ScotRail HSTs, here we go again...

[najaB]

That's what they've got though. One at either end...

They're treated as MUs though. Used to be classed as such in the early days - Class 253/4/5.

 

[bramling]

I'll get flamed for saying it, but I don't care.

The ScotRail HST project has been a farce from start to finish, and has possibly got to be just about the most ill-conceived and disastrously-executed rolling stock introduction ever.

The existing trains were fine, and could have been suitably improved by refurbishment. First commissioned a project during their franchise term to look at how 170s for the Highland Main Line could have been improved, and this included things like reforming to 4 cars, larger and more highly specced first class area, improved catering, vestibule doors etc. These were all ideal plans. However, someone did a survey that found people preferred LNER HSTs to ScotRail's services, and thus decided Scotland needed HSTs.

It was an utterly crazy idea. Off the top of my head...

• Whoever made the franchise bid completely messed up the fuel costs for HSTs, apparently basing the calculations on one power car, so the costs of operating them are absolutely horrendous.
• The use of two power cars on short formations takes up platform space, is extremely polluting, is noisy, and is inefficient, providing far more power than needed.
• The WR power cars chosen had the lowest reliability of the entire fleet, with MTINs about half those of others, and the very first train in service broke down en route. Reliability has improved but it's nowhere near what the 158s and 170s were achieving.
• The refurbishment and fitting of power doors proved extremely problematic and expensive, was massively delayed, and revealed what shocking condition these extremely old vehicles were in.
• Accessibility is poor. The vehicles meet PRM-TSI regs, but the narrow doors are hopeless by modern standards and worse than the stock they replaced.
• Standard class accommodation isn't that much better than the Turbostars they replaced. Admittedly first class is very nice, but even long before COVID, the promised catering services were rarely delivered and the buffets were usually closed.

Honestly, heads should be rolling for this. It should have been kicked out at franchise bid stage as a really, really stupid idea. These trains are over twice as old as the 170s, and boy, does it show. It's just lipstick on a pig. Underneath the refurb they're falling to pieces, and will continue to deteriorate rapidly. I really, really feel for the poor staff in depots, on board and in control who have to try and get this extraordinarily bad choice to work. It's just as well COVID came along and took pressure off the fleet, because there's no way these trains will hold up reliably and effectively when they're all meant to be in service on intensive diagrams.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 May 2021 ==


You do have to wonder. There's obviously a bidding war for 170s whenever they become free, but I didn't see anyone pointing a gun to ScotRail's head and forcing them to part with them.

An interesting post. Is it a reasonable guess that the preference for LNER HSTs mentioned above probably had little to do with the traction, but more to do with the fact that it would be a guaranteed 9-car train and therefore likely to be rather less crowded?

 

[Davester50]

Used to be

Exactly. I'm well aware

 

[Journeyman]

An interesting post. Is it a reasonable guess that the preference for LNER HSTs mentioned above probably had little to do with the traction, but more to do with the fact that it would be a guaranteed 9-car train and therefore likely to be rather less crowded?

Got it in one.

 

[najaB]

Exactly. I'm well aware

That's the point though - they weren't treated as loco+carriages by Transport Scotland since they operate in fixed rakes and have (slightly) distributed traction.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 May 2021 ==

Got it in one.

Less crowding was a large part of it, the better catering provision was another.

 

[Davester50]

So they've got rid of 16 year old MUs for 45 year old "MUs", that cost a fortune to operate, had to retrain staff for, all while there's no major appreciable imrovement?
What a fantastic bit of business.

It's up there with the Ferry scandal!

 

[Journeyman]

That's the point though - they weren't treated as loco+carriages by Transport Scotland since they operate in fixed rakes and have (slightly) distributed traction.

They're treated as locos and carriages by Network Rail. The variable track access charges for the power cars are much higher than for DMU vehicles.

Less crowding was a large part of it, the better catering provision was another.

...which could just as easily have been provided on board DMUs. ScotRail simply never bothered.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 May 2021 ==

So they've got rid of 16 year old MUs for 45 year old "MUs", that cost a fortune to operate, had to retrain staff for, all while there's no major appreciable imrovement?
What a fantastic bit of business.

It's up there with the Ferry scandal!

What a result, eh?!?

They've barely managed to keep the service going, and it's cost a fortune, all the while creating massive problems some poor schmuck has to resolve in the future. It's introducing two "new" fleets in a short space of time, with all the problems and risks that entails, instead of one, and chucking away a fleet of the best DMUs in the country.

 

[bramling]

Got it in one.

So what ScotRail really needed to do was come up with a solution with marketed extra space / less crowding. The HST on its own doesn’t necessarily do this, though I suppose they do have the opportunity to add extra vehicles over time (albeit with the disadvantage of two power cars adding deadweight to the overall length).

The only other drawback of going for 170s would be lack of gangways, though plenty of operations manage without this being a massive problem.

Personally I’d tend to agree that 170s would have been better, as long as they could increase lengths.

 

[najaB]

Personally I’d tend to agree that 170s would have been better, as long as they could increase lengths.

That would be a problem. It was mentioned up-thread that First proposed extending them to four carriages each. Not sure where the additional centre carriages were coming from.

Another issue with 170s is their 2/3 door arrangement, which is really suited to commuter services rather than intercity. In the winter I always dread someone wanting to board/alight anywhere near where I'm sitting!

 

[bramling]

That would be a problem. It was mentioned up-thread that First proposed extending them to four carriages each. Not sure where the additional centre carriages were coming from.

Another issue with 170s is their 2/3 door arrangement, which is really suited to commuter services rather than intercity. In the winter I always dread someone wanting to board/alight anywhere near where I'm sitting!

I was thinking more of minimum 6-car formations, with two units running together.

Agreed about the door positions, however that’s fixable with internal sliding doors. They have existed on some 170s.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Was this thread started because of Gareth Dennis strong position on Twitter and Rail Natter?

 

[najaB]

Was this thread started because of Gareth Dennis strong position on Twitter and Rail Natter?

Yes. Split off the HST Introduction Thread.

I commented that the HSTs have flaws but that they were the least bad of several bad options, all things considered but others disagreed.

 

[Clansman]

I for one was supportive of the HSTs to begin with, but having travelled on them regularly since the refurbs started in service, it felt very much like the coaches were absolutely done. However, last week I was travelling on a XC HST and the quality felt 10x better. I don't know if it was the interior specs; but they felt more solid, less 'jigsaw puzzle' built, and a quieter riding. I don't know if it means anything, but the window pannels on XC and ex-LNER Mk3s feel more metalic and again solid, whereas ScotRail is just rattly blue plastic. "The little things" as they say.

To me the ScotRail HST project seems less about whether it was a good idea on paper, but how the idea was followed through, and which sets they initiated the idea with. It's often been said that ex-LNER Mk3s were in a worse state than the ex-GWR ones, but in which departments?

I'd be interested to hear what someone with links to Wabtec has to say about the state of the XC and ex-GWR coaches at the time they were both getting worked on.

Out of curiosity, how many members here have, before the HSTs first came up to Scotland, maintained that 170s are the better option? I fear that most of the opinion on here seems to be driven by hindsight and flashy headlines rather than what they thought was best at the time the decision was made. At the time the decision was made to go for HSTs, we never had the hindsight of the relatively successful mass rolling stock procurement across the UK to go on when weighing up the pros and cons of rebuilding older tried and tested rolling stock vice going for new build with new technologies (ie bi-mode, level boarding access, battery etc).

One thing's for sure is that ScotRail are caught in an awkward limbo - too far down the line to turn back, and too close to future electrification which makes any pure diesel rolling stock obsolete anyway (by the time you bin the HSTs and replace them with another half backsided stop gap).

I was thinking more of minimum 6-car formations, with two units running together.

Agreed about the door positions, however that’s fixable with internal sliding doors. They have existed on some 170s.

I don't understand the whole 'let's fit internal doors on the 170s' argument - at the end of the day when one boards, the internal doors open and the cold air gets in anyway does it not? Though I still agree with having them for an ambience point of view, it doesn't make too much sense to me on temperature - not unless someone ought to do what supermarkets do, and having fans that direct downwards to maintain internal temperature when the doors are open.

At least on end to end doored stock, the doors aren't as wide and the cold air doesn't waft in two directions into two different passenger sections, as well as on end-door stock the passenger saloon doesn't always immediatley follow the vestibule buy is sandwiched between toilets and luggage racks to further segregate them from the outdoors.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 May 2021 ==

The existing trains were fine, and could have been suitably improved by refurbishment. First commissioned a project during their franchise term to look at how 170s for the Highland Main Line could have been improved, and this included things like reforming to 4 cars, larger and more highly specced first class area, improved catering, vestibule doors etc. These were all ideal plans. However, someone did a survey that found people preferred LNER HSTs to ScotRail's services, and thus decided Scotland needed HSTs.

Are you not referring to the proposal by Hitrans in 2013 (attached) or was there another plan?

For those who wanted the refurbishment and retention of the 170s, here's what you could have won...

 

[GRALISTAIR]

One thing's for sure is that ScotRail are caught in an awkward limbo - too far down the line to turn back, and too close to future electrification which makes any pure diesel rolling stock obsolete anyway (by the time you bin the HSTs and replace them with another half backsided stop gap).

Yes I have been thinking the same thing myself. What to do though. As this is in Speculative ideas there is more room for thought.
1. Soldier on with the HSTs but for how long. Then what? Even with Scotlands laudable electrification goals and the 7 cities being important the wires can not possibly be strung up anything like fast enough.
2. Bimodes seem obvious but that would still be an awful lot of mileage with the diesel hauling the electric gear around.
3. The order would still be relatively small - there are not that many in the Inter7City fleet. Would it interest the manufacturers?
4. A TPE type solution with a 68 and hauled stock and as wires progress go for old fashioned loco changes of other arrangement mid- journey. Doubtful I would think and probably the least favoured option.
5. Are there any more class 73s available for conversion ( slightly tongue in cheek)?

 

[Clansman]

Yes I have been thinking the same thing myself. What to do though. As this is in Speculative ideas there is more room for thought.
1. Soldier on with the HSTs but for how long. Then what? Even with Scotlands laudable electrification goals and the 7 cities being important the wires can not possibly be strung up anything like fast enough.
2. Bimodes seem obvious but that would still be an awful lot of mileage with the diesel hauling the electric but around.
3. The order would still be relatively small - there are not that many in the Inter7City fleet. Would it interest the manufacturers?
4. A TPE type solution with a 68 and hauled stock and as wires progress go for old fashioned loco changes of other arrangement mid- journey.
5. Are there any more class 73s available for conversion ( slightly tongue in cheek)?

For getting rid of the HSTs before further electrfication, the solution really depends on the reason you'd want to do this...

1. Reliability of the 43s? - Procure diesel locos or bi-mode locos that are electronically compatible to the wiring of HST Mk3s, or with an additional translator vehicle?
2. Condition of the Mk3s? - Use existing DMUs and plug in the gaps with outsourced LHCS on shorter services concentrating around one depot (a la Fife Circle LHCS)
3. Fuel cost reduction? - Option 2 (option 1 would cost more to implement than what you'd be saving)
4. Long term stock? - Procure DMUs which can be adapted to bi-mode in future so as to not inhibit fuel capacity on a currently predominant diesel network.

Though I reckon option 2 is as realistic as any solution will be to replacing the HSTs with another stop gap solution (none of the ideas of which will happen anyway). Still food for thought though, because as you say, being a Speculative thread there's room for the hypothetical.

 

[Journeyman]

That would be a problem. It was mentioned up-thread that First proposed extending them to four carriages each. Not sure where the additional centre carriages were coming from.

Reforming existing sets, so reducing some to 2-car, which could have replaced 156s and 158s on short distance services. ScotRail simply dumping 170s after the Central Belt electrification schemes was seriously not clever.

Another issue with 170s is their 2/3 door arrangement, which is really suited to commuter services rather than intercity. In the winter I always dread someone wanting to board/alight anywhere near where I'm sitting!

A minor issue but easily resolvable.

 

[43096]

Personally I'd like to see 5-car 80x or similar ordered (with a higher quality interior than the standard ones and possibly an extra engine for the hilly nature of the routes; perhaps take lessons from EMR with a Scottish twist), which would be a good foundation for a progressive electrification programme (then remove the diesel engines once it's complete, or order more 80x without engines and run the ones with on other routes).

The EMR sets look like they’ll be the best of the bunch - always subject to trying one for real - and would make a good starting point for ScotRail. That’s assuming the FISA lean seat is used and that Hitachi sort out the abysmal ride quality - be interesting to see if the shorter bodyshells make a difference.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 May 2021 ==

They're treated as MUs though. Used to be classed as such in the early days - Class 253/4/5.

They are fixed formation trains, not multiple units. Do let us know when you see two sets operating in multiple*.

* the same applies to GA 745s and Crossrail 345s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

2. Bimodes seem obvious but that would still be an awful lot of mileage with the diesel hauling the electric gear around.

It's not that significant when you consider the weight of the train. If it was, they'd be using DMUs for Westcountry services that run out of wires in the first half hour of their 4.5 hour run.

I think 5-car 80x would be ideal as well as "futureproof" on electrification. The only thing they really lack is level boarding, but as there is no proposal to move to DOO it isn't really that important.

 

[Journeyman]

It's not that significant when you consider the weight of the train. If it was, they'd be using DMUs for Westcountry services that run out of wires in the first half hour of their 4.5 hour run.

I think 5-car 80x would be ideal as well as "futureproof" on electrification. The only thing they really lack is level boarding, but as there is no proposal to move to DOO it isn't really that important.

The Stadler FLIRT bimode has level boarding, and as specced by GA, a very nice interior. You could buy 2 versions of these, an IC one with first class and catering, and a "scenic/regional" one for the West Highland and Far North etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Stadler FLIRT bimode has level boarding, and as specced by GA, a very nice interior. You could buy 2 versions of these, an IC one with first class and catering, and a "scenic/regional" one for the West Highland and Far North etc.

The main issue with the FLIRT is the small fuel capacity which makes them not ideal for the long diesel runs. However, given how Stadler work, I'd be surprised if they wouldn't come up with something suitably custom, such as having a larger number of power modules so you can put larger fuel tanks in each one and 2 rather than 4 engines.

A 4 "car" set with one 4-engined power module goes like absolute stink, so if this is for long distance where acceleration is less important then you could potentially have an 8 "car" set with 3 power modules with 2 engines and larger tanks in each.

Digressing to the WHL I think those sets should have 1st too. 1st on tourist lines is money for old rope.

 

[najaB]

They are fixed formation trains, not multiple units. Do let us know when you see two sets operating in multiple*.

* the same applies to GA 745s and Crossrail 345s.

I agree with the logic, but on introduction they were classed as MUs. The definition of what constitutes a MU is fuzzy. There was a thread on here about it a couple years back and, IIRC, no firm consensus was reached.

 

[Davester50]

I agree with the logic, but on introduction they were classed as MUs. The definition of what constitutes a MU is fuzzy. There was a thread on here about it a couple years back and, IIRC, no firm consensus was reached.

What they were on introduction and what they are now are two very different things. The world has moved on.

They were for long Inter City routes, with sections of high speed running. They aren't any more. Local, Inter-Regional traffic is not what they were introduced for.

As Journeyman has said, they're charged as Locos.

Even some of the coaches, (not sure about the ones ScotRail have inherited admittedly), were in former loco-hauled west coast sets.

Banging on about what they were in 1976 in 2021 is just nonsensical.

 

[najaB]

What they were on introduction and what they are now are two very different things. The world has moved on.

I agree. You perhaps missed the point? There was a suggestion above that instead of HSTs they should have gone with loco+ carriages. However, if memory serves correct, the ITT specifically said that locomotive-hauled stock wasn't permitted, but HSTs were allowed since they were treated as MUs. This is particularly important on the HML where locos have quite restrictive speed limits as compared to MUs and HSTs.

Edit: It's worth noting that the Schrodinger's MU nature of HSTs applies to Network Rail as well. In the introduction to the Sectional Appendix you'll find this gem:

National exceptions to MU trains
• Class 185 trains are not permitted to run at MU or DMU speeds
• Class 390 trains are not permitted to run at MU or EMU speeds
• Class 253 and 254 trains formed with less than three coaches between the power cars are not permitted to run at MU
or DMU speeds

 

[hexagon789]

Absolutely - but I was answering it in terms of "what was a less bad option overall" rather than "what was a less bad option for the winning TOC bid" - after all of the investment on central belt infrastructure schemes it's a shame that nothing happened elsewhere

Fair enough, and yes I agree with that. We may yet see some investment out in the 'boondocks' yet...

Touché.

Still doesn't overcome the accessibility problem, something I'm appreciating more as I age, nor the sunk costs in re-training.
Could even have spent some of it on screwdrivers to tighten up the loose fittings on Turbostars to improve the journey!

The myth that what we have was the only or best option needs burst. It's the option we have, and are stuck with. Nothing is going to change that.

But I'll still moan about it

I never thought it was 'best' per se - new, higher-capacity stock with an appropriate specification would have been 'best' surely, but we have what we have.

 

[najaB]

I never thought it was 'best' per se - new, higher-capacity stock with an appropriate specification would have been 'best' surely, but we have what we have.

I'm the same. Of the bad options that were on the table (considering constraints of cost, schedule, etc.) it was the least bad of a lot of bad choices.

 

[Rhydgaled]

What they were on introduction and what they are now are two very different things. The world has moved on.

They were for long Inter City routes, with sections of high speed running. They aren't any more. Local, Inter-Regional traffic is not what they were introduced for.

Inter-Regional/Inter-Urban passengers may be on the train just as long as Inter-City passengers. The only difference, in my opinion, is that InterCity routes have a higher level of demand (particularly long-distance demand) so justify more coaches and better catering facilities. In that regard a shortened InterCity train is fine for an Inter-Regional service; there are potentially issues with the age (and running costs) of the IC125 sets but I think they were the best option available. Sometimes even the best option available is rubbish*. 158s are getting old too, 170s have too much door and new stock would screw up the electrification programme. The 7 cities network, with (I think) the exception of Inverness-Aberdeen, is supposed to be wired up by 2035. If new trains had been ordered they would have had to be heavily diesel oriented and would have had a lifespan stretching into the 2050s. Better to solider on with something that is not ideal until 2030 and then get EMUs than to be stuck with diesel until gone 2050** in my opinion.

* Not saying the Inter7City sets are rubbish, I haven't had a chance to try them out. I don't recall any major issues with the GWR mark 3s before they left for ScotRail but it's possible the refurb was a poor-quality job and they are now falling to bits.

** Even if having a shiny new fleet of bi-modes didn't put Scotland off electrification ('bi-mode blight' appears very real in England and Wales) I think a cascade to England, increasing the prevelance of bi-mode blight there, would be more likely than removal of diesel engines on a bi-mode to make an EMU. Unfortunately 100mph bi-modes are going to be a necessity to get rid of the Sprinters, which does run the 'bi-mode blight' risk, but at least that doesn't blight 125mph mainlines which a fleet of 802s for ScotRail would.

 

[najaB]

Reforming existing sets, so reducing some to 2-car, which could have replaced 156s and 158s on short distance services.

A two-car 170 is a poor replacement for a 158, both in terms of capacity and comfort.

 

[Journeyman]

A two-car 170 is a poor replacement for a 158, both in terms of capacity and comfort.

Not on most of the short routes 158s are used on in Scotland, where they're wasted - Anniesland etc.

 

[hexagon789]

I'm the same. Of the bad options that were on the table (considering constraints of cost, schedule, etc.) it was the least bad of a lot of bad choices.

Yes, my feeling exactly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 May 2021 ==

A two-car 170 is a poor replacement for a 158, both in terms of capacity and comfort.

Could be worse, they could be two-car and made up as per Midland Mainline with 2+2 First and cramped standard class!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 May 2021 ==

A two-car 170 is a poor replacement for a 158, both in terms of capacity and comfort.

Could be worse, they could be two-car and made up as per Midland Mainline with 2+2 First and very cramped standard class!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 May 2021 ==

A two-car 170 is a poor replacement for a 158, both in terms of capacity and comfort.

Could be worse, they could be two-car and made up as per Midland Mainline with 2+2 First and very cramped standard class!

 

[Iskra]

I for one was supportive of the HSTs to begin with, but having travelled on them regularly since the refurbs started in service, it felt very much like the coaches were absolutely done. However, last week I was travelling on a XC HST and the quality felt 10x better. I don't know if it was the interior specs; but they felt more solid, less 'jigsaw puzzle' built, and a quieter riding. I don't know if it means anything, but the window pannels on XC and ex-LNER Mk3s feel more metalic and again solid, whereas ScotRail is just rattly blue plastic. "The little things" as they say.

To me the ScotRail HST project seems less about whether it was a good idea on paper, but how the idea was followed through, and which sets they initiated the idea with. It's often been said that ex-LNER Mk3s were in a worse state than the ex-GWR ones, but in which departments?

I'd be interested to hear what someone with links to Wabtec has to say about the state of the XC and ex-GWR coaches at the time they were both getting worked on.

Out of curiosity, how many members here have, before the HSTs first came up to Scotland, maintained that 170s are the better option? I fear that most of the opinion on here seems to be driven by hindsight and flashy headlines rather than what they thought was best at the time the decision was made. At the time the decision was made to go for HSTs, we never had the hindsight of the relatively successful mass rolling stock procurement across the UK to go on when weighing up the pros and cons of rebuilding older tried and tested rolling stock vice going for new build with new technologies (ie bi-mode, level boarding access, battery etc).

One thing's for sure is that ScotRail are caught in an awkward limbo - too far down the line to turn back, and too close to future electrification which makes any pure diesel rolling stock obsolete anyway (by the time you bin the HSTs and replace them with another half backsided stop gap).


I don't understand the whole 'let's fit internal doors on the 170s' argument - at the end of the day when one boards, the internal doors open and the cold air gets in anyway does it not? Though I still agree with having them for an ambience point of view, it doesn't make too much sense to me on temperature - not unless someone ought to do what supermarkets do, and having fans that direct downwards to maintain internal temperature when the doors are open.

At least on end to end doored stock, the doors aren't as wide and the cold air doesn't waft in two directions into two different passenger sections, as well as on end-door stock the passenger saloon doesn't always immediatley follow the vestibule buy is sandwiched between toilets and luggage racks to further segregate them from the outdoors.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 May 2021 ==


Are you not referring to the proposal by Hitrans in 2013 (attached) or was there another plan?

For those who wanted the refurbishment and retention of the 170s, here's what you could have won...

They were a much worse state than anticipated. I was told they were held together with gaffer tape, I'm not sure how literally that was meant.