No Life Extension for HSTs

[sprinterguy]

Wonder if this will encourage a new open access operator to enter the fray? Buy some HSTs on the cheap and do them up.

It's quite probable, although there’s a good chance they’d have to fork out a small fortune on DDA compliance measures if they expected to use them for more than a couple of years.

 

[142094]

It's quite probable, although there’s a good chance they’d have to fork out a small fortune on DDA compliance measures if they expected to use them for more than a couple of years.

Hmm, wonder if there is a way of getting around this, such as doing one carriage up to DDA standards and leaving the rest as is.

 

[paul1609]

!
It's already been done with the short lived Cotswold Rail HST: Mind you, a 125mph capable preserved train will be quite a thing to see: Railtours are going to take a lot less time to reach their destination in the future!

I was on a UK railtour to bathgate and airdrie a couple of weeks ago the train was forned of a EWS class 90 and 12 mk1s. The usual network rail fiascos meant we were late for the return journey and surprisingly we were put out on to the ecml from millerhill yard 5 mins in front of a HST. Much to my surprise the HST was unable to close on us at all and by darlington on a non stop run we were 17 mins ahead of it.

Unfortunately we were held 10 mins outside Darlington so a 3 car siemens super pacer could be put in front of us and hold us up all the way to York. Here we were held for another 20 mins for the said HST to overtake us.

The simultaneous departure from York with the class 47 railtour was a nice touch but just went to prove further that electric rules!

 

[WatcherZero]

Hmm, wonder if there is a way of getting around this, such as doing one carriage up to DDA standards and leaving the rest as is.

Theoretically, if you gave the stock a cursory upgrade such as cabin clearances and handles you would only have to have a couple of full wheelchair disability freindly carriages (the DDA specifies provision quantity by number of carriages). operators could see it as a pain however to maintain formations from different coach types.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Would it not be quicker and tidier to simply have distributed electric traction?

Well, I don't know what you mean by quicker, but I doubt it would be tidier. A 125-140mph capable EMU would have a shape like this /[][][][][][][][]\ (ie. a slope at each end) which when coupled to a diesel loco would look like this [][]/[][][][][][][]\ (block, upwards slope, train. downwards slope). Not exactly tidy, though maybe I mistake your meaning of 'tidy'. Also the distributed traction components in the train would increase emmisions from the hauling diesel, though admittadlly not as much as dragging the diesel powerplant while under the wires would increase emmissions. It may be possible (except GWML to Devon and Cornwall) to use only the IC225s for off wire extending trips (with a new batch of class 57s with TDM for the off-wire parts) and have all the new trains be all electric EMUs which would be confined to the electrified network. The class 91's couplers might not be fast though, in which case they would need faster couplers on the blunt end).

Which was one of the reasons for diesel/bi-mode IEP wasn't it?

Yeah, but there were many who doubted such half-measures would have enough power on diesel to manage some of the gradients down there. Also dragging the diesel engine arround under the wires adds to power useage for no good reason.

Hmm, wonder if there is a way of getting around this, such as doing one carriage up to DDA standards and leaving the rest as is.

I thought of somthing along these lines to allow Swallow livery on IC225s again (because it's such a great livery), which involves the disabled toilet fitted coaches having their doors open automaticly when the trains stops, allowing pepole to find the door without it needing to be a contrasting colour.

 

[jopsuk]

Disabled access isn't just about wheelchairs/very limited mobility. Anyway, it is the RVAR, not the DDA, that is relevant.

 

[Aictos]

I was on a UK railtour to bathgate and airdrie a couple of weeks ago the train was forned of a EWS class 90 and 12 mk1s. The usual network rail fiascos meant we were late for the return journey and surprisingly we were put out on to the ecml from millerhill yard 5 mins in front of a HST. Much to my surprise the HST was unable to close on us at all and by darlington on a non stop run we were 17 mins ahead of it.

Unfortunately we were held 10 mins outside Darlington so a 3 car siemens super pacer could be put in front of us and hold us up all the way to York. Here we were held for another 20 mins for the said HST to overtake us.

The simultaneous departure from York with the class 47 railtour was a nice touch but just went to prove further that electric rules!

Just two points with your post:

1. You do realise a lot of padding is put into any charter timetable which as a example, I was on a charter and left Peterborough 20 minutes late but managed to be on time when we got to Stevenage which just goes to show how much padding is made available to charters, also helps when things go wrong when for example, you're stuck on the Up Goods south of Finsbury Park because a GC having problems is blocking the charter's path into Kings Cross.

2. Your description of a Class 185 as a Super Pacer is a tad unfair as it makes it look slow and ancient, if anything it's more like a souped up Class 159 or Class 170!

Plus as it only stopped at one station that being Northallerton, it didn't look that bad unlike waiting at Huntingdon for a rescue loco and knowing the rescue loco was coming around the Hertford Loop from Bounds Green behind various stoppers and was going to be ages!

 

[Daimler]

Would it not be quicker and tidier to simply have distributed electric traction?

The Diesel unit would only need sufficient power at the wheel for it's own light-engine movements, it would supply a traction current to the electric unit.

Ideally, it wouldn't matter if the Diesel unit were attached to the front or back of the formation, although sensibly it would be fitted with sturdy snow-deflectors and lead the unit through the Highlands during poor weather.

This is all very well, but it means the diesel engine has to lug around heavy transformer/traction equipment as well as itself - it's less efficient than simply swapping engines.

Ian Walmsley in Modern Railways put forward a simple and effective idea which saw electric locos at the London end of rakes of coaches (which had a cab at either end). Thus the electric loco would push trains going from London, and on arrival at the boundary between diesel/electric, the diesel would drop onto the front of the train while the electric would drop off the back, and vice versa for the return.

 

[daikilo]

This is all very well, but it means the diesel engine has to lug around heavy transformer/traction equipment as well as itself - it's less efficient than simply swapping engines.

Ian Walmsley in Modern Railways put forward a simple and effective idea which saw electric locos at the London end of rakes of coaches (which had a cab at either end). Thus the electric loco would push trains going from London, and on arrival at the boundary between diesel/electric, the diesel would drop onto the front of the train while the electric would drop off the back, and vice versa for the return.

My, that sounds interesting. Not sure it hasn't been done already though.

And then the subject of DVTs at each end. How about relaxing DVT regulations so that they can carry passengers as say ICEs driving coaches do?

 

[ainsworth74]

How about relaxing DVT regulations so that they can carry passengers as say ICEs driving coaches do?

They already have just nobody has built DVTs since the regulation was relaxed and nobody has bothered to put seating in the DVTs we already have.

 

[Daimler]

My, that sounds interesting. Not sure it hasn't been done already though.

And then the subject of DVTs at each end. How about relaxing DVT regulations so that they can carry passengers as say ICEs driving coaches do?

Of course, I think that was a given. I'm not sure there is any regulation which specifies passengers cannot be in a 125mph DVT - after all, the Pendolinos & Voyagers' leading coaches are no safer. I see it as something which in terms of unused space at each end looks very much like a Pendolino (therefore providing an handy little guards van at each end for cycles).

 

[RobShipway]

It will be a shame to see the HST trains disappear as they have done a great service since they were introduced in 1976 and if any are still in servive in 10 - 20 years time they would have done the same amount of service as the MK1 EMU's that were on the Southern Region.

As a replacement for the HST, I still think a longer version of the Voyager train would be the better answer than having IEP as it is an existing elctro/Diesel train. Yes, modifications to the design of the Voyager/Meridan design needs to be made but this is easier than designing a train from scratch that Hitachi are having to do with the IEP trains.

 

[Geezertronic]

And then the subject of DVTs at each end. How about relaxing DVT regulations so that they can carry passengers as say ICEs driving coaches do?

390 driving coaches already carry passengers as well

 

[route:oxford]

Well, I don't know what you mean by quicker, but I doubt it would be tidier. A 125-140mph capable EMU would have a shape like this /[][][][][][][][]\ (ie. a slope at each end) which when coupled to a diesel loco would look like this [][]/[][][][][][][]\ (block, upwards slope, train. downwards slope). Not exactly tidy, though maybe I mistake your meaning of 'tidy'. Also the distributed traction components in the train would increase emmisions from the hauling diesel, though admittadlly not as much as dragging the diesel powerplant while under the wires would increase emmissions. It may be possible (except GWML to Devon and Cornwall) to use only the IC225s for off wire extending trips (with a new batch of class 57s with TDM for the off-wire parts) and have all the new trains be all electric EMUs which would be confined to the electrified network. The class 91's couplers might not be fast though, in which case they would need faster couplers on the blunt end).

Quicker and tidier in that there would be just one light engine movement to attach the diesel loco/traction supplier. The 89 didn't look *that* untidy when hauling Mk3 stock did it?

Not quite sure if you understood my meaning though. In my suggestion, the Diesel unit wouldn't be "hauling" the train as such. It would supply traction power to the distributed traction as well as to a single powered bogie on loco. This would decrease the trackwear from the loco and should increase RA.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Quicker and tidier in that there would be just one light engine movement to attach the diesel loco/traction supplier. The 89 didn't look *that* untidy when hauling Mk3 stock did it?

Not quite sure if you understood my meaning though. In my suggestion, the Diesel unit wouldn't be "hauling" the train as such. It would supply traction power to the distributed traction as well as to a single powered bogie on loco. This would decrease the trackwear from the loco and should increase RA.

Wouldn't there not be much in the way of light engine movement anyway, at Swansea at least it is not all that far to the depot (which might mean you could service the electric loco while the rest of the train is running to Pembroke/Carmarthen and back). So what you're suggesting is the diesel engine won't be able to put enough power down itself to haul anything and need to provide electricity to the EMU. I'd be supprised if that made the loco all that much lighter and the loco wouldn't be usable for anything else, whereas TDM fitted class 57s could be quite useful on other services too (like allowing the WAG express to go via Wrexham without needing a 2nd 57 (or a run-round at Chester)). Locos and coaches are so much more flexible than multiple units although MUs are better for trains shorter than 4 coaches and quick spliting of regional trains to serve multiple destonations (eg. Cambrian line to Aberystwyth and Pwllheli).

 

[43021HST]

There won't be anything known for definite until a decision is taken on IEP in the new year, tied in with a decision about further electrification of the GWML.

In the initial, now scapped, plan for IEP deployment, the East Coast was intended to receive the first fleet of IEPs in 2013, it is likely following the delays to procuring any new trains (IEP or otherwise) that there will be no replacement for the HSTs until 2014 at the earliest.

So 2010, 2011 and 2012 will be best time to make the most of the full HST fleet.

 

[tbtc]

Out of interest, what percentage of HSTs (power cars/ coaches) are still in use in 2010? How many have lasted?

 

[matt]

Out of interest, what percentage of HSTs (power cars/ coaches) are still in use in 2010? How many have lasted?

While I don't know about coaches all of the power cars are still in service except for the ones written off in crashes.

 

[MCR247]

Well although some HST MK3s may not still be in service, there is still quite a few ex LHCS coaches running around instead!

 

[RobShipway]

I am going to stick my neck out and say that I think two of the sets at most are no longer in service since the HST trains were made between 1975 - 1984. I think that there is possibly a lack of carriages due to accidents like Ladbroke Grove as I believe from memory that wrote off at least a couple of carriages.

 

[Royston Vasey]

There are also several HST buffets in storage. I believe all non-buffet trailers extant are in service. The last to be written off was from the Neville Hill shunting accident.

 

[Philip Elliott]

I am going to stick my neck out and say that I think two of the sets at most are no longer in service since the HST trains were made between 1975 - 1984. I think that there is possibly a lack of carriages due to accidents like Ladbroke Grove as I believe from memory that wrote off at least a couple of carriages.

I think there are currently 87 sets in use compared to 97 built. Most of the missing sets are due to the vehicles being used to lengthen the remainders to 8/9 coaches plus spares.

 

[dave59]

This is all very well, but it means the diesel engine has to lug around heavy transformer/traction equipment as well as itself - it's less efficient than simply swapping engines.

Ian Walmsley in Modern Railways put forward a simple and effective idea which saw electric locos at the London end of rakes of coaches (which had a cab at either end). Thus the electric loco would push trains going from London, and on arrival at the boundary between diesel/electric, the diesel would drop onto the front of the train while the electric would drop off the back, and vice versa for the return.

So simple it should have happened with a larger build of the IC225 to eliminate HST diagrams on the ECML and maximise the electrification investment. More recently 125mph electric locomotives should have been procured to haul mk3's but yet again the chosen option was again to "think diesel" and re-engine the Class 43. No sensible Walmsley plan on the ECML and 20 years during which it could have been implemented.

I expect if they ever actually make a decision, the DfT will take the limited bi mode route alongside hopefully a very large EMU build. For a country that can never quite 'afford' a system of electrified main lines (not to mention wired diversionary routes and in-fill) it will be the best option.

 

[MCR247]

You could not eliminate HSTs of the East Coast, unless IC225s can magically get to Inverness, Aberdeen, Hull and the Leeds extensions

 

[At_traction]

You could not eliminate HSTs of the East Coast, unless IC225s can magically get to Inverness, Aberdeen, Hull and the Leeds extensions

I think the poster meant that the diesel loco connected at the front (northern end) of a northbound train would provide the traction for these sections, with the pushing electric dropped at Waverley. In this scenario, the diesel would of course have to be powerful enough to propel the train to the required maximum speeds now used by the HST along these extension/branch lines (110? even 125?).

Also, for a return from, say Aberdeen southwards, the southern end of the train would have to have a DVT (as the first coach after the pushing Class 91) even in the original configuration leaving London in order to steer the now southbound train with the diesel pushing. Or alternately, a new pulling diesel unit is connected to the southern end when leaving Aberdeen, to be changed to a pulling electric Class 91 at Waverley. Which of course would again push when leaving KGX for the north...

So, extensive stabling and servicing facilities for Class 43s in the Edinburgh area required then (with the London area ECML HST depot downsized in unit numbers for peak/emergency use only). Which I assume would exist anyway?

 

[dave59]

I think the poster meant that the diesel loco connected at the front (northern end) of a northbound train would provide the traction for these sections, with the pushing electric dropped at Waverley. In this scenario, the diesel would of course have to be powerful enough to propel the train to the required maximum speeds now used by the HST along these extension/branch lines (110? even 125?).

Also, for a return from, say Aberdeen southwards, the southern end of the train would have to have a DVT (as the first coach after the pushing Class 91) even in the original configuration leaving London in order to steer the now southbound train with the diesel pushing. Or alternately, a new pulling diesel unit is connected to the southern end when leaving Aberdeen, to be changed to a pulling electric Class 91 at Waverley. Which of course would again push when leaving KGX for the north...

So, extensive stabling and servicing facilities for Class 43s in the Edinburgh area required then (with the London area ECML HST depot downsized in unit numbers for peak/emergency use only). Which I assume would exist anyway?

Going back to what could or should have happened with a different culture: Remove the 91 at EDI and substitute 2x Class 43 or more recently perhaps a modified 67. Line speed is max 100mph north of there and considerably less to the Yorks towns extensions where the 91 could be DIT as with diversions. The surplus HST power cars would have been replaced by a further build of Class 91 and DVT's - or HST's cascaded and a further build of complete 225 sets.....

My point is that the will to do any of this has not been there in 20 years since ECML electrification. Diesel traction has been (rightly at times) being seen as an insurance policy for unforeseen events like line closures and the many OHLE breakdowns. Having diesel hauled stock has added to the robustness of the overall service when there are no wired diversion routes and a less than perfect infrastructure. The bi-mode 22x or IEP continues this theme but also maximises the benefits of electrification.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Apologises for going back a bit in the thread...

I would hope that they would be sent to the GEML before any OAO got their hands on them. Now if an OAO wants the 90s+Mk3s that would be released then fair enough but the 225s should be going to franchised operators first.

I don't see what real benefit the GEML would get from them, I can only think perhaps of the plug doors rather than re-fitting the Mk3s with them, there really is no need for 140mph capable stock to be pottering round at 100-110mph. Besides which, I'm sure NXEA would rather have brand new stock than yet more hand-me-downs.

 

[MCR247]

Should have ordered more 379s to replace 90s but less airport style

 

[rail-britain]

So simple it should have happened with a larger build of the IC225 to eliminate HST diagrams on the ECML and maximise the electrification investment. More recently 125mph electric locomotives should have been procured to haul mk3's but yet again the chosen option was again to "think diesel" and re-engine the Class 43. No sensible Walmsley plan on the ECML and 20 years during which it could have been implemented

Yes, that was the original plan
There was an option to increase the IC225 to 44 sets and a further 12 Class 91 locos
In the interim period 14 Class 47/4 locos were to be converted, which would have been used exclusively north of Edinburgh
It was later decided to drop that in favour of retaining HSTs, and a small fleet of Class 47/6 were created solely for sleeper trains

 

[ainsworth74]

I don't see what real benefit the GEML would get from them, I can only think perhaps of the plug doors rather than re-fitting the Mk3s with them, there really is no need for 140mph capable stock to be pottering round at 100-110mph. Besides which, I'm sure NXEA would rather have brand new stock than yet more hand-me-downs.

Well I was just thinking that the Mk4s are more modern than the Mk3s and the 91s are more reliable than the 90s which have always been prone to failure with NXEA. Also if your going argue speed then really there is no need for 140mph stock to be pottering around on the ECML or WCML at 115-125mph yet both 91s and 390s do quite happily. But I get your point

I'm sure that NXEA would rather have more modern rolling stock but I don't know of any plans to replace the 90s+Mk3s directly so I would have thought the best they can hope for is cascaded 91s+Mk4s. Either way I don't see why OAO should get first dibs on current rolling stock that could find use with other franchised operators. Do you have any suggestions as to where the 91s+Mk4s could go when they are cascaded off the ECML?