Indigo Soup
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2018
- Messages
- 1,488
I've been contemplating what a Scotrail order of Hitachi IETs in place of the HSTs might have looked like.
The original IEP tender documents stated a requirement for 29 trains for Transport Scotland - four of these were to have been electric, presumably for cross-border services, but this could have been converted to bimode - which aligns pretty well with the 26 HSTs delivered, or the 27 originally proposed. I can't find availability figures for the 80x fleet - no doubt deemed commercially sensitive by Hitachi - but 90% feels like a reasonable figure. That would allow the 24 diagrams planned for the (AFAIK never realised) full Inter7City timetable to be covered by 27 trainsets. 29 trainsets would probably allow a slight increase in service level - perhaps hourly Inverness trains, or coverage of other routes.
Physical specifications would probably be similar to GWR's Class 802s, in line with the other 'Phase 2' IEP orders - 700 kW generator sets, larger fuel tanks, dynamic braking in diesel mode. Configuration would use the LNER Coach B with a small buffet, and the GWR composite Coach D with only a small (18-seat) First Class compartment. This gives almost identical seating capacity to a 5-car HST in Scotrail configuration, in a shorter length of train. Route clearance would be needed for Glasgow to Larbert, and Perth to Dundee, for 26m vehicles, but I'm assuming this wouldn't be prohibitively difficult. Level boarding would be ruled out, unfortunately.
The kitchen in the DPTF would be unneccessary for Scotrail use, which invites the question of what to do with the space. The obvious answer, to me, is to fit it out with racks for the storage of large luggage, bikes, and other sporting equipment. I don't think this would require too much rework. This would allow the vertical bike space in the MC to be used as a luggage store, or to be fitted out as an additional toilet.
Table 1: Proposed Class 802/4 configuration:
Alternatively, it would be possible to use the kitchen space to put 33 First Class seats into the DPTF vehicle, and run an additional MS in place of the MC. This would give an increase of 30 Standard seats at the expense of the enhanced capacity for bikes and large luggage. Either would require interior redesign of the DPTF vehicle. My preference, given the usage of the line and the large increase in capacity provided as a baseline, would be for the van space. But commercial and political pressures might mean the additional seating is more desirable.
If budget allowed, there might be some merit in rejigging the layout to put the buffet at the First Class end - this would be easier without the van space, in which case the buffet car just goes adjacent to it in the same configuration. Putting the buffet into the 'wrong' end of the MC would probably be a bigger job. Using the 9-car version of the DPTS would give two additional wheelchair spaces at the cost of four Standard seats; this might be a good trade.
With less power, but more driven axles, my guess is that performance would probably be comparable to the HSTs. Lighter weight than the HSTs might allow running at higher speeds on some sections of route - though probably not Sprinter differentials. Regearing for 100mph or 110mph would probably boost acceleration and hill climbing, which would be nice, but at that point the costs may be disproportionate. Better yet would be adopting the four-engine configuration of the Class 810s, but that would deviate considerably from the standard IET configuration.
Table 2: Comparison of proposed 802/4 and Scotrail HST
Based on the delivery schedules projected in the ITT, and the actual delays to the Intercity Express Programme, it's likely that the Scotrail units would be delivered between 2017 and 2018, comfortably beating the HSTs into service. My guess is they'd be registered as Class 802/4, meaning they'd fittingly replace the Class 170/4s. One would have come off at Carmont, possibly with better outcomes for those aboard thanks to the improved crashworthiness of an 802 compared to an HST, though I'd expect the set is still written off.
Other than this, Scotrail would have a reliable fleet of modern trains to operate a full Inter7City service, able to take advantage of electrification as far as Stirling (or Dunblane?) except on the Edinburgh/Aberdeen route, or further north if/when it ever happens.
The principal shortcomings of this idea, though, are actually getting the things built - the timeline coincides with everyone else trying to buy Class 80x derivatives, hence things like the TPE mixed fleet - and what would presumably be substantially higher leasing costs.
On paper, something like this might be suitable for the HST replacement, though by then 802s will be old news - the 80x line is still going, but hasn't seen any new orders since 2020 - and things like the lack of level boarding will become unacceptable.
The original IEP tender documents stated a requirement for 29 trains for Transport Scotland - four of these were to have been electric, presumably for cross-border services, but this could have been converted to bimode - which aligns pretty well with the 26 HSTs delivered, or the 27 originally proposed. I can't find availability figures for the 80x fleet - no doubt deemed commercially sensitive by Hitachi - but 90% feels like a reasonable figure. That would allow the 24 diagrams planned for the (AFAIK never realised) full Inter7City timetable to be covered by 27 trainsets. 29 trainsets would probably allow a slight increase in service level - perhaps hourly Inverness trains, or coverage of other routes.
Physical specifications would probably be similar to GWR's Class 802s, in line with the other 'Phase 2' IEP orders - 700 kW generator sets, larger fuel tanks, dynamic braking in diesel mode. Configuration would use the LNER Coach B with a small buffet, and the GWR composite Coach D with only a small (18-seat) First Class compartment. This gives almost identical seating capacity to a 5-car HST in Scotrail configuration, in a shorter length of train. Route clearance would be needed for Glasgow to Larbert, and Perth to Dundee, for 26m vehicles, but I'm assuming this wouldn't be prohibitively difficult. Level boarding would be ruled out, unfortunately.
The kitchen in the DPTF would be unneccessary for Scotrail use, which invites the question of what to do with the space. The obvious answer, to me, is to fit it out with racks for the storage of large luggage, bikes, and other sporting equipment. I don't think this would require too much rework. This would allow the vertical bike space in the MC to be used as a luggage store, or to be fitted out as an additional toilet.
Table 1: Proposed Class 802/4 configuration:
| Carriage | Type | First Class | Standard seats | Other notes |
| A | DTPS | 56 | PRM WC, 2 luggage rack | |
| B | MSB | 72 | Buffet, 2 luggage racks | |
| C | MS | 88 | 2 WC, 2 luggage racks | |
| D | MC | 18 | 58 | WC, bike store, 2 luggage racks |
| E | DPTF | 18 | New layout. PRM WC & van | |
| Total | 36 | 274 |
Alternatively, it would be possible to use the kitchen space to put 33 First Class seats into the DPTF vehicle, and run an additional MS in place of the MC. This would give an increase of 30 Standard seats at the expense of the enhanced capacity for bikes and large luggage. Either would require interior redesign of the DPTF vehicle. My preference, given the usage of the line and the large increase in capacity provided as a baseline, would be for the van space. But commercial and political pressures might mean the additional seating is more desirable.
If budget allowed, there might be some merit in rejigging the layout to put the buffet at the First Class end - this would be easier without the van space, in which case the buffet car just goes adjacent to it in the same configuration. Putting the buffet into the 'wrong' end of the MC would probably be a bigger job. Using the 9-car version of the DPTS would give two additional wheelchair spaces at the cost of four Standard seats; this might be a good trade.
With less power, but more driven axles, my guess is that performance would probably be comparable to the HSTs. Lighter weight than the HSTs might allow running at higher speeds on some sections of route - though probably not Sprinter differentials. Regearing for 100mph or 110mph would probably boost acceleration and hill climbing, which would be nice, but at that point the costs may be disproportionate. Better yet would be adopting the four-engine configuration of the Class 810s, but that would deviate considerably from the standard IET configuration.
Table 2: Comparison of proposed 802/4 and Scotrail HST
| Proposed 802/4 | 5-car HST | 4-car HST | |
| 36 | 32 | 32 | First Class passenger seats |
| 274 | 278 | 206 | Standard passenger seats |
| 2 | 2 | 2 | Wheelchair spaces |
| 8 | 5 | 4 | Luggage racks |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | Bike/large luggage store |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | PRM toilet |
| 3 | 3 | 2 | Conventional toilet |
| 62 | 77.5 | 79.3 | Toilets/passenger |
| Yes | No | No | Van space |
| 125 | 125 | 125 | Maximum permitted speed |
| 130 | 154 | 131 | Length (metres) |
| 243 | 324 | 287 | Weight (tonnes) |
| 2820 | 4500 | 4500 | Installed power (hp) |
| 11.6 | 13.9 | 15.7 | hp/tonne |
Based on the delivery schedules projected in the ITT, and the actual delays to the Intercity Express Programme, it's likely that the Scotrail units would be delivered between 2017 and 2018, comfortably beating the HSTs into service. My guess is they'd be registered as Class 802/4, meaning they'd fittingly replace the Class 170/4s. One would have come off at Carmont, possibly with better outcomes for those aboard thanks to the improved crashworthiness of an 802 compared to an HST, though I'd expect the set is still written off.
Other than this, Scotrail would have a reliable fleet of modern trains to operate a full Inter7City service, able to take advantage of electrification as far as Stirling (or Dunblane?) except on the Edinburgh/Aberdeen route, or further north if/when it ever happens.
The principal shortcomings of this idea, though, are actually getting the things built - the timeline coincides with everyone else trying to buy Class 80x derivatives, hence things like the TPE mixed fleet - and what would presumably be substantially higher leasing costs.
On paper, something like this might be suitable for the HST replacement, though by then 802s will be old news - the 80x line is still going, but hasn't seen any new orders since 2020 - and things like the lack of level boarding will become unacceptable.
