maybe the answer is so bad they don't want to let the public know. At the rate we're going at currently we'll be lucky to see the next set here by the end of the year.

 

[Journeyman]

I have literally never heard a normal passenger complain about underfloor engine noise, because in the majority of cases they neither know nor care where the engine is located. I won't rehash my views on mk3s on here again, but to say that in their current state they represent a reduction in levels of noise and (in particular) vibration simply isn't true.

Absolutely spot on. 99.999999% of passengers don't give a toss about engine noise. They probably don't even know what it is, and have no idea whether their train is powered by diesel, electricity, plutonium or fairy dust.

Every Mark 3 I've been on recently has ridden like a rollercoaster and the squeaking from the gangway has driven me nuts.

 

[43096]

Absolutely spot on. 99.999999% of passengers don't give a toss about engine noise. They probably don't even know what it is, and have no idea whether their train is powered by diesel, electricity, plutonium or fairy dust.

Every Mark 3 I've been on recently has ridden like a rollercoaster and the squeaking from the gangway has driven me nuts.

And to re-write your own argument, 99.999999% of passengers don’t give a toss about noise from the gangway or exaggerated claims about ride quality.

 

[Rail Blues]

How you can say that travelling in a MK3 does not result in a reduction in noise and vibration compared to an almost 20-year old Class 170 struggling up Cowlairs Bank or on the steeply graded approaches to Druimuachdar or Slochd? With the last Class 170 I had the misfortune of travelling on from Inverness to Perth,

I wasn't making a direct comparison to the 170s, but a comparing MK3s to modern intercity. DMUs. Having had the misfortune to be sat at the carriage end of a particularly sad specimen of an LNER mk3 last night, the vibration and the ride, pitch and sway was horrendous and generated far more noise than any intercity DMU I've travelled on.

Yes 170s are ill suited to this route and intercity stock is needed, but as is becoming clearer by the day 43+mk3 isn't the answer, especially in unrefurbished state. A bad idea from the off, being atrociously executed.

 

[haggishunter]

Absolutely spot on. 99.999999% of passengers don't give a toss about engine noise. They probably don't even know what it is, and have no idea whether their train is powered by diesel, electricity, plutonium or fairy dust.

What a condescending post.

Also what makes someone a 'normal' passenger in your eyes? It's also a total fallacy that every member who has come onto this forum has done so because they are some hardcore enthusiast, you make out that the only people who even know if a train is a diesel, let alone have underfloor engines or care about door positions are likely to be sporting a notepad + pencil and be wanting a table with at least 4 power sockets so they can hook up a bank of monitors to their laptop to study 20 different pages on RealTimeTrains.