Class 43 HST cascade fate

[Harbornite]

Pedant: The class 395 (and thus any presumed derivatives) would be an AT300 as well. AT300 is the name of the family of Hitachi A train units for high speed rail, even though it has become synonymous with the 26m design used for IEP

Ah right, I'm on about the class 802 in this context.

 

[47802]

Of course the key question with the XC is the fact that a probable Direct Award period is due soon, so the DFT presumably in conjunction with Arriva, as far the HST's are concerned are probably going to have to decide on either a short term fix/derrogation and then let the successful franchise bidder when it is re-let sort it out, or decide a long term fix during the Direct Award period.

 

[The Ham]

Putting the HST's would I believe if done be only short term until more IEP/AT300 type trains could be provided for XC.

I believe that there is a few stations on the XC network that can only just take 5 car class 220/221 or HST, so if this is the case then a 5 car IEP/AT300 would be too long.

Personally, I think XC would be better if possible on having a hybrid version with six coaches of class 395 to replace Voyagers and HST sets.

Short term was my thinking (although 13 years is probably medium term). As I've suggested before up to 17 units (2+5's and/or ICWC's 221's) would allow all the 220's to be always run in pairs. Whilst up to 28 extra units would allow all the XC 22x's to permanently run as pairs.

I still expect that there could be a future where the 22x fleet scraps some end coaches to allow some longer unit lengths (such as halving the number of 220's, to 17, and forming them as 6 coach units).

The slight problem with 5 coach 80x's is that right now that would mean that they would be out of kilter with the end of life point of the 22x's. Therefore, either XC always has two part fleets or they ditch the 22x's early. Given that the MML will no longer need 222's that's potentially a large number of units with nothing to do. Add to that the possibility of lack of space for more AT300's on the production lines much before 2020 (hence TPE having coaches) and they may not be a viable short term option.

As such, eaking a few more years out of the HST's (potentially on one or two routers) before then replacing with all new trains once a few more key gaps have been infilled in the electric network is a viable option. That's not too say that other outcomes could happen.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Short term was my thinking (although 13 years is probably medium term). As I've suggested before up to 17 units (2+5's and/or ICWC's 221's) would allow all the 220's to be always run in pairs. Whilst up to 28 extra units would allow all the XC 22x's to permanently run as pairs.

I still expect that there could be a future where the 22x fleet scraps some end coaches to allow some longer unit lengths (such as halving the number of 220's, to 17, and forming them as 6 coach units).

The slight problem with 5 coach 80x's is that right now that would mean that they would be out of kilter with the end of life point of the 22x's. Therefore, either XC always has two part fleets or they ditch the 22x's early. Given that the MML will no longer need 222's that's potentially a large number of units with nothing to do. Add to that the possibility of lack of space for more AT300's on the production lines much before 2020 (hence TPE having coaches) and they may not be a viable short term option.

As such, eaking a few more years out of the HST's (potentially on one or two routers) before then replacing with all new trains once a few more key gaps have been infilled in the electric network is a viable option. That's not too say that other outcomes could happen.

There's nowhere else for the damn things to go, and the only place the MML stock could realistically go to is XC.

They'll just have to run around, doubled up, until there's more electrification and they can be replaced by bi-mode and electric units in their entirety.

The other option, a bit more radical, is to write the bloody things off and scrap them early.

No matter where you think about using them, they're too long, too expensive to run and have too few seats.

 

[The Ham]

There's nowhere else for the damn things to go, and the only place the MML stock could realistically go to is XC.

They'll just have to run around, doubled up, until there's more electrification and they can be replaced by bi-mode and electric units in their entirety.

The other option, a bit more radical, is to write the bloody things off and scrap them early.

No matter where you think about using them, they're too long, too expensive to run and have too few seats.

Not wanting to go too far off topic, but if the unit lengths were longer (I.e. just scraping end coaches early) then there could be two potential places the 22x's could be used, on Chiltern (7 or 8 coach units) and (as fixed full 10 coach units) running the Exeter to London and (as, say 7 or 8 coach units) Exeter to the end of the wires services in partnership with EMU's.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Does Brexit have any affect on emissions regs? Could a dispensation be given that would allow new coaches for the 220s/221s and the 222s to be built?

 

[najaB]

Does Brexit have any affect on emissions regs? Could a dispensation be given that would allow new coaches for the 220s/221s and the 222s to be built?

Not until it actually happens - which is at least two years after someone has the balls to we invoke Article 50, and you have to wonder if manufacturers will make more polluting engines for the UK market, or continue to build designs for the EU market.

 

[CosherB]

Does Brexit have any affect on emissions regs? Could a dispensation be given that would allow new coaches for the 220s/221s and the 222s to be built?

No - none of the engine manufacturers are going to make a UK-only spec power unit. Plus it's not politically expedient (or ethical?) to suddenly become the dirty man of Europe when it comes to emissions. :roll:

 

[47802]

Does Brexit have any affect on emissions regs? Could a dispensation be given that would allow new coaches for the 220s/221s and the 222s to be built?

Could that be classed as more Brexit nonsense, we will end up keeping the same regulations as Europe on this sort of stuff, the likes of Nissan, Volkswagen, MTU etc, are not going to want to have to build Vehicles and Engines with different emission standards, crash testing standards etc, for the UK compared to the rest of Europe.

 

[Harbornite]

Does Brexit have any affect on emissions regs? Could a dispensation be given that would allow new coaches for the 220s/221s and the 222s to be built?

Haven't Bombardier destroyed the jigs and designs for these classs?

 

[Domh245]

Haven't Bombardier destroyed the jigs and designs for these classs?

Correct. Not only that but they wouldn't meet modern Crash standards, I expect

 

[Harbornite]

Correct. Not only that but they wouldn't meet modern Crash standards, I expect

It's a shame that the E Voyager pantograph coaches were built, obviously that's not going to happen any time soon and whoever has the XC franchise could reintroduce the bi mode concept bu sourcing 802s.

 

[swt_passenger]

Haven't Bombardier destroyed the jigs and designs for these classs?

They won't destroy the designs (manufacturing drawings), because they are still the design authority for the class. And as they'll still have the drawings, they'd be able to rebuild any necessary jigs, same as any other competent train manufacturer.

"Destroying the jigs" is basically only because a factory usually recycles them into their next build project, it doesn't mean they cannot be re-provided if enough money appears.

 

[47802]

They won't destroy the designs (manufacturing drawings), because they are still the design authority for the class. And as they'll still have the drawings, they'd be able to rebuild any necessary jigs, same as any other competent train manufacturer.

"Destroying the jigs" is basically only because a factory usually recycles them into their next build project, it doesn't mean they cannot be re-provided if enough money appears.

Indeed however I doubt it would be good value for money for train that is already half life, and simply buying some AT300's would most likely be better value, why re-invent the wheel when Hitachi have already done it.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

All the CAD plans for Voyagers and Merdians will likely be sat on a computer server at a Bombardier site somewhere

 

[Philip Phlopp]

All the CAD plans for Voyagers and Merdians will likely be sat on a computer server at a Bombardier site somewhere

The design is rubbish and needs to be kept on a server.

It could be used to create new jigs, they probably won't have changed much in the intervening 16/17 years, but Bombardier will need to update the design to meet the latest crash regulations and to allow the latest variant of the Cummins QSK19 to fit underneath with the new emission control equipment.

They presumably still aren't speaking to Alstom, so it might need a more significant redesign to allow their own MITRAC traction equipment to be slung underneath.

That'll need a new TMS system, particularly complex if they're to work with the existing Class 220/221 vehicles and not form a dedicated (and possibly incompatible) Class 223 design. If you go for bi-mode, there's going to be some extensive testing on electric too.

The cost of all that will be comparable to that of developing IEP/AT300 with nothing like the demand necessary to recoup that investment.

 

[Harbornite]

They presumably still aren't speaking to Alstom, so it might need a more significant redesign to allow their own MITRAC traction equipment to be slung underneath.

Remind me why Bombardier wouldn't want to talk to Alstom, as I'm aware that they (Bombardier) used Onix traction motors on their Voyagers, but did the cooperation end when Bombardier bought out ABB?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Remind me why Bombardier wouldn't want to talk to Alstom, as I'm aware that they (Bombardier) used Onix traction motors on their Voyagers, but did the cooperation end when Bombardier bought out ABB?

Yes - when they acquired AdTranz, they got some traction design facilities in Västerås and long term design and manufacturing contracts with ABB (and indeed Daimler, who formerly owned MTU - hence the use of MTU engines in the bulk of AdTranz products).

I don't know what happened with Alstom and the eVoyager project, there's a few stories, but the best one is that Bombardier just decided one day not to use Alstom Onix traction components on the eVoyager, after Alstom's Preston operation spent quite some time doing the necessary design work. The original plan was to use a variant of the Pendolino transformer kit, to save on certification time and cost.

Bombardier literally went back to the drawing board and had their own people in Västerås develop an AC traction package, which of course meant everything got pushed back, costs were going to go up and it just added to the suspicion that Bombardier really weren't all that interested in eVoyager unless they could get top dollar for the job.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Is it possible that NR might make one or two more flying bananas, to bring down the time between inspections of track?

 

[Disorientxpres]

Bombardier and Alstom are willing to make joint bids for Belgium. What is the difference here?

 

[43096]

Bombardier and Alstom are willing to make joint bids for Belgium. What is the difference here?

At a guess, UK country management at Bombardier at the time.

 

[SC318250]

When will the first HST leave GWR for refurbishment prior to going to Scotrail?

 

[43096]

When will the first HST leave GWR for refurbishment prior to going to Scotrail?

Late 2017/early 2018. In theory the first stock to be off-leased as a result of the GWR IEP introduction is the 180s and Porterbrook HSTs.

 

[swt_passenger]

Is it possible that NR might make one or two more flying bananas, to bring down the time between inspections of track?

Unlikely as they intend to build production equipment into new generations of passenger trains.

 

[Harbornite]

Late 2017/early 2018. In theory the first stock to be off-leased as a result of the GWR IEP introduction is the 180s and Porterbrook HSTs.

How many HSTs do FGW own, as oppose to lease? They will have to be sold off to someone, possibly one of the ROSCOs.

 

[yorksrob]

As far as I am aware, it is currently believed that 11 sets in 2+4 formation will be utilised by GWR in lieu of pairs of 158s on Plymouth - Penzance and (possibly?) Cardiff - Taunton trains.

Please, please let this be true !!

They really ought to keep some spare trailers back from the torch as well, so that they can extend to 5 or six carriages if necessary in the future to cope with potential growth. (This should still be short enough to allow for zippy acceleration).

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Unlikely as they intend to build production equipment into new generations of passenger trains.

How viable would it be to retrofit the production equipment onto existing stock? Presumably it'd only need to be installed on one coach

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Unlikely as they intend to build production equipment into new generations of passenger trains.

There's lots of equipment which can't be built into passenger stock, the main question will be whether it can be optimised to work at higher speeds, whether components can be fitted onto BT10 bogies rather than B4/B5 bogies, etc.

I'd say there's a good chance of a second NMT type formation, though possibly doing slightly different things.

MENTOR could really do with being replaced too, if the money can be found - the vehicle itself is 61 years old and the modifications are 40 years old. NMT does much of the same work with the pantograph fitted Mark 3 vehicle but MENTOR is still needed for new electrification installation testing.

 

[Mordac]

How many HSTs do FGW own, as oppose to lease? They will have to be sold off to someone, possibly one of the ROSCOs.

Booths, Rotherham might be interested.

 

[DY444]

Booths, Rotherham might be interested.

No doubt however reports suggest that 43160 is to be repaired at considerable expense after its prang at Plymouth. That suggests its owners believe it has rather more than scrap value.