222 contract for Scotrail: could Scotrail have procured new trains instead?

[xotGD]

Moderator note: Split from

222 contract for Scotrail: updates (not speculation)

Alstom just revealed it has the 10 year refurbishment and maintenance contract for 222s for Scotrail (option to extend to March 2042) so move to Scotland now official 19 Mar 2026 Alstom secures long-term train services and refurbishment contracts for £330 million[1] (€380 million) with...

www.railforums.co.uk

So Scotland has to make do with more English cast-offs.

But it does sound like they will be better than new when they enter service.

 

[Towers]

So Scotland has to make do with more English cast-offs.

But it does sound like they will be better than new when they enter service.

It’s worth considering whether ‘new’ necessarily means ‘better quality’, isn’t it? Particularly in view of current/recent intercity fleet precurement habits in England.

 

[380101]

So Scotland has to make do with more English cast-offs.

But it does sound like they will be better than new when they enter service.

Given the on going problems EMR are experiencing with the introduction of their new 810s, it is quite prudent that ScotRail have chosen to secure a suitable in service fleet to expedite the retirement of 50 year old rust bucket HSTs.

If ScotRail had chosen to go for a new build it would likely be 2033 and beyond before you would see the 1st unit being delivered.

 

[dk1]

So Scotland has to make do with more English cast-offs.

But it does sound like they will be better than new when they enter service.

That’s exactly what BR often did with rolling stock. It would move to secondary routes and wasn’t limited to just Scotland as the cascade took place.

 

[Merle Haggard]

So Scotland has to make do with more English cast-offs.

But it does sound like they will be better than new when they enter service.

You might equally say that these trains with their worn interiors and non-working toilets, repeatedly running with engines out, failing in service daily are fine at present for the English Midlands but will need major rectification before they are acceptable for service in Scotland ...

 

[sjm77]

So Scotland has to make do with more English cast-offs

What about the people of Harrogate and the Yorkshire Coast who have to make do with cast-off 170s from Scotland!

 

[QSK19]

So Scotland has to make do with more English cast-offs.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Mar 2026 ==

What about the people of Harrogate and the Yorkshire Coast who have to make do with cast-off 170s from Scotland!

And the people of the East Midlands since 170416-420 arrived - still with hallmarks of their original 90s interiors!

Give and take methinks!

 

[Davester50]

Only hardcore grievance politics enthusiasts would get upset about rolling stock cascades from elsewhere in Britain.

 

[class26]

So Scotland has to make do with more English cast-offs.

But it does sound like they will be better than new when they enter service.

It doesn`t have to "make do", it could have ordered NEW trains , nobody is making them take the 222`s

 

[Snow1964]

It doesn`t have to "make do", it could have ordered NEW trains , nobody is making them take the 222`s

If work from basis the HSTs were going to last another 10-15 years, then they needed something.

Simple choice : new or used.
But there is also a decarbonisation strategy.

1) If buy new and will have diesel trains through to 2060s (unless rebuild/convert them), so effectively got to buy 1.5 times
2) If buy bimodes, then risk a switch to cutting the electrification plans (and inability to utilise electric trains as happened in East Midlands, Oxford etc). Bimodes may be quick fix, but poor long term strategy. In some ways are worst of both, have extra maintenance of diesel trains, and carrying lots of deadweight when operating as electric trains.
3) Utilise surplus diesel trains for 10-15 years. That allows a target date to have enough of the routes electrified that can buy new Battery electric trains. Also has the advantage of being about same date as 170s due to finish, so can plan electrification on basis of switching intercity, local and semi-fast trains to new BEMUs at roughly same day. If also assume 334s will finish late 2030s then potentially can potentially cascade and reorganise fleet across lots of Scotland as new BEMUs arrive 2038-2041

 

[Harpo]

It doesn`t have to "make do", it could have ordered NEW trains , nobody is making them take the 222`s

Scotland’s only other InterCity-quality option was probably IET. EMR’s IET introduction issues together with other TOCs’ issues no doubt served as a useful warning.

 

[Clansman]

Scotland’s only other InterCity-quality option was probably IET.

Or a procurement process for their own bespoke intercity unit from any successful bidder rather than a tag-along order from something existing.

 

[Highlander1]

So Scotland has to make do with more English cast-offs.

But it does sound like they will be better than new when they enter service.

Nothing to do with English cast-off as you put it.

The current HSTs are life expired and have to be replaced. They are a expensive both in terms of maintenance and running costs such a fuel. The class 222 trains have a life span of around 15 years left. That's ideal for the timeline of the rolling electrification program. At that point new bi-mode trains replace the 222. Buying new diesel trains now means we'll still be running diesel trains into the 2060's, long after electrification has been completed.

 

[Amos390]

Nothing to do with English cast-off as you put it.

The current HSTs are life expired and have to be replaced. They are a huge expensive both in terms of maintenance and running costs such a fuel. The class 222 trains have a lift span of around 15 years left. That's ideal for the timeline of the rolling electrification program. At that point new bi-mode trains replace the 222. Buying new diesel trains now means we'll still be running diesel trains into the 2060's, long after electrification has been completed.

And maybe by that point there’ll either be a good competitor for the IETs, or the IETs will have got themselves together and not fail on the first day of operation (not too hopeful about the second one though)…

 

[Highlander1]

Or a procurement process for their own bespoke intercity unit from any successful bidder rather than a tag-along order from something existing.

Not really an option. Lead time is excessive, and it would mean diesel running around for the next 40+ years when electrification programs have been completed.

 

[43096]

The current HSTs are life expired and have to be replaced. They are a huge expensive both in terms of maintenance and running costs such a fuel. The class 222 trains have a life span of around 15 years left. That's ideal for the timeline of the rolling electrification program. At that point new bi-mode trains replace the 222. Buying new diesel trains now means we'll still be running diesel trains into the 2060's, long after electrification has been completed.

But the 222s are probably equally expensive in terms of fuel. And ScotRail are going to be paying to lease the HST fleet for an extra 18-24 months after the 222s arrive.

 

[Merle Haggard]

My understanding is that the 222s were de-rated at some stage. Some of the posts above suggest that they will be restored to full power for service in Scotland.

Nothing to do with English cast-off as you put it.

The current HSTs are life expired and have to be replaced. They are a huge expensive both in terms of maintenance and running costs such a fuel. The class 222 trains have a life span of around 15 years left. That's ideal for the timeline of the rolling electrification program. At that point new bi-mode trains replace the 222. Buying new diesel trains now means we'll still be running diesel trains into the 2060's, long after electrification has been completed.

Just out of interest, are there any consumption figures for HST v 222 (full rating)? One might think that the specific fuel consumption of 2 large engines might be better than 5 smaller ones. When the 222s arrived on the Midland Main Line I was told that they were surprisingly expensive to run, possibly the de-rating was to reduce fuel costs.

///

When the 222s arrived new as replacement for the 170s there was a cut-back in stations off the MML having a direct London service because of R.A. restrictions - possibly the high axle load. Is this a consideration in Scotland off their trunk lines?

 

[hexagon789]

My understanding is that the 222s were de-rated at some stage. Some of the posts above suggest that they will be restored to full power for service in Scotland.



Just out of interest, are there any consumption figures for HST v 222 (full rating)? One might think that the specific fuel consumption of 2 large engines might be better than 5 smaller ones. When the 222s arrived on the Midland Main Line I was told that they were surprisingly expensive to run, possibly the de-rating was to reduce fuel costs.

///

When the 222s arrived new as replacement for the 170s there was a cut-back in stations off the MML having a direct London service because of R.A. restrictions - possibly the high axle load. Is this a consideration in Scotland off their trunk lines?

The entire Voyager family (220, 221, 222) had the engines de-rated from 750hp to 700hp to improve reliability.

No other changes have been made and I doubt the engines will have the extra 50hp restored.

An engine Eco-Mode was fitted around 15 years ago, where a unit when sat stationary (and I believe "keyed-out") for more than 7 minutes will stop all engines bar one to reduce fuel consumption/emissions when sat at at a terminus during turnaround.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Mar 2026 ==

When the 222s arrived new as replacement for the 170s there was a cut-back in stations off the MML having a direct London service because of R.A. restrictions - possibly the high axle load. Is this a consideration in Scotland off their trunk lines?

Anywhere an HST can go a 222 can go.

 

[Highlander1]

My understanding is that the 222s were de-rated at some stage. Some of the posts above suggest that they will be restored to full power for service in Scotland.



Just out of interest, are there any consumption figures for HST v 222 (full rating)? One might think that the specific fuel consumption of 2 large engines might be better than 5 smaller ones. When the 222s arrived on the Midland Main Line I was told that they were surprisingly expensive to run, possibly the de-rating was to reduce fuel costs.

///

When the 222s arrived new as replacement for the 170s there was a cut-back in stations off the MML having a direct London service because of R.A. restrictions - possibly the high axle load. Is this a consideration in Scotland off their trunk lines?

Fuel consumption for a class 222 is 3.85 litres of fuel per mile.
Power output for a HST is 204–215 g/kWh at various power levels. This translates to the estimated 4.5–5.5 litres per mile for a 5-car set with two power cars.

Ogab® Report - Impact of Reduced Fuel Consumption on Railways - Ogab

Rail Transport Fuel Consumption In UK during 2018-19 financial year, passenger rail services consumed 3,976 million kWh of electricity and 469 million litres of diesel. Of the total 15,847 km of route open for trains (31,091 km of tracks) 38% is electrified (ORR, 2019a). So Diesel Multiple Units...

www.ogab.co.uk

In UK during 2018-19 financial year, passenger rail services consumed 3,976 million kWh of electricity and 469 million litres of diesel. Of the total 15,847 km of route open for trains (31,091 km of tracks) 38% is electrified (ORR, 2019a). So Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs), trains powered with diesel, are used because part of the lines are not electrified.

The Class 220 Voyager is a diesel-electric multiple-unit manufactured by Bombardier Transportation that operates in Country Cross network. In fact, all Country Cross trains are powered with diesel and 34 trains of the total 92 train sets are Class 220 Voyager.

The key characteristics of this train related to fuel consumption are:

• 4 cars per trainset
• Each car is equipped with a Cummins QSK19 diesel engine of 750 hp (560 kW) at 1800rpm
• Each car is equipped with a fuel tank of 1,300 litres of diesel
• Maximum range of approximately 1,350 miles (2,170 km) between each refuelling
• Class 220 operates at a top speed of 125 mph (200 km/h)
• It contains 200 seats

In order to calculate fuel consumption of Class 220, we used the amount of fuel that a train carries in the 4 cars and the maximum distance between each refueling.

With this calculation, a Class 220 Voyager consumes on average 3.85 litres of diesel per mile.

 

[duffield]

Fuel consumption for a class 222 is 3.85 litres of fuel per mile.
Power output for a HST is 204–215 g/kWh at various power levels. This translates to the estimated 4.5–5.5 litres per mile for a 5-car set with two power cars.

Ogab® Report - Impact of Reduced Fuel Consumption on Railways - Ogab

Rail Transport Fuel Consumption In UK during 2018-19 financial year, passenger rail services consumed 3,976 million kWh of electricity and 469 million litres of diesel. Of the total 15,847 km of route open for trains (31,091 km of tracks) 38% is electrified (ORR, 2019a). So Diesel Multiple Units...

www.ogab.co.uk

So if you adjust for the greater capacity of a 5 car HST set (approx 310 vs 250) we get 0.0154 litres per mile per seat for the 222s and 0.0145-0.0177 for the HST set - pretty much the same.

Not that that's necessarily a valid comparison of course, given you'll probably just get the same passengers numbers on the 222s and the HSTs but with more standing on the busy 222 services, just thought it was interesting.

Edit: Of course the total seat numbers on the 222s will probably increase during the refurb anyhow, if as expected they reduce 1st to the driving coach only.

 

[Highlander1]

So if you adjust for the greater capacity of a 5 car HST set (approx 310 vs 250) we get 0.0154 litres per mile per seat for the 222s and 0.0145-0.0177 for the HST set - pretty much the same.

Not that that's necessarily a valid comparison of course, given you'll probably just get the same passengers numbers on the 222s and the HSTs but with more standing on the busy 222 services, just thought it was interesting.

Edit: Of course the total seat numbers on the 222s will probably increase during the refurb anyhow, if as expected they reduce 1st to the driving coach only.

Yes it's hard to tell given the limited information on what the refurb will look like in terms of seating capacity. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, very few current 5 car HST services are at capacity.

 

[The exile]

And ScotRail are going to be paying to lease the HST fleet for an extra 18-24 months after the 222s arrive.

At last- an operator has the sense to realise that transitions are rarely seamless!

 

[Russel]

Or a procurement process for their own bespoke intercity unit from any successful bidder rather than a tag-along order from something existing.

We've seen how well this has gone for EMR with their IET's!

 

[Clansman]

and it would mean diesel running around for the next 40+ years when electrification programs have been completed.

Would it though? What makes you assume that new build stock can't be built to accommodate conversion from diesel to battery or to electric, when the IETs have proven with a now decade old design that this can be done.

 

[Highlander1]

Would it though? What makes you assume that new build stock can't be built to accommodate conversion from diesel to battery or to electric, when the IETs have proven with a now decade old design that this can be done.

I'm not aware of any IET being converted from diesel to battery. Do you have an example of this being done and what was the cost?

Also I'd suggest the lead time for IET is to long for Scotrail. They're desperate to get rid of the HST at the earliest opportunity. Perhaps Hitachi submitted a proposal but weren't successful. I'm not aware of anything in the tender that prevented new rolling stock being submitted beyond the timeline.

 

[JamesT]

I'm not aware of any IET being converted from diesel to battery. Do you have an example of this being done and what was the cost?

Also I'd suggest the lead time for IET is to long for Scotrail. They're desperate to get rid of the HST at the earliest opportunity. Perhaps Hitachi submitted a proposal but weren't successful. I'm not aware of anything in the tender that prevented new rolling stock being submitted beyond the timeline.

See this thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/802207-hitachi-testing-battery-power-for-transpennine.249321/ on a TPE unit having a diesel replaced by a battery. It wasn't all the engines, but proves the concept.

 

[Clansman]

I'm not aware of any IET being converted from diesel to battery. Do you have an example of this being done and what was the cost?

Also I'd suggest the lead time for IET is to long for Scotrail. They're desperate to get rid of the HST at the earliest opportunity. Perhaps Hitachi submitted a proposal but weren't successful. I'm not aware of anything in the tender that prevented new rolling stock being submitted beyond the timeline.

See above.

More to the point I was making, and that is that it is already possible to design a train that can be converted from diesel or bi-mode to electric.

Therefore if ScotRail was to hypothetically procure new build units (be it IETs or something more bespoke), diesel is irrelevant so long as the design can enable the removal of diesel engines or the conversion of them to battery, alongside capability to house equipment to utilise wires. This capability has existed for 10 years now as the IETs prove.

 

[Highlander1]

Am I missing something? Reading through that thread this was a test that didn't work and the unit was converted back to diesel?

You also didn't answer my point about the cost involved in doing that and what the timeline would be for procurement of these new trains. As I said, the removal of the HST is urgent for Scotrail.

 

[Rail Quest]

Would it though? What makes you assume that new build stock can't be built to accommodate conversion from diesel to battery or to electric, when the IETs have proven with a now decade old design that this can be done

Said conversions would presumably be very expensive though, perhaps equivalent to the refirb program of the 222s. So they either spend more money now and order a new fleet which would take longer to be built and implemented all while the HSTs rattle on, knowing they'd intend to run an expensive conversion program with a lot of unknowns further down the line. Or they could refurbish and use service-ready soon-to-be available Meridians and order a new fleet with battery technology as standard when said technology has been better proven in the real world on intercity specifications. That also will allow them to order a solution that better suits the electrification coverage Scotland manages to implement over the next 10-15 years.

I honestly think going with the 222s was a great idea. This will give ScotRail an easy, proven, reliable solution to retire the HSTs and gives them time to properly scope out a new build order for the long term that best suits the network for the future.

 

[AndrewE]

Said conversions would presumably be very expensive though, perhaps equivalent to the refirb program of the 222s.

I don't see why. If stock was designed from the outset so that the power train coud accept the 3 varied inputs why would a refurb be needed? Just take units out in turn to swap the diesel bits for pans as electrification proceeds and by the end of the process each electrified line would have 100% electric stock. No need for any refurb at all.

So they either spend more money now and order a new fleet which would take longer to be built and implemented all while the HSTs rattle on, knowing they'd intend to run an expensive conversion program with a lot of unknowns further down the line. Or they could refurbish and use service-ready soon-to-be available Meridians

possibly-refurbishable old stock, you mean?

and order a new fleet with battery technology as standard when said technology has been better proven in the real world on intercity specifications.

it already is...

That also will allow them to order a solution that better suits the electrification coverage Scotland manages to implement over the next 10-15 years.

I honestly think going with the 222s was a great idea. This will give ScotRail an easy, proven, reliable solution to retire the HSTs and gives them time to properly scope out a new build order for the long term that best suits the network for the future.

as long as the refurb reallly does get them back into "full" working order after the current woeful performance/condition...