Scotrail Turbostar Upgrade

[Kingfisher200262]

There was a written answer to a parliamentary question in the Scottish Parliament on Friday: -

"David Stewart (Labour) | Question S3W-38689
To ask the Scottish Executive whether the trial upgrading of the engines on the current Turbostar train rolling stock has been successful.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party)
The trial involving the upgrade of some engines fitted to ScotRail class 170 Turbostar trains was not successful on express routes".

Does anybody have any idea what this relates to?

 

[sprinterguy]

Two Scotrail Turbostars, 170431 and 170432, are fitted with the high powered 483hp engine that is used in the new 172s, rather than the standard 422hp engine used for the 170s, as a trial.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Two Scotrail Turbostars, 170431 and 170432, are fitted with the high powered 483hp engine that is used in the new 172s, rather than the standard 422hp engine used for the 170s, as a trial.

Thought so.

So, if a politician is able to report that the trial was unsuccessful, how come that hasn't leaked out within the industry?

Or did I miss something?

 

[route:oxford]

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party)
The trial involving the upgrade of some engines fitted to ScotRail class 170 Turbostar trains was not successful on express routes".[/B][/COLOR]

Ok.

So does this mean that it was succesful on non-express routes?

 

[Peter Sarf]

What made it unsucessfull ?. Perhaps the exhausts needed upgrading to cope with the extra exhaust !. Maybe the fuel tanks needed to be so much larger or otherwise the range of the units was too limited. Maybe the passengers got feed up standing still outside the terminus awaiting (more) time.

Seriously though its probably better to fit a pantograph+transformer coach into units that are DEMUs (i.e. already have electric transmission) thus getting more seats and less pollution. If the routes concerned are that important then electrify them. But thats another thread.

 

[90019]

Seriously though its probably better to fit a pantograph+transformer coach into units that are DEMUs (i.e. already have electric transmission) thus getting more seats and less pollution. If the routes concerned are that important then electrify them. But thats another thread.

ScotRail Doesn't run any DEMUs

 

[scotsman]

There was a written answer to a parliamentary question in the Scottish Assembly on Friday: -

"David Stewart (Labour) | Question S3W-38689
To ask the Scottish Executive whether the trial upgrading of the engines on the current Turbostar train rolling stock has been successful.

Keith Brown (Scottish National Party)
The trial involving the upgrade of some engines fitted to ScotRail class 170 Turbostar trains was not successful on express routes".

Does anybody have any idea what this relates to?

Oh puhlease! It even says 'Scottish Parliament' on the website

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Oh puhlease! It even says 'Scottish Parliament' on the website

My most humble apologies. My only excuse is that I hail from that part of the Union that's south of West Lothian.

 

[CarterUSM]

My most humble apologies. My only excuse is that I hail from that part of the Union that's south of West Lothian.

Dont worry about it, I call it the Scottish Parish Cooncil(Council)!

 

[starrymarkb]

What made it unsucessfull ?. Perhaps the exhausts needed upgrading to cope with the extra exhaust !. Maybe the fuel tanks needed to be so much larger or otherwise the range of the units was too limited. Maybe the passengers got feed up standing still outside the terminus awaiting (more) time.

Seriously though its probably better to fit a pantograph+transformer coach into units that are DEMUs (i.e. already have electric transmission) thus getting more seats and less pollution. If the routes concerned are that important then electrify them. But thats another thread.

Turbostars don't have electric transmission. 170s have a Voith Hydraulic set up and 172s use ZF mechanical boxes

 

[Kingfisher200262]

Turbostars don't have electric transmission. 170s have a Voith Hydraulic set up and 172s use ZF mechanical boxes

Does anybody know whether the two trial units have Voith, or ZF 'boxes? If ZF, maybe that's the reason they were considered to be unsuitable for Express services, being hydro-mechanical rather than proper hydraulic transmissions.

 

[junglejames]

Does anybody know whether the two trial units have Voith, or ZF 'boxes? If ZF, maybe that's the reason they were considered to be unsuitable for Express services, being hydro-mechanical rather than proper hydraulic transmissions.

Your message was in response to a post that said 170s had Voith Hydraulic transmissions.

 

[MCR247]

But he was saying, did the trial ones still have hydraulic transmissions?

In answer to his question, I presume they did.

 

[Kingfisher200262]

But he was saying, did the trial ones still have hydraulic transmissions?

In answer to his question, I presume they did.

So back to the original point I guess... why would the trial not have been successful and is this not slightly worrying for the TOCs that are beginning to introduce 172s?

I suppose it's more of an issue for the ROSCO really, as the first use for most of the 172s is on stoppers. However, a 23 metre bodied unit with 480 odd hp under each car that isn't suitable for longer distance services??? It would definitely be bothering me as the asset owner that wants to eke 30 years of lease out of my train.

 

[route:oxford]

So does suggest that the Scottish Government & Transport Scotland consider the class 170 units as unfit for purpose?

They certainly didn't shine in the snow.

If so, what units would be more appropriate* - and would they be able to offload the unsuitable 170s to a DfT controlled franchise in England?




*My money would go to a "bespoke" range of Scottish units created by Stadler Rail.

 

[Failed Unit]

So does suggest that the Scottish Government & Transport Scotland consider the class 170 units as unfit for purpose?

They certainly didn't shine in the snow.

If so, what units would be more appropriate* - and would they be able to offload the unsuitable 170s to a DfT controlled franchise in England?




*My money would go to a "bespoke" range of Scottish units created by Stadler Rail.

I was going to say 380s but they are probably sick of them as well.

 

[junglejames]

I dont think it means they are not happy with them. Plenty of unsucessful trials take place. If they arent successful, they just go back to the norm.
It could be that there is something about the 172s that makes them more suitable for a higher powered engine. It could be they just decided there wasnt a lot of benefit from the extra horsepower on express journeys. I certainly dont read anymore into it. Nothing makes me think they are going to replace the 170s. Far from it. Of course, knowing my luck, tomorrow they will now announce the replacement of the 170s, and i'll be made to look an idiot, but I really cannot see anything that has pointd to that. This is just an unsuccessful trial (supposedly).

 

[tbtc]

So does suggest that the Scottish Government & Transport Scotland consider the class 170 units as unfit for purpose?

They certainly didn't shine in the snow.

If so, what units would be more appropriate* - and would they be able to offload the unsuitable 170s to a DfT controlled franchise in England?




*My money would go to a "bespoke" range of Scottish units created by Stadler Rail.

Interesting.

If the electrifications planned for the central belt happen (after the A2B setbacks) then that would release about fifty Scotrail DMUs - based on current service provision.

I imagined that this would lead to the release of all 158s, with 156s moving back to the Far North line (etc) and 170s taking up the remaining 158 duties (e.g. doubling up on some Aberdeen duties, taking over all Fife services).

However, if the 170s aren't suitable for routes like the Edinburgh/Glasgow - Aberdeen trips then could it be the 170s that head south after electrification and the 158s that remain? Interesting...

 

[sprinterguy]

So does suggest that the Scottish Government & Transport Scotland consider the class 170 units as unfit for purpose?

They certainly didn't shine in the snow.

I don’t think there’s any suggestion that the 170s are unfit for purpose, snow troubles aside.

If I were to take a stab in the dark I’d suggest that the uprated engines being “unsuccessful on express services” relates to the potential benefits of better acceleration or improving the trains’ ability to maintain higher speeds being negligible when compared to the costs of increased fuel consumption and/or maintenance with the more powerful engines.

 

[Peter Sarf]

ScotRail Doesn't run any DEMUs

I know there are not many DEMUs around but perhaps those that do exist would be suitable (door spacing, acceleration, top speed). Could replace the XC Voyagers with something nicer for the long journey they currently do. Glasgow Queen Street to Edinburgh must be a good candidate for electrification. Would more 380s be appropriate. I am sure the displaced 170s would find use elsewhere as they are better than pacers or could even cascade 150s onto pacer duties.

I just dont see the point of tinkering with reasonably good DMUs when the real goal should be electrification and pacer elimination.

 

[route101]

Have to say the FSR 170s are the most comfortable unit , i can sleep pretty well between Edinburgh and Glasgow.

 

[route:oxford]

They are reasonably comfortable - as long as you don't get the seat with the stupid half-window.

Surprised you manage to sleep between Edinburgh and Glasgow though, with all the Weegies on board - there's a fair chance you could wake robbed of all posessions.

 

[scotsman]

Have to say the FSR 170s are the most comfortable unit , i can sleep pretty well between Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Aye, almost prefer them over HSTs to Inverness

 

[Peter Sarf]

Have to say the FSR 170s are the most comfortable unit , i can sleep pretty well between Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Your not the driver are you ?.

Actually I wonder if there is a sub optimal journey time which does not allow for sleep. I learnt to sleep on the train in my commuting days and worked out it was best to get a slower journey IF it meant less changes (and consequent risk). LT obliterated that by having a politically correct beeping sound when doors close (same on buses) !.

 

[route101]

Your not the driver are you ?.

Actually I wonder if there is a sub optimal journey time which does not allow for sleep. I learnt to sleep on the train in my commuting days and worked out it was best to get a slower journey IF it meant less changes (and consequent risk). LT obliterated that by having a politically correct beeping sound when doors close (same on buses) !.

Hehe well ive known to sleep on trains : Never slept on the 334s tho tried the other week from Edinburgh.

 

[Bittern]

Have to say the FSR 170s are the most comfortable unit , i can sleep pretty well between Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Agreed. I've used them on the 07:06 Queen Street - Inverness, and they are perfectly comfortable for that time of morning!

Plus, they're remarkable air-con makes them especially welcome in the middle of summer.

 

[RichW1]

seems unfair to me that edinburgh to Aberdeen and Inverness have Intercity style comfort but Glasgow to both destinations has to put up with a DMU more appropriate on commuter routes or localised routes and without a buffet too.

Either way I bet Glasgow must miss its mark 2/3's and 47's on the Aberdeen run.

 

[jopsuk]

Edinburgh-Inverness is only one HST per day

 

[route101]

Agreed. I've used them on the 07:06 Queen Street - Inverness, and they are perfectly comfortable for that time of morning!

Plus, they're remarkable air-con makes them especially welcome in the middle of summer.

Yeah slept on that service ! Always an airline seat for sleeping too

 

[Bittern]

How anyone could sleep on that journey with all that incredible scenery is beyond me.