HSTs replacing Voyagers for the Cross Country services.

[Bald Rick]

The HST stock that's left is rotten, they're plagued with corrosion problems, the underfloor skirting is patched together, the engine blocks in the power cars are close to being life expired, the electrics are pretty much shot, they're not DDA compliant without a fabulous amount of money being spent on them, and I'd fully expect the RAIB to have a little something to say about the garden shed bolted onto the front of the power car that BREL laughingly called a driver's cab, when they publish the full Stonehaven dossier.

But apart from that, what’s wrong with them?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Sep 2020 ==

One huge engine vs 4 or 5 very big engines which aren't fuel efficient in themselves. It's obvious the Voyager will consume more fuel.

Evn if the voyager is less fuel efficient, it’s for a reason, and that is to keep to the timings, which an HST cant do. So as well as putting in much older stock, you’ll be slowing everyone down, and rewriting the timetable anywhere where cross country run.

 

[Journeyman]

Should we kill two birds with one stone and suggest 442s for XC too? Between HSTs for XC and 1001 uses for the 442, they seem to be this forums must suggested stock for solutions that barely exists.

Let's reopen Woodhead, the Great Central and the S&D while we're at it, for some extra XC capacity. Oh, hell, I'm feeling generous - I'll throw in the Waverley Route too.

 

[D7666]

No No NO you don't understand.

The 442s will be disbanded, but not for XC.

From the 18 442s that are/will be refurbished, the middle (motor) coaches are to be scrapped. The trailers left over are then 36 pairs (driving trailer + trailer).

The GW and ScR short HSTs will each be split in half, and each half set joined to a 442 DT+T pair.

Each short HST is then 43xxx + HSt trailer + (HST trailer) + HST Trailer + 442 trailer + 442 driving trailer.

An electronics box mounted in a former loo of the 442 car coupled to the HST convertes HST three phase ETS to 442 ETS.





PS
Actually, while that is in jest, if you do the sums, it more or less works +/-1 unit, that can easily be corrected by using some of the 442 cars that are still about not yet scrapped but not planned for refurblement.

 

[Philip]

Voyager is hardly a big time saving over a HST. Both accelerate well and both have maximum speeds of 125mph.

 

[Bald Rick]

Voyager is hardly a big time saving over a HST. Both accelerate well and both have maximum speeds of 125mph.

There’s plenty of people who will disagree with the assertion that HSTs accelerate well.
Particularly above 90mph.

 

[Richard Scott]

Could you provide some figures to support your fuel efficiency claim, please?

Know someone who used to work for Cross-country and he said a 7 car HST used about the same amount of fuel as a 5 car Voyager on the same diagram.

 

[Journeyman]

There’s plenty of people who will disagree with the assertion that HSTs accelerate well.
Particularly above 90mph.

Voyagers accelerate much faster than HSTs. HSTs can't maintain Voyager timings.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

With many redundant HST sets soon to be available, should CC consider taking them on to replace their notorious Voyager fleet?


It'd mean longer trains, better fuel efficiency, arguably a more comfortable experience for passengers and a bit more interest for enthusiasts. So why not?

Nope. In my opinion they should go for the Hitachi AT300 IET bi-mode (Class 800 or 802) as they are actually even more ecologically friendly than a HST or Voyager! They can run electric under electrified lines, which means zero emissions. And when in diesel models, they will still be in low emission when compared to a HST/Voyager because having electric motors means less overkill for the diesel engines, essentially making them "hybrid" trains. And they would be a benefit to Cross Country considering that they have services running under the wires for quite a long distance (look at Wakefield to Newcastle Edinburgh or Birmingham to Manchester just give you an idea).

 

[SouthEastBuses]

With all due respect, why are so many people so obsessed with reusing the 43s?

They're approaching 50 years old and not in good condition. The route for them is preservation or scrap.

I agree with you, I don't get this obsession with a HST 43. In fact, I'm not keen on them and I much prefer a Hitachi 800.

But of course everybody is entitled to their opinion and we should also accept that.

 

[221129]

Voyager is hardly a big time saving over a HST. Both accelerate well and both have maximum speeds of 125mph.

False.

 

[irish_rail]

......

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Oct 2020 ==

Voyagers accelerate much faster than HSTs. HSTs can't maintain Voyager timings.

Depends on length. A 2+4 HST in good fettle could out accelerate a voyager id wager.

 

[Richard Scott]

Nope. In my opinion they should go for the Hitachi AT300 IET bi-mode (Class 800 or 802) as they are actually even more ecologically friendly than a HST or Voyager! They can run electric under electrified lines, which means zero emissions. And when in diesel models, they will still be in low emission when compared to a HST/Voyager because having electric motors means less overkill for the diesel engines, essentially making them "hybrid" trains.

Not sure I understand, HSTs and Voyagers also have electric motors. Hybrid would imply some ability to recover kinetic energy when slowing down and don't believe 800 series do that in diesel mode unless a small amount is recovered to run auxiliaries but don't believe any recovered to help with traction.

 

[Energy]

Not sure I understand, HSTs and Voyagers also have electric motors. Hybrid would imply some ability to recover kinetic energy when slowing down and don't believe 800 series do that in diesel mode unless a small amount is recovered to run auxiliaries but don't believe any recovered to help with traction.

Bimode is a better term as they can run on either OHLE or diesel, the AT300s send the energy recovered by regenerative braking to roof mounted brake resistors which turn the energy into heat, like in a voyager. The only ones which will store the recovered energy are TfW's 230s (can't run on OHLE but is diesel-electric + battery drive) and 756s.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Not sure I understand, HSTs and Voyagers also have electric motors. Hybrid would imply some ability to recover kinetic energy when slowing down and don't believe 800 series do that in diesel mode unless a small amount is recovered to run auxiliaries but don't believe any recovered to help with traction.

Ok, thanks for the correction. I will still always choose an AT300 over a Voyager. AT300s are far superior to Voyagers in my opinion

 

[SouthEastBuses]

@Richard Scott And whilst you are correct that HSTs and Voyagers do have electric motors, I always thought these trains were "mild hybrids" - basically proper diesel trains with mini electric assistance. Whilst AT300s, when running in diesel mode, I always thought of them as proper pure hybrids.

Of course bi-mode is still the correct term to describe an 800 or 802 (and soon 805 and 810) as they run both as electric multiple units under the wires and diesel-electric multiple units outside the wires.

 

[py_megapixel]

I agree with you, I don't get this obsession with a HST 43. In fact, I'm not keen on them and I much prefer a Hitachi 800.

But of course everybody is entitled to their opinion and we should also accept that.

Indeed. I really have no preference. I used to prefer an 800 when they were the shiny new thing, then when the 800s became the majority I preferred an HST, now I don't really care and wouldn't be particularly gutted if one turned up in the other's path (which I know would never happen)

 

[LOL The Irony]

Not sure I understand, HSTs and Voyagers also have electric motors. Hybrid would imply some ability to recover kinetic energy when slowing down and don't believe 800 series do that in diesel mode unless a small amount is recovered to run auxiliaries but don't believe any recovered to help with traction.

I wonder if fitting rafts of batteries in the van area of a powercar and adding a KERS system would be a good idea for the future, if they survive the Stonehaven report that is.

 

[221129]

I wonder if fitting rafts of batteries in the van area of a powercar and adding a KERS system would be a good idea for the future, if they survive the Stonehaven report that is.

They're heavy enough as it is...

 

[JonathanH]

In my opinion they should go for the Hitachi AT300 IET bi-mode (Class 800 or 802) as they are actually even more ecologically friendly than a HST or Voyager! They can run electric under electrified lines, which means zero emissions.

Assuming the electrified lines can supply the necessary power which can't be taken for granted.

I wonder if fitting rafts of batteries in the van area of a powercar and adding a KERS system would be a good idea for the future, if they survive the Stonehaven report that is.

We had a recent thread about that. It was deemed unlikely.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/could-the-short-hsts-be-converted-to-hydrogen-or-battery-operation.208132/#post-4734088

 

[DB]

I wonder if fitting rafts of batteries in the van area of a powercar and adding a KERS system would be a good idea for the future, if they survive the Stonehaven report that is.

Really not sure why there is this repeated pointless speculation about Stonehaven.The primary cause of that accident has already been established and the chances of the report making any particularly critical comments on HSTs is very low - their generally good performance in accidents is already well known from previous incidents.

 

[37424]

Really not sure why there is this repeated pointless speculation about Stonehaven.The primary cause of that accident has already been established and the chances of the report making any particularly critical comments on HSTs is very low - their generally good performance in accidents is already well known from previous incidents.

I'm not so sure on that, the way one of the carriages appeared to flattened may well be looked at, of course it could well be that the nature of the accident was such that a newer carriage wouldn't have performed any better but I think we have to wait and see on that.

Either way there is little point in XC taking on more HST's when there are 20 Voyagers becoming available shortly and the fleet of 222's. AT300's would be a better environmental solution not only from being electric under the wires but also having diesel engines which meet the latest emission standards , but on the other hand if Voyagers are retained towards life expiry date and a replacement ordered around 7 or 8 years from now, an alternative to diesel such as a hydrogen may be more of a possibility by then.

 

[XAM2175]

And whilst you are correct that HSTs and Voyagers do have electric motors, I always thought these trains were "mild hybrids" - basically proper diesel trains with mini electric assistance. Whilst AT300s, when running in diesel mode, I always thought of them as proper pure hybrids.

HSTs and Voyagers are not "hybrids" in any sense of the term, which implies an ability to use an electric system to supplement (or assist, as you put it) the conventional internal-combustion powertrain - instead they are simply diesel engines driving a generator that supplies electricity to the traction motors.

AT300s and other bi-mode units like them are also not hybrids as the electric system doesn't assist the diesel powertrain; it just replaces the diesel generators as the source of electricity for the traction motors.

 

[Purple Orange]

Can the HSTs not be consigned to the dustbin of history? Rater, cascade Avanti’s voyagers and EMR meridians to XC once the latest IETs are in service, then order a replacement fleet suitable for whatever is left of XC after HS2 is operational.

 

[Neptune]

Why is there an obsession with trying to constantly reinvent a near 50 year old train.

The HST’s were great in their heyday, a well refurbished coach is a pleasure to sit in and they ride fantastically well (especially compared to more modern stock). But modern timetabling on long distance routes are being speeded up and HST’s just aren’t up to that task. Voyagers are far from perfect (mainly due to the short sets and awful interior spec ordered by Virgin) but they are a lot quicker and actually ride well. A well refurbished Voyager (that subject has been exhausted here on several threads) with the additional AWC & EMR sets would solve capacity problems (the 6x7 car 222’s could replace the 5x HST’s).

The biggest shame of the 22x fleet is that Project Thor never got off the ground. I suspect people would still obsess about HST’s replacing them but if there was a ‘pan up’ option on the Voyagers then the argument would be even thinner.

Nostalgia is great but in context.

 

[irish_rail]

Why is there an obsession with trying to constantly reinvent a near 50 year old train.

The HST’s were great in their heyday, a well refurbished coach is a pleasure to sit in and they ride fantastically well (especially compared to more modern stock). But modern timetabling on long distance routes are being speeded up and HST’s just aren’t up to that task. Voyagers are far from perfect (mainly due to the short sets and awful interior spec ordered by Virgin) but they are a lot quicker and actually ride well. A well refurbished Voyager (that subject has been exhausted here on several threads) with the additional AWC & EMR sets would solve capacity problems (the 6x7 car 222’s could replace the 5x HST’s).

The biggest shame of the 22x fleet is that Project Thor never got off the ground. I suspect people would still obsess about HST’s replacing them but if there was a ‘pan up’ option on the Voyagers then the argument would be even thinner.

Nostalgia is great but in context.

But that doesn't stack up. You want to compare like for like, so let's compare a 2 + 4 HST with a 4 car voyager. Same number of seats, and the HST if anything would out perform the voyager.

 

[DB]

But that doesn't stack up. You want to compare like for like, so let's compare a 2 + 4 HST with a 4 car voyager. Same number of seats, and the HST if anything would out perform the voyager.

Yes, indeed. I can see why operators aren't likely to spend money on HSTs now, with newer trains which don't need anything much spending on them becoming available soon, but to claim that the shortened HSTs can't perform as well as a Voyager is not true.

 

[The Planner]

But that doesn't stack up. You want to compare like for like, so let's compare a 2 + 4 HST with a 4 car voyager. Same number of seats, and the HST if anything would out perform the voyager.

But I thought the overwhelming reason people want HSTs to replace Voyagers (apart from the crank value) is for greater capacity, and a 2+4 doesn't do that? The simple fact is that at 2+6 and higher, it won't match a Voyager.

 

[DB]

But I thought the overwhelming reason people want HSTs to replace Voyagers (apart from the crank value) is for greater capacity, and a 2+4 doesn't do that? The simple fact is that at 2+6 and higher, it won't match a Voyager.

A 2+5 will do, and that's an increase over a Voyager. A 2+6 or 2+7 may not - which may or may not be an issue depending on the diagramming.

 

[Purple Orange]

A 2+5 will do, and that's an increase over a Voyager. A 2+6 or 2+7 may not - which may or may not be an issue depending on the diagramming.

A 5-car HST is pointless given that there is the real possibility of having additional 22X units cascaded to allow all services to run at least as double voyagers, double meridians or 7-car single units.

 

[43096]

But I thought the overwhelming reason people want HSTs to replace Voyagers (apart from the crank value) is for greater capacity, and a 2+4 doesn't do that? The simple fact is that at 2+6 and higher, it won't match a Voyager. It will of course offer a significant increase in capacity over the space inefficient Voyager design.

Actually a 2+6 HST has a power:weight ratio only marginally less than a Voyager.