ScotRail HST - Alternative Provision

[Journeyman]

They do a bi-mode don't they? Perhaps that could be utilised instead of a pure diesel

I'm not sure CAF offer bi-modes. If that's what is required, order Hitachi 80x units. They're proven to work and are pretty much a standard product, with a lot of support.

 

[hexagon789]

I'm not sure CAF offer bi-modes. If that's what is required, order Hitachi 80x units. They're proven to work and are pretty much a standard product, with a lot of support.

Well that's what I was saying, but some seem to want to avoid them at all costs

 

[Journeyman]

Well that's what I was saying, but some seem to want to avoid them at all costs

It's not up to a TOC to order something else just because trainspotters don't like them.

 

[GrimShady]

99.9% of people don't care about DMUs vs. locos, and the IETs are fine. I'm on one now.

Yes they do and IETs are utter garbage. I've traveled on a good few now and listened to both staff and my fellow travelers, utter garbage.

The general public are getting sick of people in the industry telling them what is a good traveling environment. Again the whole point of going over to HST was for the superior environment it offered the passenger.

 

[hexagon789]

It's not up to a TOC to order something else just because trainspotters don't like them.

Well my idea was Transport Scotland would procure a bi-mode of say 5-cars, not necessarily a Hitachi variant but something in that vein. It would to me be more logical in the long term than ordering Mk5s and running them with 68s or indeed any other loco.

The use of bi-modes enables the use of existing electrification as short as it is presently on the Inter7City routes, but it would enable any future extensions of electrification to not require either the running of diesels under more wires or the need to procure new rolling stock because the ability to use electric is there already.

 

[GusB]

I wondered if it would be possible to have something that's a cross between the AT200 and AT300. Basically a 100mph unit - an "intercity" version of the 385 (ie end doors) but with a bi-mode capability.

 

[GrimShady]

I wondered if it would be possible to have something that's a cross between the AT200 and AT300. Basically a 100mph unit - an "intercity" version of the 385 (ie end doors) but with a bi-mode capability.

385s should have already been fitted out to an "Intercity" spec, at least the 4 car versions should have been. Then it's simply a matter of hooking up an appropriate loco equipped to interface with the 385 for non OHLE sections.

These could then be used all over the network from HML to WHL.

 

[hexagon789]

I wondered if it would be possible to have something that's a cross between the AT200 and AT300. Basically a 100mph unit - an "intercity" version of the 385 (ie end doors) but with a bi-mode capability.

I imagine so, you could probably just have a AT300 but geared for a lower speed

 

[Journeyman]

Yes they do and IETs are utter garbage. I've traveled on a good few now and listened to both staff and my fellow travelers, utter garbage.

The general public are getting sick of people in the industry telling them what is a good traveling environment. Again the whole point of going over to HST was for the superior environment it offered the passenger.

The IET is excellent. It rides better, it's quieter, there's more space, the accessibility is better, it uses far less energy, it's cheaper to operate, has better safety features....

I'll say it again. 99.9% of people don't care about the things you're obsessed about.

 

[GusB]

385s should have already been fitted out to an "Intercity" spec, at least the 4 car versions should have been. Then it's simply a matter of hooking up an appropriate loco equipped to interface with the 385 for non OHLE sections.

These could then be used all over the network from HML to WHL.

Why bother with a loco when Hitachi already have trains that are capable of running on diesel and OLE? As others have mentioned, the transition from one mode to another is barely noticeable.

If you need to add a loco to haul a pure electric unit off the wires, you'll probably have higher track access charges due to the the higher axle loads of the loco, and you need to train drivers on another type of traction.

ScotRail Express of the 1980s is dead. Get over it!

 

[gingertom]

I wondered if it would be possible to have something that's a cross between the AT200 and AT300. Basically a 100mph unit - an "intercity" version of the 385 (ie end doors) but with a bi-mode capability.

Alex Hynes is on record of wanting to investigate >100mph running of stretches of track where it is feasible to do so with minimal work.

The latest issue of Rail (891) has an article suggesting MK5s with class 68s would be a good future-proofing move. Once the wires arrive then replace them with electric, possibly class 88s. I like the idea of 90s myself which could give the option of 110mph if the infrastructure could allow it. The diagrams call for 26 units, would there be enough class 68 locos available? Suspect not, so 67s might yet have a place.

Here's a thing that has niggling away at the back of my mind for a while. If the Mk3 was the greatest thing since sliced bread, why not simply get the old drawings out of the archives and get someone to build another big batch, using modern materials and construction techniques?

 

[randyrippley]

.............Here's a thing that has niggling away at the back of my mind for a while. If the Mk3 was the greatest thing since sliced bread, why not simply get the old drawings out of the archives and get someone to build another big batch, using modern materials and construction techniques?

I don't think they'd pass modern regulations re passenger safety: for instance lack of crumple zones.
But if you were going to re-engineer the design to use "modern materials and construction techniques" you may as well redesign from scratch to get optimum use from those materials. Modern materials need modern design for effective use. Using modern materials for old designs would be like building a Vickers Viscount airliner from modern composites

 

[Speed43125]

Alex Hynes is on record of wanting to investigate >100mph running of stretches of track where it is feasible to do so with minimal work.

The latest issue of Rail (891) has an article suggesting MK5s with class 68s would be a good future-proofing move. Once the wires arrive then replace them with electric, possibly class 88s. I like the idea of 90s myself which could give the option of 110mph if the infrastructure could allow it. The diagrams call for 26 units, would there be enough class 68 locos available? Suspect not, so 67s might yet have a place.

Here's a thing that has niggling away at the back of my mind for a while. If the Mk3 was the greatest thing since sliced bread, why not simply get the old drawings out of the archives and get someone to build another big batch, using modern materials and construction techniques?

No way in hell will 67s be used. They're inefficient, slow and underpowered. Mk5s are not really particularly ideal, no more so than a Mk3 given the huge cost increase. Electrification to get anywhere significant for the use of Electric traction won't be here until North of 2030 by which point the landscape will be completely different. HSTS should last until 2030. at which point we should have electric running to perth. (repatriating 91s? ) and no doubt older EDMUs would be available from being displaced by pure EMUs.
However, if we ignore the investment already gone in to HSTs, I am appalled at the lack of Aventras on this thread!

Mk3 style comfort comes at a cost and it's not often TOCs are willing to invest large sums of extra money to achieve it. (notable exception GA) Scotrail obvisouly can't afford anything new that's that nice so we have stuff that people like that's 40 years old. Potentially some 22x stock could be acquired but that lack of expertise with the stock anywhere in Scotland will not help matters..

 

[Energy]

In my opinion a bimode Stadler ec250 would make a lot of sense as it is low floor (useful for some of the more rural stations), bimode and th power pack can be easily removed for fully electric services, these trains need to last so easy removal of the power pack is useful.

IETs or similar units would also work great, a 5 and possibly some 7 car trains will be the best for Scotrail in my opinion.

Mk5 delays make them a less compelling choice, especially as lots of 68s aren't available right now as the few which DRS aren't subleasing DRS will want for freight duties.

 

[gingertom]

In my opinion a bimode Stadler ec250 would make a lot of sense as it is low floor (useful for some of the more rural stations), bimode and th power pack can be easily removed for fully electric services, these trains need to last so easy removal of the power pack is useful.

IETs or similar units would also work great, a 5 and possibly some 7 car trains will be the best for Scotrail in my opinion.

Mk5 delays make them a less compelling choice, especially as lots of 68s aren't available right now as the few which DRS aren't subleasing DRS will want for freight duties.

I'd agree about the bimode 80x except for the underfloor engines, was this not one of the reasons that ruled them out?

Stadler's good at small batches of essentially bespoke trains. 5/6-car Flirt with an inter city interior and decent bike storage would work well. If only they could run all day without having to be refuelled- less of a problem with more wires.

 

[Journeyman]

I'd agree about the bimode 80x except for the underfloor engines, was this not one of the reasons that ruled them out?

The underfloor engines on the 80x units are almost completely unnoticeable inside the train. I have completely failed to notice the changeover each time I've been on one.

Stadler's good at small batches of essentially bespoke trains. 5/6-car Flirt with an inter city interior and decent bike storage would work well. If only they could run all day without having to be refuelled- less of a problem with more wires.

But what's the point of a small bespoke build when an off the shelf, proven design will work?

 

[Journeyman]

Duplicate

 

[GrimShady]

Why bother with a loco when Hitachi already have trains that are capable of running on diesel and OLE? As others have mentioned, the transition from one mode to another is barely noticeable.

If you need to add a loco to haul a pure electric unit off the wires, you'll probably have higher track access charges due to the the higher axle loads of the loco, and you need to train drivers on another type of traction.

ScotRail Express of the 1980s is dead. Get over it!

Not with gangways they don't.

Probably or definitely? Guess work at play. Let's not forget you'll have to train drivers anyway!

What about all the other lines that need new traction in the next 10 years? Are you going to put IETs on them? RA5 locos would have easily solved this issue along with one large homogeneous EMU fleet.

Since when was the ScotRail Express and EMU/Loco combination

DMUs are ancient rubbish, no one wants them, get used to it.

 

[GrimShady]

The IET is excellent. It rides better, it's quieter, there's more space, the accessibility is better, it uses far less energy, it's cheaper to operate, has better safety features....

I'll say it again. 99.9% of people don't care about the things you're obsessed about.

IET is crap. Rides like a cart one of the worst I've yet to encounter, terrible seats, terrible lighting, no luggage space, rubbish ambiance, traction motor noise is as bad as a 385 etc. If it's cheaper to operate then why hasn't my already expensive FC Edinburgh - KGX ticket price dropped to reflect this plus the miserable interior downgrade? Nobody likes them, not even the staff.

I'll say again people do care about these things which is the reason HST was selected for HML in the first place. Funny how the feedback from the refurbs has been very good Vs the 170s!

If there's one thing that annoys the traveling public is the rail industry trying to convince them their cheap garbage is "fine" and charging them a premium for it. It's all done out of greed and ease for the operator.

 

[GusB]

Not with gangways they don't.

I didn't mention gangways, but now that you've brought the subject up... It may useful to have shorter units that can be coupled up as required in the peaks, and to run shorter units when less capacity is required instead of ruñning an empty 5 or 6 car unit.

Probably or definitely? Guess work at play. Let's not forget you'll have to train drivers anyway!

I don't have the facts and figures to say one way or another - I'm simply basing my opinion on what I've read here. Heavy loco = higher axle load therefore higher access charges. I'm happy to be corrected if this is wrong. If you add a loco you have to train drivers on the loco AND the unit.

Since when was the ScotRail Express and EMU/Loco combination

I assume you meant "an" rather than "and", but my point was that you keep banging on about loco and hauled stock when the world has moved on. Don't get me wrong, I also miss the days of 47/7s and push pull trains too, but things have changed. Your idea of attaching a loco to an EMU is no different. We Do Not Need The Locos!!

DMUs are ancient rubbish, no one wants them, get used to it.

So the 195s that have recently been delivered to Northern are "ancient rubbish", are they? Diesel locos are also ancient rubbish by the same definition.

 

[GrimShady]

I didn't mention gangways, but now that you've brought the subject up... It may useful to have shorter units that can be coupled up as required in the peaks, and to run shorter units when less capacity is required instead of ruñning an empty 5 or 6 car unit.


I don't have the facts and figures to say one way or another - I'm simply basing my opinion on what I've read here. Heavy loco = higher axle load therefore higher access charges. I'm happy to be corrected if this is wrong. If you add a loco you have to train drivers on the loco AND the unit.


I assume you meant "an" rather than "and", but my point was that you keep banging on about loco and hauled stock when the world has moved on. Don't get me wrong, I also miss the days of 47/7s and push pull trains too, but things have changed. Your idea of attaching a loco to an EMU is no different. We Do Not Need The Locos!!


So the 195s that have recently been delivered to Northern are "ancient rubbish", are they? Diesel locos are also ancient rubbish by the same definition.

The drivers are already trained on the 385s, we're only talking about one additional traction type.

No need for the locos to be heavy. These days it's should be easy to build a Type 4 with an RA5. We could have had a fleet of these things all over the UK for Thunderbird duties, WHL, HML, Sleeper duties etc. Sadly there's no creative thinking anymore.

I wonder what TPE is up to these days or Chiltern? There's still a good few examples of push pull around the UK and abroad. Multiple units are not and never will be the answer to everything.

Yes we clearly do need the locos for flexibility as no one knows when or if the HML will be electrified. What's the plan for all the other non electrified lines?

Bi modes are not the answer to everything. A hybrid anything is never going to be a good performer.

The 195 order is slightly different as they operate on lines that will probably never be electrified. That doesn't change the fact DMUs are out of favour, hopefully forever. Diesel locomotives have use all over the network where OHLE doesn't exist and always will.

 

[Northhighland]

Why not Dundee?
& some electrification around Aberdeen...

Fuel prices are only going one way, & Scotland is producing more & more renewable electricity
Could also be a load of EMUs & bi-modes available for cascading in 20 years time

Electrification is a good thing but until the industry can work out how to do it more cost effectively it simply won’t happen to either Inverness or Aberdeen.

I would very much like it to happen but realistically hard to see in the foreseeable future. Not being negative just realistic.

That is why I would argue coaches and a loco offer a cost effective future proof solution.

 

[GrimShady]

Electrification is a good thing but until the industry can work out how to do it more cost effectively it simply won’t happen to either Inverness or Aberdeen.

I would very much like it to happen but realistically hard to see in the foreseeable future. Not being negative just realistic.

That is why I would argue coaches and a loco offer a cost effective future proof solution.

Agreed LHCS or more 385/1 plus Locos. They can then be used anywhere on the network.

 

[Indigo Soup]

For an LHCS or LH-EMU solution, you need suitable locomotives. And as I understand it, there aren't any available, and it isn't possible to build more 68s. Realistically, then, that means a DMU off the wires, preferably one that can have the diesel powerpacks removed and replaced with batteries or fuel cells and an electric motor. Hitachi can do that, I believe Stadler can do that, not sure about CAF but I'd be surprised if they can't.

If we think that there will be appreciable electrification early in the lifetime of the fleet, bi-modes are justified. Risk is mitigated by using something that already exists - so either AT300s or FLIRTs.

My bet would be something from the AT300 stable, based on fairly wide takeup of the design and Scotrail already operating AT200s. Stadler would be my runner-up, with Bombardier and CAF as possible wild cards.

 

[option]

Electrification is a good thing but until the industry can work out how to do it more cost effectively it simply won’t happen to either Inverness or Aberdeen.

I would very much like it to happen but realistically hard to see in the foreseeable future. Not being negative just realistic.

That is why I would argue coaches and a loco offer a cost effective future proof solution.

Is it the industry that's the problem, or how the state plans & procures electrification?
There is a definite difference between the 2 England projects (MML & GWEP) & the Scotland project (EGIP)
The first 2 are long mainlines with various branches & vague end points, the third was a relatively short mainline with obvious end points. I know there were issues with EGIP, but it's the only one of the 3 projects thats actually complete.


They must be expecting to get a decade of use from the refurb HSTs, so looking at replacements around 2030.
That's a decade worth of technology improvements in terms of batteries, bi-modes etc.

 

[gingertom]

The underfloor engines on the 80x units are almost completely unnoticeable inside the train. I have completely failed to notice the changeover each time I've been on one.



But what's the point of a small bespoke build when an off the shelf, proven design will work?

because of our loading gauge everything is bespoke.

 

[hexagon789]

because of our loading gauge everything is bespoke.

But the 80x are designed to GB loading gauge

 

[option]

because of our loading gauge everything is bespoke.

the bodyshell will be, everything else is standard components

 

[gingertom]

the bodyshell will be, everything else is standard components

indeed. Bit of a tight squeeze shoehorning the technical plant into the reduced space though.

 

[Journeyman]

DMUs are ancient rubbish, no one wants them, get used to it.

Care to back up that statement with evidence?