Should Scotrail have gone for 68s rather than HSTs?

[Steven_G]

Appreciate the commitment has already been made but did Scotrail ever consider the Class 68 instead of 43 ? Newer, more reliable, cheaper to maintain.

Appreciate the iconic nature and subsequent marketing that the HST brings but hooking the Class 68 to the refurb coaches wouldn't be an issue and the regular user wouldn't be fussed.

 

[sprinterguy]

Appreciate the commitment has already been made but did Scotrail ever consider the Class 68 instead of 43 ? Newer, more reliable, cheaper to maintain.

Appreciate the iconic nature and subsequent marketing that the HST brings but hooking the Class 68 to the refurb coaches wouldn't be an issue and the regular user wouldn't be fussed.

There aren't 26 class 68s going spare and I'm not sure that they're an emissions compliant design that can still be built new. Their train supply is incompatible with HST Mark 3s (Or more accurately the HST three phase train supply is incompatible with anything else). HST mark 3s also lack the necessary buffing gear to work with conventional locos. Plus you'd need to source compatible driving cars if you were using class 68s in push pull mode.

Though at this stage, given that the HST refurbishment programme isn't likely to be completed before sometime in 2021, new mark 5 push-pull rakes as per Transpennine Express might not have been a bad shout if appropriate locos could be sourced, but evidently even their introduction with TPE has been less than trouble free.

 

[GrimShady]

I imagine cost was a significant factor in the HST choice. Mk5s and new locos aren't cheap.

 

[hexagon789]

Appreciate the commitment has already been made but did Scotrail ever consider the Class 68 instead of 43 ? Newer, more reliable, cheaper to maintain.

Appreciate the iconic nature and subsequent marketing that the HST brings but hooking the Class 68 to the refurb coaches wouldn't be an issue and the regular user wouldn't be fussed.

68s with what though? New Mk5a coaches like TPE?

 

[HSTEd]

Are the Scotrail HSTs ever going to run at above 100mph?

If not, then the answer, I'm afraid, was a stack of 196s

Not a complicated reconstruction of HST vehicles into loco hauled stock and new locomotives.

 

[Struner]

But what about the interior of a Civity for a four hour journey?

 

[43096]

I imagine cost was a significant factor in the HST choice. Mk5s and new locos aren't cheap.

And the Mark 5s have had as difficult an introduction to service as the ScotRail HSTs.

 

[HSTEd]

But what about the interior of a Civity for a four hour journey?

The density on a 195 isn't that much larger than a Mark 3, and you can always provide more generous space if you require.

3-car sets could be coupled into 6 car formations which seem likely to have rather more seats than a 2+5 HST could ever hope to have.
Or we could have fixed formation 6 car sets which would be 195s and not 196s, with slightly more capacity.

HSTs are worn out after 40 years of heavy use, modern units would be cleaner for the environment and likely have similar or better ambience if properly engineered.
Just like the 22000 units on Irish Railways.

 

[Struner]

Aren't Civitys 1/3-2/3? That doesn't give you much variation in the layout. I meant space per passenger. Plus the doors opening & the winter wind blasting.

 

[HSTEd]

Aren't Civitys 1/3-2/3?

Yes? But our door seals are much better than they used to be, so this is much less important in reality than it used to be.

That doesn't give you much variation in the layout. I meant space per passenger.

I'm not sure how door position really affects this?

Plus the doors opening & the winter wind blasting.

So provide vestibule doors?
The vestibules can be in the middle if you want, especially as the train has fully sealed and opened gangways between vehicles now.

 

[cactustwirly]

The density on a 195 isn't that much larger than a Mark 3, and you can always provide more generous space if you require.

3-car sets could be coupled into 6 car formations which seem likely to have rather more seats than a 2+5 HST could ever hope to have.
Or we could have fixed formation 6 car sets which would be 195s and not 196s, with slightly more capacity.

HSTs are worn out after 40 years of heavy use, modern units would be cleaner for the environment and likely have similar or better ambience if properly engineered.
Just like the 22000 units on Irish Railways.

But the Scottish government wanted to replace the 170s with something that offered a better environment, not replace them with 170 clones.

 

[hexagon789]

Are the Scotrail HSTs ever going to run at above 100mph?

If not, then the answer, I'm afraid, was a stack of 196s

Not a complicated reconstruction of HST vehicles into loco hauled stock and new locomotives.

If that waa going to happen wouldn't Mk3 LHCS have made more sense than re-configuring HST trailers for loco-haul.

 

[HSTEd]

But the Scottish government wanted to replace the 170s with something that offered a better environment, not replace them with 170 clones.

Ancient Mark 3s with not brilliant ride quality hardly offers a better environment.
As well as muck spewing HST power cars. HSTs are a big part of railway history, but they should probably remain there - they are hardly the rolling stock for a modern forward-looking railway.

If that waa going to happen wouldn't Mk3 LHCS have made more sense than re-configuring HST trailers for loco-haul.

Hasn't virtually all the Mk 3 LHCS been turned into HST trailers?

 

[Chester1]

Is there any reason why CAF could not cheaply redesign 195s/196s to have end doors?

I like the Mark Vs but with hindsight TPE might have been better ordering more 802s instead. The Mark Vs should have entered services a long time ago and there is no prospect of the 68s being replaced with electric locos anytime soon.

Is there a recent example of a new unit class, conversion or major upgrade program finishing on time?

 

[43096]

Ancient Mark 3s with not brilliant ride quality hardly offers a better environment.
As well as muck spewing HST power cars. HSTs are a big part of railway history, but they should probably remain there - they are hardly the rolling stock for a modern forward-looking railway.

Muck spewing? They’re not farmyard machinery.

Hasn't virtually all the Mk 3 LHCS been turned into HST trailers?

No - still many vehicles in use with Anglia, Chiltern and TfW, and Arriva have some in store. They wouldn’t have been available in the timescale required for ScotRail, though.

 

[sprinterguy]

Hasn't virtually all the Mk 3 LHCS been turned into HST trailers?

Not at all - Of the c.330 loco hauled mark 3s built (Or converted, in the case of the RFMs), 38 have been converted to HST vehicles. As noted above many are still in use with the likes of Greater Anglia and Chiltern, though none would have been available within the timescales required by Scotrail.

But the Scottish government wanted to replace the 170s with something that offered a better environment, not replace them with 170 clones.

Refurbished class 170s would have been sufficient to meet the inter-city trains requirement in the Scotrail invitation to tender.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Ancient Mark 3s with not brilliant ride quality hardly offers a better environment.

People who've used 170s regularly and now use the refurbished HSTs disagree. Their only complaint is that there aren't more.

Transport Scotland wants the Inter7City services to have high quality rolling stock providing an inter-city standard environment. It's actually very similar to TPE in a lot of respects. So the options TPE have gone for will repay a look. Class 802s are probably overspecified (125mph bimodes) and might have been problematic on the Highland Main Line, but were apparently proposed by one bidder. Another apparently chose Class 68s with LHCS, a definite possibility though we know now that Mark 5 coaches can be problematic. And finally Class 397s, obviously electric-only but a modern intercity multiple unit from a family that has DMU members. Presumably, CAF could have done something using Class 397 bodyshells and the Class 195 traction package; with Scotrail having a year's head start on TPE and Northern, they'd presumably have had a decent fleet in service for December 2018.

Of course, if they'd been delivered on the timescale of the 397s and 195s, the stock shortage would have been even worse than that now being seen by Scotrail, with no possibility of getting in unrefurbished HSTs to cover for it. And we'd probably be screaming about how silly they were for not getting proven HSTs that only needed refurbishment.

 

[hexagon789]

Hasn't virtually all the Mk 3 LHCS been turned into HST trailers?

No, relatively few maybe ~10% of the fleet.

 

[xotGD]

Scotrail should get their hands on as many Mark 4s as they can and operate these with 67s or 68s to at least reduce their requirement for bodged-up HST sets.

 

[GrimShady]

I imagine the issue with Mark 4 is line clearance. It would be nice however.

 

[train_lover]

It's been said a million times but what should of happened it the XC Voyagers should of gone to SR. The GWR HST sets should of then gone to XC to ease the overcrowding. I personally feel the voyagers would of been ideal for that work in Scotland.

 

[GrimShady]

It's been said a million times but what should of happened it the XC Voyagers should of gone to SR. The GWR HST sets should of then gone to XC to ease the overcrowding. I personally feel the voyagers would of been ideal for that work in Scotland.

Nobody wants them.

 

[train_lover]

Nobody wants them.

I can't argue with that..

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd say 80x, but the 140mph capability (the cause of a load of nose-end wasted space) is overkill. Could Hitachi do a 100mph version with more passenger accommodation, perhaps? OHLE capability would be good for future electrification.

Or maybe CAF could do a bi-mode or DMU version of the WCML EMUs?

 

[HSTEd]

How long would a Class 755 get before it needed a third powerpack?

 

[sprinterguy]

Scotrail should get their hands on as many Mark 4s as they can and operate these with 67s or 68s to at least reduce their requirement for bodged-up HST sets.

That would be significantly more practical than the original proposal here to marry locos up to HST mark 3s. The mark 4s are largely PRM-TSI compliant already, and the class 67 fleet is hardly overutilised these days, and has seen plenty of use on the Aberdeen and Inverness routes.

 

[sprinterguy]

I'd say 80x, but the 140mph capability (the cause of a load of nose-end wasted space) is overkill. Could Hitachi do a 100mph version with more passenger accommodation, perhaps? OHLE capability would be good for future electrification.

Or maybe CAF could do a bi-mode or DMU version of the WCML EMUs?

There's 56 seats in a class 80x driving car: That's more than a class 397 (44, plus 8 tip-up), and only slightly less than a mark 5 driving trailer (64).

How long would a Class 755 get before it needed a third powerpack?

Given that Scotrail are going for 4 and 5 car HST sets, wouldn't a 6 car variant (Shorter carriages) of the 4 powerpack class 755s be appropriate? Not sure why you'd go with less installed power when Greater Anglia's 4 car sets are already fitted with 4.

 

[HSTEd]

Given that Scotrail are going for 4 and 5 car HST sets, wouldn't a 6 car variant (Shorter carriages) of the 4 powerpack class 755s be appropriate? Not sure why you'd go with less installed power when Greater Anglia's 4 car sets are already fitted with 4.

Oh, I thought they were 1 and 2 power packs not 2 and 4.
So how long can we go without requiring a second generator vehicle?

 

[sprinterguy]

Oh, I thought they were 1 and 2 power packs not 2 and 4.
So how long can we go without requiring a second generator vehicle?

I suppose it at least partly depends on what the minimum power to weight ratio would be to meet the required timings: A 2+5 HST set (Which will be the most common formation with Scotrail if Wabtec ever manage to pull their socks up) has a power to weight ratio of 14.4hp/tonne, whereas a hypothetical 6-car class 755 (7-car if you're including the powercar) would likely have a power to weight ratio of around 18.1hp/tonne with four powerpacks. You could quite easily add a couple of extra trailer vehicles to that and still have performance equivalent to a 2+5 HST in a train of similar length.

 

[Clansman]

It's been said a million times but what should of happened it the XC Voyagers should of gone to SR. The GWR HST sets should of then gone to XC to ease the overcrowding. I personally feel the voyagers would of been ideal for that work in Scotland.

They are as incompatible with ScotRail demands as what they are with XC. The franchise invitation to tender pretty much outlines why this is.

How people keep thinking the Voyagers are any more suitable for ScotRail intercity routes as is the norm on the forum across the years, I've no idea.