Could HST mk2 ever happen?

[BoroAndy]

Following the contentious story of the removal of class 68/mk5as from use byTPE and the continuing reduction in use of class 43/HST sets, as the public love quieter smooth IC style coaches, is not a new generation of push/pull fast trains a good idea, or is there insufficient fast routes left that are not electrified?

 

[JonathanH]

Following the contentious story of the removal of class 68/mk5as from use byTPE and the continuing reduction in use of class 43/HST sets, as the public love quieter smooth IC style coaches, is not a new generation of push/pull fast trains a good idea, or is there insufficient fast routes left that are not electrified?

It won't happen anytime soon as the IET programme has just about satisfied all the near term requirement for fast trains.

Distributed power makes better use of train lengths in any case. However, the 231s, 755s and 756s could be seen as the modern generation of push / pull trains, just with the power supplied from the centre of the train rather than its end.

 

[AGH]

Brightline in the states use a twin power car push pull so the tech isn't finished. Perhaps a modified version of that (without the bell)?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Following the contentious story of the removal of class 68/mk5as from use byTPE and the continuing reduction in use of class 43/HST sets, as the public love quieter smooth IC style coaches, is not a new generation of push/pull fast trains a good idea, or is there insufficient fast routes left that are not electrified?

Interestingly that was the aim of what became the Class 80x - it was originally called HST2, then HS2 (yes, really), then IEP/IET once Hitachi got it.

Unlikely now, diesel is on the out and multiple engines in a MU format make better use of platform length etc. The FLIRT is probably the closest we'll get now.

 

[Trainbike46]

The railjet in Austria and surrounding countries also follows the push/pull concept, which isn't limited to diesel trains in any case (see eg IC225 in the UK)

of course most TGVs also follow the power car + coaches concept

However, there are a lot of advantages to multiple units, so I wouldn't expect a move towards it personally

 

[popeter45]

The railjet in Austria and surrounding countries also follows the push/pull concept, which isn't limited to diesel trains in any case (see eg IC225 in the UK)

of course most TGVs also follow the power car + coaches concept

However, there are a lot of advantages to multiple units, so I wouldn't expect a move towards it personally

push-pull with a classic loco only really has its advantages when you can use the loco for other usuages as well such as fright or sleepers, austia has both in large enough numbers while UK not so much
its the the 91's had the blunt end but by the time they were in service all the market had dried up
a HST like concept could still work in the UK if you wanted flexability abiet these days maybe you could shrink the transformer/engine enough to allow seats in the front most powered car?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The railjet in Austria and surrounding countries also follows the push/pull concept, which isn't limited to diesel trains in any case (see eg IC225 in the UK)

In basic concept, Railjet and the TPE Mk5a sets are near-identical - an unpowered multiple unit with a loco at the end. This concept was considered for the 220s, too. I'm quite surprised OeBB went for them when they could have had the same thing with another pointy end as an EMU, but then OeBB are quite traditionalist so it's probably just that.

 

[Neptune]

push-pull with a classic loco only really has its advantages when you can use the loco for other usuages as well such as fright or sleepers, austia has both in large enough numbers while UK not so much
its the the 91's had the blunt end but by the time they were in service all the market had dried up
a HST like concept could still work in the UK if you wanted flexability abiet these days maybe you could shrink the transformer/engine enough to allow seats in the front most powered car?

Ignoring the class 91’s (although the original idea was for them to work sleepers/parcels overnight services),
look instead at the class 90. Along with the mk3 DVT’s built at the same time they helped the WCML to go push pull along with modified 86’s and 87’s and these classes also worked freight, parcels, sleepers and other non push pull passenger services successfully (after early teething troubles) for over 20 years.

Back on the original thread the IEP was originally called HST2. Don’t ever recall it being shortened to HS2 and can’t find any reference to this anywhere.

 

[43096]

In basic concept, Railjet and the TPE Mk5a sets are near-identical - an unpowered multiple unit with a loco at the end. This concept was considered for the 220s, too. I'm quite surprised OeBB went for them when they could have had the same thing with another pointy end as an EMU, but then OeBB are quite traditionalist so it's probably just that.

They also had a large fleet of Taurus locos that were relatively new and have 230km/h capability. It’s called having a sensible traction policy - why specify locos with such a high performance specification and then not use the capability?