HS2 Class 895s (Hitachi Alstom High-Speed)

[MarkyT]

I don't think anything official has been announced, but it's glaringly obvious that something needs to change to maintain capacity on services which run off HS2

No doubt better for all parties to fully pause, then modify and resissue the tender documents rather than immediately getting into post-bid variation negotiations before awarding a contract, or worse still, after award. A good opportunity to derisk cost, though may lead to some delay, depending on the critical path.

 

[London Trains]

This might be better discussed in a new thread in the speculative section, but surely fixed-length 300m units would be a much better solution than the current plans for 200m units to be used with some services running as double sets?

It would provide more capacity to the network overall, whilst only needing short platform extensions at major stations and the use of SDO at others, and with next to no chance of phase 2B ever happening, there isn't going to be a need for more than 17tph to use HS2, which was one of the reasons for splitting and joining. I would propose Birmingham to run at 4tph under this scenario which would provide the exact same capacity as a 3tph service with 400m units.

 

[Snow1964]

I don't think anything official has been announced, but it's glaringly obvious that something needs to change to maintain capacity on services which run off HS2

In a way HS2 have just confirmed indirectly they expect there to be mix of train types and lengths post reset. Just haven't detailed the mix yet.

Whether they intended to formally state that at this stage, or someone mistakenly jumped the gun by using it as the official reason, is different question.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This might be better discussed in a new thread in the speculative section, but surely fixed-length 300m units would be a much better solution than the current plans for 200m units to be used with some services running as double sets?

It would provide more capacity to the network overall, whilst only needing short platform extensions at major stations and the use of SDO at others, and with next to no chance of phase 2B ever happening, there isn't going to be a need for more than 17tph to use HS2, which was one of the reasons for splitting and joining. I would propose Birmingham to run at 4tph under this scenario which would provide the exact same capacity as a 3tph service with 400m units.

I created this speculative thread back when Chris Gibb proposed using Pendolinos, which I think also covers that:

HS2 - new Gibb proposal - new new rolling stock

I still think the best solution for Scotland (and Liverpool, Blackpool, and Lancaster) is too extend platforms to 400m at at least Crewe and Carlisle, and then run: 2 tph London - Carlisle (split) - Edinburgh/Glasgow* 2 tph London - Crewe (split) - Liverpool...

www.railforums.co.uk

I'll reply there.

 

[3141]

Very interesting watch. Good to see a lot of user testing being done and seemingly taken into account, the point near the start about the recessed handles being difficult to use for people with arthritis is one I hadn't considered before! Actual work on seats being done is also very welcome though I did find it laughable he called a FISA Lean/Fainsa Sophia looking seat "representative of good-quality seats"!

I agree that this is a useful thing for the team assessing the design to have spotted, but I feel it's something that should have occurred to the original designer. People designing a train (or a bus) should be aware of problems that passengers may face, and not design something that looks nice and neat and leave it to others to sort out the practicalities.

 

[croydontangle]

I agree that this is a useful thing for the team assessing the design to have spotted, but I feel it's something that should have occurred to the original designer. People designing a train (or a bus) should be aware of problems that passengers may face, and not design something that looks nice and neat and leave it to others to sort out the practicalities.

Oh 100% agree

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

Seems to have gone unnoticed, but these trains (and HS2) will not have first class accommodation. It will still have more generous 2+2 "Standard Premium" seating with extra legroom etc.

I think this will prove to be a significant and costly error in the future when it comes to attracting new custom. I suspect it also potentially hints at what will happen to first class on what is now Avanti. If they keep first on the 390s, there will be a risk of it shifting passengers away from HS2.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Seems to have gone unnoticed, but these trains (and HS2) will not have first class accommodation. It will still have more generous 2+2 "Standard Premium" seating with extra legroom etc.

I think this will prove to be a significant and costly error in the future when it comes to attracting new custom.

For Birmingham/Manchester, single class would probably be fine, it's going to be well under 2 hours. For Glasgow, there is clearly demand for proper full-service first class - it will still be 4 hours or thereabouts.

Where is this stated? Or was it part of the mock-up at the event?

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

For Birmingham/Manchester, single class would probably be fine, it's going to be well under 2 hours. For Glasgow, there is clearly demand for proper full-service first class - it will still be 4 hours or thereabouts.

Where is this stated? Or was it part of the mock-up at the event?

I asked at the event, and the staff happily confirmed this would be the case, tried to put a positive spin on it that it wouldn't be necessary because of speed and how good standard class would be.

Apparently it is because they need to increase the capacity of the train.

I suspect this is one of the reasons they're trying to show standard in a good light at events - because everything else will be cut.

I did find a dated article about this that seemed to have gone relatively unnoticed at the time.

HS2 considers scrapping first-class seats to maintain passenger capacity

Officials to tackle drop in passenger capacity after Rishi Sunak revised rail link plans

www.ft.com

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/17dc0a18-f56b-4ecc-9676-0113c09d6811

First-class seats could be scrapped on Britain’s new High Speed 2 train line as officials look for ways to avoid a drop in passenger capacity on the troubled rail link after Rishi Sunak tore up much of the planned route...

...HS2 Ltd, the company in charge of the project, is now looking at ways to change the specifications for the trains it has ordered to tackle that drop in capacity...

...One idea under discussion is removing all first-class seats from the new train...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Aug 2025 ==

For Birmingham/Manchester, single class would probably be fine, it's going to be well under 2 hours. For Glasgow, there is clearly demand for proper full-service first class - it will still be 4 hours or thereabouts.

Where is this stated? Or was it part of the mock-up at the event?

Just to clarify in case it was unclear - there will be two classes, Standard and Standard Premium, both 2+2, but with premium being lower density.

There's also a source from today that hints at this, in case anyone questioned my discussion with HS2 reps today!

There are also four designated wheelchair spaces on the mock-up train: two in the standard carriages, and two in premium.

Initial interiors of HS2 train revealed

HS2 says that seats will have more legroom than on standard class UK trains

www.businesstraveller.com

 

[absolutelymilk]

Just to clarify in case it was unclear - there will be two classes, Standard and Standard Premium, both 2+2, but with premium being lower density.

I wonder if this is a similar reason to TfW's ill-fated attempt to introduce Standard Premium on the 197s - if there is First class then you need to provide a wheelchair space and disabled toilet in both First and Standard? Although surely there would be enough space for that in the 895s....

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just to clarify in case it was unclear - there will be two classes, Standard and Standard Premium, both 2+2, but with premium being lower density.

Interestingly most other examples I can think of of 2+2 "first class" has less legroom than at least some of Standard on the same train because even though they space the rows a bit wider they then install really thick backed seats that sap the space. I'm thinking specifically of 350s and 444s - and I think the priority rows on the 730/2 are about the same as first class, though the seats in first class are nicer.

It would be interesting to see statistics regarding how many people upgraded on the 444s before and after the move to 2+2. I did once to try it but I never would again, it's rubbish!

(Having said that, the first class on Swiss "Domino" regional trains is 2+2 but has absolutely *cavernous* legroom - basically about an extra foot - and I would pay extra for that even at 2+2 - but I doubt it will be that good!)

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I wonder if this is a similar reason to TfW's ill-fated attempt to introduce Standard Premium on the 197s - if there is First class then you need to provide a wheelchair space and disabled toilet in both First and Standard? Although surely there would be enough space for that in the 895s....

I doubt it, they're making a big thing about accessibility.

The impression I came away from both speaking with the helpful engineers and the HS2 reps, was that these trains will be fairly austere and as about as basic as you can get away with when you design a high speed train interior these days. The focus on "generous leg room" is pretty much the only positive, and I suspect tries to detract from everything else. I asked about reading/down lights, coat hooks, blinds/curtains, actual power sockets and got some spiel around keeping everything simple and easy to maintain.

At some point, likely after I'm no longer on this earth given the timescales of HS2, they'll have a bright idea or realisation that the only way to get even more capacity is removing this leg room and converting to a high density layout.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd be more than happy if they omit blinds. They do nothing but cause arguments because they affect more than one row.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Aug 2025 ==

At some point, likely after I'm no longer on this earth given the timescales of HS2, they'll have a bright idea or realisation that the only way to get even more capacity is removing this leg room and converting to a high density layout.

This is probably a further argument for a different subfleet for the 4 hour Scottish services. I don't think a tight layout like the 730/2 or 350/1 middle section would be entirely out of place on a Birmingham shuttle taking well under an hour; the capacity is probably more important.

 

[Mikey C]

Slightly surprised they didn't give this a more important sounding number than 895, or at least allocate a range of numbers like the IET types effective have (as 80X etc), say 850 for this first version.

897 makes sense as a 397 derivative, but this is a very different train to the 395, and will enter service 20 years later.

 

[E B]

The Headcode should be on display within the trains to aid with identification in case of problems.

Class 196's (and maybe 197's) display the headcodes on the passenger information displays, but it would be difficult to spot for the regular commuter.

 

[D6975]

Apologies if I've missed this, but I can't seem to find any reference to how many coaches these sets will be. Total length of about 200m could be achieved several ways, but 8x25m is the obvious one.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Apologies if I've missed this, but I can't seem to find any reference to how many coaches these sets will be. Total length of about 200m could be achieved several ways, but 8x25m is the obvious one.

I have 8 carriages at 25m each written down, but don't know my source.

 

[brad465]

I'd be more than happy if they omit blinds. They do nothing but cause arguments because they affect more than one row.

This is my beef with blinds too. I think there is a benefit to shielding out bright light though, however they should go back to curtains, as they can be pulled to only cover the window area of the passenger in question. Sometimes the best solution isn't the most "technologically advanced".

 

[tfw756rider]

This is my beef with blinds too. I think there is a benefit to shielding out bright light though, however they should go back to curtains, as they can be pulled to only cover the window area of the passenger in question. Sometimes the best solution isn't the most "technologically advanced".

...or fit blinds that are the width of each "seated section" of the window, rather than the width of the whole window?

 

[800001]

Slightly surprised they didn't give this a more important sounding number than 895, or at least allocate a range of numbers like the IET types effective have (as 80X etc), say 850 for this first version.

897 makes sense as a 397 derivative, but this is a very different train to the 395, and will enter service 20 years later.

The class of number for a train is irrelevant, it isn't going to attract or deter people from travelling just because of a class number.

 

[vuzzeho]

I agree that this is a useful thing for the team assessing the design to have spotted, but I feel it's something that should have occurred to the original designer. People designing a train (or a bus) should be aware of problems that passengers may face, and not design something that looks nice and neat and leave it to others to sort out the practicalities.

From my work as a designer, and from talking to the designers of the 895, that's not really how it works. The design process is not about 'creating something nice and neat', but trying to think of all of these issues. But this is a very difficult task, trying to imagine every potential ergonomic problem through every part a user may interact with - whether that's intended or not, and trying to make it the best it can be. That's exactly why we user test alongside iterating. For every detail you think 'they should've thought of that' there's a million and one things they did think of, and that you likely won't even notice because it just works.

Apologies if I've missed this, but I can't seem to find any reference to how many coaches these sets will be. Total length of about 200m could be achieved several ways, but 8x25m is the obvious one.

Took this photo at TGG yesterday. It will be 8 cars, and the current internal layout is this. Emphasis on current, because this is only really like, iteration 2, according to one of the designers I spoke to. It'll evolve. That said, it's very smartly designed. I'll make a full post about the design details later but I'm gonna go make dinner now.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

From my work as a designer, and from talking to the designers of the 895, that's not really how it works. The design process is not about 'creating something nice and neat', but trying to think of all of these issues. But this is a very difficult task, trying to imagine every potential ergonomic problem through every part a user may interact with - whether that's intended or not, and trying to make it the best it can be. That's exactly why we user test alongside iterating. For every detail you think 'they should've thought of that' there's a million and one things they did think of, and that you likely won't even notice because it just works.


Took this photo at TGG yesterday. It will be 8 cars, and the current internal layout is this. Emphasis on current, because this is only really like, iteration 2, according to one of the designers I spoke to. It'll evolve. That said, it's very smartly designed. I'll make a full post about the design details later but I'm gonna go make dinner now.

That's interesting, and I didn't spot that poster. It shows 47x 2+1 seats which assuming double sets, is probably enough, but it totally contradicts what they told me in person yesterday, and were pretty adamant about it too. Could just be the poster but the window alignment looks very dodgy in "premium" too.

 

[350401]

One thing I’ve noticed is that the number of seats proposed in the unit seems to keep going down. It started at 550 per 8 coach 200m unit, then down to 528 seats, and now it’s down to 504 seats according to photos from the greatest gathering - https://x.com/nickreiditv/status/1951269853798470139?s=46

Looking at the seating plans, there is plenty of scope for increasing the number of seats, even staying at 8 coaches. There are 10 tables per standard class coach; which seems excessive. As a solo or couple traveller, the ratio of airline seats to tables of 4 feels off; not all of us like facing strangers when we travel. The designers could easily add a few more seats by just increasing the seating density a bit.

 

[Wyrleybart]

This is probably a further argument for a different subfleet for the 4 hour Scottish services. I don't think a tight layout like the 730/2 or 350/1 middle section would be entirely out of place on a Birmingham shuttle taking well under an hour; the capacity is probably more important.

Absolutely not !! You need standard formation trains to help with turning them at Euston / Old Oak Common. You ideally don't watch a "Scotch" unit running into Euston and having to be switched onto a Curzon St diagram, and vice versa.

 

[Mikey C]

The class of number for a train is irrelevant, it isn't going to attract or deter people from travelling just because of a class number.

But it clearly matters to some railway people, seeing that the IETs bagged 800, while the Thameslink trains nabbed 700. Clearly someone decided that those "headline" numbers went to something relatively important.

 

[507 001]

But it clearly matters to some railway people, seeing that the IETs bagged 800, while the Thameslink trains nabbed 700. Clearly someone decided that those "headline" numbers went to something relatively important.

777 was a very deliberate choice for Merseyrail too.

 

[800001]

777 was a very deliberate choice for Merseyrail too.

but why? What does it actually bring to the train and the service it provides to the fare paying passenger? Nothing.

 

[MrJeeves]

Just to clarify in case it was unclear - there will be two classes, Standard and Standard Premium, both 2+2, but with premium being lower density.

It seems more like first class being described as standard premium than vice versa, given there is a dedicated "premium saloon service point" (their words, not mine) at the premium-end of the train.

It would be interesting to see if their plan is a European-style service where passengers need to order and pay for food and drink, but have it as an at-seat service with cutlery and crockery.

 

[507 001]

but why? What does it actually bring to the train and the service it provides to the fare paying passenger? Nothing.

Probably not, but clearly somebody somewhere thinks it’s of some importance.

 

[Bumpkin]

When I spoke to the HS2 reps at TGG yesterday they said that blinds would be included as it was the easiest option. They explored using electronically dimmed glass (similar to what is found on Boeing 787 planes) but they decided against it as it was becoming too complex when an easier option exists.

Standard three-pin plug sockets are provided at each table and airline seat too. They made a big point that the sockets will be at stacked opposite angles to each other to allow large brick MacBook type plugs to be used without blocking the other socket. See image below I took of this arrangement on the mockup seat: