HS2 Class 895s (Hitachi Alstom High-Speed)

[MarkyT]

Would the 895s have a HV bus, like the 390s? If so, could the new design allow reconfiguration in the future? Just as some of the 390s were extended from 9 to 11 cars, an ability to do similar might allow creating a balanced fleet of 8, 11/12 and 16 car units from an initial all 11/12 car fleet. After all, many 3rd rail classes have been varied in length during their working life, as have the class 22x DEMUs.

Perhaps the chosen ETR1000-based trains might be reconfigurable, depending on what their onboard control systems can handle. The design's base 8 car configuration has 4 power and 4 trailer cars in formation DM1-TT2-M3-T4-T5-M6-TT7-DM8, so a notional extension might add cars in pairs of 1 motor, 1 trailer, without changing the power-to-weight relationship and thus maintaining performance, if other onboard systems can be reengineered to support that.

However, HS2 really shot itself in the foot with the following clause from the rolling stock specification:

https://assets.hs2.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/27130700/HS2-HS2-RR-SPE-000-000007_P11_TTS_Main_Body__External_.pdf

5.2 The nominal length of the Unit shall be 200m. It has been determined that all Units should
be the same length, with no requirement for a Unit to be capable of being lengthened or
shortened. This supports the overall HS2 business case.

So they may have been offered and could be contracted to purchase a train that cannot easily be reformed, either in manufacture or subsequently.

 

[Sorcerer]

Perhaps the chosen ETR1000-based trains might be reconfigurable, depending on what their onboard control systems can handle. The design's base 8 car configuration has 4 power and 4 trailer cars in formation DM1-TT2-M3-T4-T5-M6-TT7-DM8, so a notional extension might add cars in pairs of 1 motor, 1 trailer, without changing the power-to-weight relationship and thus maintaining performance, if other onboard systems can be reengineered to support that.

The Zefiro 300 model sets are configured for eight coaches, but the Zefiro 380 used in China can be built with a sixteen coach formation. So I do think it technically possible for a twelve-car formation that would give us 300m long sets. This would be good for Manchester but not so much for Liverpool. I wonder if the platform can do odd-numbered trainsets or whether it's technologically bound to evens in the same way the IETs are bound to odd-number formations.

However, HS2 really shot itself in the foot with the following clause from the rolling stock specification:

https://assets.hs2.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/27130700/HS2-HS2-RR-SPE-000-000007_P11_TTS_Main_Body__External_.pdf

So they may have been offered and could be contracted to purchase a train that cannot easily be reformed, either in manufacture or subsequently.

I don't think this was really a shot in the foot considering that the train order specification was done at a time when train-splitting was an expected part of the operation where 400m units could run to Manchester and Birmingham. It's only a problem now because Phase 1 will be the only section where 400m running is possible. I think 200m high-speed trains are quite the norm across the rest of the world though.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think 200m high-speed trains are quite the norm across the rest of the world though.

It's the European standard, though in a context of platforms usually being long enough to fit two of them. It's also why Eurostar is 400m.

 

[Sorcerer]

It's the European standard, though in a context of platforms usually being long enough to fit two of them. It's also why Eurostar is 400m.

Oddly enough I was thinking with a Eurocentric view of high-speed standards. Now granted the Frecciarossa 1000 is specifically 202m long (404m doubled-up) but it's the same rough standard. But if we were talking Japan then train lengths can be anywhere from seven to sixteen coaches with a range of lengths from 150-400m. Their cab vehicles with their varying nose designs will often push the length into less rounded numbers even if the intermediate coaches remain 25m long.

 

[MarkyT]

I don't think this was really a shot in the foot considering that the train order specification was done at a time when train-splitting was an expected part of the operation where 400m units could run to Manchester and Birmingham. It's only a problem now because Phase 1 will be the only section where 400m running is possible. I think 200m high-speed trains are quite the norm across the rest of the world though.

149m E6 mini shinkansen trains on the Akita run are routinely coupled to 253m long E5 units at Morioka for the dash to Tokyo as a ~400m formation.

I recall seeing Hitachi publicity stating their Japanese based high speed designs could be supplied easily in varying lengths, partly a result of the all or most bogies motored traction approach. Older Shinkansen units have often been cut down in length easily when demoted from express to stopping service, so reconfigurability may be a common feature of Japanese designs. UK IET and related Hitachi units might be possible to reform similarly, but I'm not sure about the Frecciarossa, which is really an Ansaldo/Bombardier train so comes wholly from the European rather than East Asian tradition.

Oddly enough I was thinking with a Eurocentric view of high-speed standards. Now granted the Frecciarossa 1000 is specifically 202m long (404m doubled-up) but it's the same rough standard. But if we were talking Japan then train lengths can be anywhere from seven to sixteen coaches with a range of lengths from 150-400m. Their cab vehicles with their varying nose designs will often push the length into less rounded numbers even if the intermediate coaches remain 25m long.

I believe on the 3ft 6in pretty much everything can be coupled and multipled. I learnt this reading about the Imperial Saloon which can apparently be coupled into any emu formation from the lowliest stopping commuter train to the special matching executive business train that can be hired out for other uses when not required for imperial duties. I expect they carried this philosophy over into the Shinkansen era.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Perhaps the chosen ETR1000-based trains might be reconfigurable, depending on what their onboard control systems can handle. The design's base 8 car configuration has 4 power and 4 trailer cars in formation DM1-TT2-M3-T4-T5-M6-TT7-DM8, so a notional extension might add cars in pairs of 1 motor, 1 trailer, without changing the power-to-weight relationship and thus maintaining performance, if other onboard systems can be reengineered to support that.

However, HS2 really shot itself in the foot with the following clause from the rolling stock specification:

https://assets.hs2.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/27130700/HS2-HS2-RR-SPE-000-000007_P11_TTS_Main_Body__External_.pdf

So they may have been offered and could be contracted to purchase a train that cannot easily be reformed, either in manufacture or subsequently.

If units are made up of pairs of motor+trailer coaches. Perhaps some of the 200m units could have two pairs removed to make 100m units that can be coupled to a 200m unit to make 300m for Preston and beyond (allowing a possibility of splitting & joining). The left over pairs of coaches could be inserted into 200m units to make 300m units for Manchester.

Another way to look at it would be to remove one pair of (motor+trailer) coaches from several 200m units making 150m units if preferred. The left over pairs of coaches would still be used to lengthen 200m units to 300m units for Manchester.

But will these HS2 units be configurable like that.
I am reminded of how straight forward it has NOT been lengthening class 458 units and then shortening them again - who made them........

 

[tfw756rider]

I am reminded of how straight forward it has NOT been lengthening class 458 units and then shortening them again - who made them........

Alstom, but "old Alstom" at Washwood Heath, whereas the Alstom factories involved in the build of the 895s are ex-Bombardier.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Alstom, but "old Alstom" at Washwood Heath, whereas the Alstom factories involved in the build of the 895s are ex-Bombardier.

Oh well the 222s then. I recall it was said that the reason the option of giving the 222s a pantograph car to make them Bi-Mode did not go forward was because of high cost. Mind you that might have been a long time after the original build so not necessarily about true flexibility.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Chris Gibb, who has held senior roles on the passenger railway and is currently a non-exec to DfT's DFTO operation, has proposed that HS2 keeps the current contract for 54x8-car 200m trains, and orders a separate replacement fleet for Pendolinos to maintain capacity and journey times on the WCML post-HS2 starting.
This is his personal contribution and is not any kind of policy, but is a suggestion for a solution to the matching of supply and demand on HS2/WCML, without incurring the high costs of renegotiating the HS2 contract.

He has presented this to DfT/parliamentary bodies, and is reported in today's Guardian:

Plans to change HS2 train size could reduce capacity and speed in north, says expert

Review of original train order is meant to prevent service problems north of Birmingham but it may do the opposite

www.theguardian.com

He told politicians and industry representatives at the all-party parliamentary rail group in Westminster that despite his role and being a “keen advocate of HS2” for 18 years, he was speaking out in a personal capacity “because I feel obliged to offer leadership by example and to act in the public interest”.

Gibb said there could be “no doubt that if HS2 opened by replacing 11-coach Pendolinos with eight-coach trains these would be full and leave people behind on day one”.
But to change the contract, he said, would cost time and money – and each of the potential contract variations had downsides, including wasting work already done on HS2 stations and depots.

Gibb said the government should instead retain the original train order with Alstom and Hitachi, avoiding contractual penalties and delays. But it should also plan to replace the current Pendolino fleet with longer, faster, modern versions, ready for when HS2 services start running to the north around 2040.
He said this would “give a significant increase in capacity, revenue and a reduction in journey times on all routes, with no further railway construction needed for now”.

I presume he is talking about a fleet that could tilt on classic lines and also operate on HS2, but that presumes a GB-gauge tilting design can be acquired relatively quickly (eg based on Alstom's Avelia Liberty).
That's an alternative to his previous suggestion of adapting the current Pendolinos to operate on HS2, bearing in mind how old the 390s will be in the mid-2030s.

 

[Sorcerer]

Chris Gibb, who has held senior roles on the passenger railway and is currently a non-exec to DfT's DFTO operation, has proposed that HS2 keeps the current contract for 54x8-car 200m trains, and orders a separate replacement fleet for Pendolinos to maintain capacity and journey times on the WCML post-HS2 starting.
This is his personal contribution and is not any kind of policy, but is a suggestion for a solution to the matching of supply and demand on HS2/WCML, without incurring the high costs of renegotiating the HS2 contract.

He has presented this to DfT/parliamentary bodies, and is reported in today's Guardian:

Plans to change HS2 train size could reduce capacity and speed in north, says expert

Review of original train order is meant to prevent service problems north of Birmingham but it may do the opposite

www.theguardian.com

I presume he is talking about a fleet that could tilt on classic lines and also operate on HS2, but that presumes a GB-gauge tilting design can be acquired relatively quickly (eg based on Alstom's Avelia Liberty).
That's an alternative to his previous suggestion of adapting the current Pendolinos to operate on HS2, bearing in mind how old the 390s will be in the mid-2030s.

The Pendolinos are solid units and I'm confident they could potentially last into the 2040s. But assuming they don't and a fleet replacement is needed beyond the HS2 stock, I wouldn't expect it to be a tilting train. It would be rendered obsolete pretty quickly because the fast services would be due to go to HS2 thereby negating any benefit of tilt, and the technology would also require an updated TASS system which Alstom aren't prepared to support.

 

[rwblake]

Tilt isn't really required anymore. "faster" units can mean lighterweight, better accelerating units which make up for lower linespeeds. Also, linespeeds have been increased in places for non-tilt stock anyway. It also means larger saloons.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Chris Gibb, who has held senior roles on the passenger railway and is currently a non-exec to DfT's DFTO operation, has proposed that HS2 keeps the current contract for 54x8-car 200m trains, and orders a separate replacement fleet for Pendolinos to maintain capacity and journey times on the WCML post-HS2 starting.
This is his personal contribution and is not any kind of policy, but is a suggestion for a solution to the matching of supply and demand on HS2/WCML, without incurring the high costs of renegotiating the HS2 contract.

He has presented this to DfT/parliamentary bodies, and is reported in today's Guardian:

Plans to change HS2 train size could reduce capacity and speed in north, says expert

Review of original train order is meant to prevent service problems north of Birmingham but it may do the opposite

www.theguardian.com

I presume he is talking about a fleet that could tilt on classic lines and also operate on HS2, but that presumes a GB-gauge tilting design can be acquired relatively quickly (eg based on Alstom's Avelia Liberty).
That's an alternative to his previous suggestion of adapting the current Pendolinos to operate on HS2, bearing in mind how old the 390s will be in the mid-2030s.

I would think Tilt is no longer a must have. After all the 805s and 807s have come into service on WCML intercity services without tilt. Given these potential new WCML units will quite quickly (fingers crossed) not be working on the Southern WCML then tilt will be even less important.

I assume it might be just a small enough fleet to satisfy Manchester workings. Other wise HS2 will have plenty of stock going forward !.

 

[zwk500]

Agree with the 2 posters above, the business case for procuring and maintaining trains & infrastructure able to support tilt must be pretty marginal now (at best) when compared to procuring a new unit with IET acceleration levels and the track being upgraded for non-tilt MU speed increases.

Especially as a non-tilt fleet would be able to have floors better matched to the platform height and have a bigger cabin with bigger overhead racks as they don't need to taper for the tilt.
I wonder how much NR would save on maintenance and enhancements by not needing to consider TASS, especially with digital railway on the horizon.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Agree with the 2 posters above, the business case for procuring and maintaining trains & infrastructure able to support tilt must be pretty marginal now (at best) when compared to procuring a new unit with IET acceleration levels and the track being upgraded for non-tilt MU speed increases.

Especially as a non-tilt fleet would be able to have floors better matched to the platform height and have a bigger cabin with bigger overhead racks as they don't need to taper for the tilt.
I wonder how much NR would save on maintenance and enhancements by not needing to consider TASS, especially with digital railway on the horizon.

Yes. Non-tilting will be less claustrophobic inside than a Pendolino hopefully. I find the Pendolinos unpleasant in that respect - I prefer 350s or 730s. I have travelled once in an 805 which was pleasant enough (only from Crewe to Chester mind so cannot judge the seats) and recently in a Pendolino from Crewe to Stafford, I much preferred the open feeling of the 805.

 

[FGWHST43009]

Tilt isn't really required anymore. "faster" units can mean lighterweight, better accelerating units which make up for lower linespeeds. Also, linespeeds have been increased in places for non-tilt stock anyway. It also means larger saloons.

I agree, tilt's benefits have been negated somewhat by better acceleration of 80x

Yes. Non-tilting will be less claustrophobic inside than a Pendolino hopefully. I find the Pendolinos unpleasant in that respect - I prefer 350s or 730s. I have travelled once in an 805 which was pleasant enough (only from Crewe to Chester mind so cannot judge the seats) and recently in a Pendolino from Crewe to Stafford, I much preferred the open feeling of the 805.

I agree, while I do like the cosy Pendolino, I find the Voyager more pleasant despite the older interior. While the Voyager was built with tilt in mind, the tilt angle is lower so the body doesn't taper as much like the Pendolino. However I'd take an HST or a 225 over both anytime.

Agree with the 2 posters above, the business case for procuring and maintaining trains & infrastructure able to support tilt must be pretty marginal now (at best) when compared to procuring a new unit with IET acceleration levels and the track being upgraded for non-tilt MU speed increases.

Especially as a non-tilt fleet would be able to have floors better matched to the platform height and have a bigger cabin with bigger overhead racks as they don't need to taper for the tilt.
I wonder how much NR would save on maintenance and enhancements by not needing to consider TASS, especially with digital railway on the horizon.

I've been thinking about the differences between tilt and non-tilt. While an 807 is likely to be slower than a Pendolino on an existing Euston-Glasgow run, it would be interesting to see if the difference changes if MU speeds are implemented further north on the WCML. Are there still plans for increased non-tilt speeds from Weaver Junction to Glasgow?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Agree with the 2 posters above, the business case for procuring and maintaining trains & infrastructure able to support tilt must be pretty marginal now (at best) when compared to procuring a new unit with IET acceleration levels and the track being upgraded for non-tilt MU speed increases.

Especially as a non-tilt fleet would be able to have floors better matched to the platform height and have a bigger cabin with bigger overhead racks as they don't need to taper for the tilt.
I wonder how much NR would save on maintenance and enhancements by not needing to consider TASS, especially with digital railway on the horizon.

There have been no track upgrades for non-tilt 805/7 on the WCML.
Just a set of new speed boards relating to the existing track.

Nobody seems to be addressing the elephant in the room - 8-car HS2 stock versus 390 capacity and journey times on the path-limited WCML north of Handsacre.

 

[Snow1964]

Chris Gibb, who has held senior roles on the passenger railway and is currently a non-exec to DfT's DFTO operation, has proposed that HS2 keeps the current contract for 54x8-car 200m trains, and orders a separate replacement fleet for Pendolinos to maintain capacity and journey times on the WCML post-HS2 starting.

There is lot of logic in this, it is also worth remembering the DfT has been showing 29 trains (plus options) for TPE, which a published Government letter said would be about 205m long.

This is his personal contribution and is not any kind of policy, but is a suggestion for a solution to the matching of supply and demand on HS2/WCML, without incurring the high costs of renegotiating the HS2 contract.

I suspect the cost of changing HS2 contract could be huge, maybe 25+% of contract value, suggests might get about 15 trains for same money.

He has presented this to DfT/parliamentary bodies, and is reported in today's Guardian:

Plans to change HS2 train size could reduce capacity and speed in north, says expert

Review of original train order is meant to prevent service problems north of Birmingham but it may do the opposite

www.theguardian.com

And hopefully ministers realise any variation idea is just wasting money, especially as the ordered fleet was designed to work on current electrified network beyond end of HS2

I presume he is talking about a fleet that could tilt on classic lines and also operate on HS2, but that presumes a GB-gauge tilting design can be acquired relatively quickly (eg based on Alstom's Avelia Liberty).

Not convinced need a tilting fleet, maybe for routes north of Lancaster, but not worth it elsewhere. There is added complexity, more cramped interiors. I suspect the few locations where tilt could really make a significant speed difference would not really justify retaining a small non standard tilting fleet after 390s are withdrawn

That's an alternative to his previous suggestion of adapting the current Pendolinos to operate on HS2, bearing in mind how old the 390s will be in the mid-2030s.

Generally speaking, cost of significant changes when a train is around 30 years old (which most of 390s will be, by time HS2 opens) never makes financial sense. Even less sense if considering buying new fully electric trains for lines like TPE at same time, (or say Paddington-Swansea to release bimodes), because better to cascade a few for a decade (cost of training a few crews is lot less than a train rebuild)

 

[Sorcerer]

Nobody seems to be addressing the elephant in the room - 8-car HS2 stock versus 390 capacity and journey times on the path-limited WCML north of Handsacre.

With the right layout and seating density, an 8-coach 895 could have more seats than a 9-coach 390 (the 807s are already close with seven carriages; 453 vs 469 seats with more standard class seating). The real issue is where routes require 11-coach sets such as Manchester which is why some of the fleet should really be reconfigured to 275/300m long sets.

There is lot of logic in this, it is also worth remembering the DfT has been showing 29 trains (plus options) for TPE, which a published Government letter said would be about 205m long.

Is this perhaps to say that a Pendolino replacement fleet could be cascaded to TPE once HS2 is operational? Assuming the TransPennine route doesn't need the capacity as urgently that might work if it's a non-tilt fleet. Or perhaps the TPE fleet order could exercise the option for extra units beyond the initial 29 for west coast operations?

 

[FGWHST43009]

Chris Gibb, who has held senior roles on the passenger railway and is currently a non-exec to DfT's DFTO operation, has proposed that HS2 keeps the current contract for 54x8-car 200m trains, and orders a separate replacement fleet for Pendolinos to maintain capacity and journey times on the WCML post-HS2 starting.
This is his personal contribution and is not any kind of policy, but is a suggestion for a solution to the matching of supply and demand on HS2/WCML, without incurring the high costs of renegotiating the HS2 contract.

He has presented this to DfT/parliamentary bodies, and is reported in today's Guardian:

Plans to change HS2 train size could reduce capacity and speed in north, says expert

Review of original train order is meant to prevent service problems north of Birmingham but it may do the opposite

www.theguardian.com

I presume he is talking about a fleet that could tilt on classic lines and also operate on HS2, but that presumes a GB-gauge tilting design can be acquired relatively quickly (eg based on Alstom's Avelia Liberty).
That's an alternative to his previous suggestion of adapting the current Pendolinos to operate on HS2, bearing in mind how old the 390s will be in the mid-2030s.

With the right layout and seating density, an 8-coach 895 could have more seats than a 9-coach 390 (the 807s are already close with seven carriages; 453 vs 469 seats with more standard class seating). The real issue is where routes require 11-coach sets such as Manchester which is why some of the fleet should really be reconfigured to 275/300m long sets.

Is this perhaps to say that a Pendolino replacement fleet could be cascaded to TPE once HS2 is operational? Assuming the TransPennine route doesn't need the capacity as urgently that might work if it's a non-tilt fleet. Or perhaps the TPE fleet order could exercise the option for extra units beyond the initial 29 for west coast operations?

Agreed, I wouldn't bother with tilt and just make a second order for 10-car 395s and maintain them at Polmadie and Manchester Longsight.

Alternatively, the new tilting fleet could be a tilting version of the Avelia Stream planned to be ordered by Virgin Trains for Channel Tunnel services. Of course loading gauge would be smaller due to the UK loading gauge, but surely it's possible to fit bigger windows than on a 390? Voyagers were built to tilt and they have bigger windows than Pendolinos. Once tilt no longer becomes a requirement change the bogies to non-tilt ones and isolate the tilting mechanism.

 

[tfw756rider]

Alternatively, the new tilting fleet could be a tilting version of the Avelia Stream planned to be ordered by Virgin Trains for Channel Tunnel services. Of course loading gauge would be smaller due to the UK loading gauge, but surely it's possible to fit bigger windows than on a 390? Voyagers were built to tilt and they have bigger windows than Pendolinos. Once tilt no longer becomes a requirement change the bogies to non-tilt ones and isolate the tilting mechanism.

The 390s and 221s (the latter as built) have different tilt mechanisms. The 390s have electromechanical actuators and maximum 8 degree tilt, whereas the 221s (as built) have hydraulic actuators and maximum 6 degree tilt. Maybe that would affect the window size, I don't know.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The 390s and 221s (the latter as built) have different tilt mechanisms. The 390s have electromechanical actuators and maximum 8 degree tilt, whereas the 221s (as built) have hydraulic actuators and maximum 6 degree tilt. Maybe that would affect the window size, I don't know.

It wouldn't affect window size, but could affect profile (how sloped the bodysides are). Pendolinos have small windows simply because they do - they're quite small on Euro Pendolinos too, and the structure has been scaled down for UK gauge.

 

[FGWHST43009]

The 390s and 221s (the latter as built) have different tilt mechanisms. The 390s have electromechanical actuators and maximum 8 degree tilt, whereas the 221s (as built) have hydraulic actuators and maximum 6 degree tilt. Maybe that would affect the window size, I don't know.

It wouldn't affect window size, but could affect profile (how sloped the bodysides are). Pendolinos have small windows simply because they do - they're quite small on Euro Pendolinos too, and the structure has been scaled down for UK gauge.

The windows on the New Pendolinos (now the Avelia Stream) do look bigger than older Pendolinos. Assuming they use an upgraded tilting technology (likely Tiltronix as they're from the same manufacturer), then a 300kmh UK version is likely to be a scaled down, turbocharged version of the New Pendolino. While windows are quite frankly trivial, the small size of those on the Pendolinos makes them less pleasant than a Voyager, but as mentioned before that could be due to the differences in tilting tech.

That said, assuming that HS2 is (eventually, maybe opening as early as 2100) extended further north, then tilt's value diminishes.

On the subject of tilt, are there still plans for faster non-tilt speeds further north than Weaver Junction?

When is a decision on rolling stock likely to be made? Also, surely a more straightforward solution would be to make a separate order for the extra coaches for 250/275/300m sets with identical specifications? To solve the depot issue maintain the longer sets at Polmadie and Longsight?

 

[Sorcerer]

Alternatively, the new tilting fleet could be a tilting version of the Avelia Stream planned to be ordered by Virgin Trains for Channel Tunnel services. Of course loading gauge would be smaller due to the UK loading gauge, but surely it's possible to fit bigger windows than on a 390? Voyagers were built to tilt and they have bigger windows than Pendolinos. Once tilt no longer becomes a requirement change the bogies to non-tilt ones and isolate the tilting mechanism.

I think using tilt as a short-term solution would be less preferable than just having one that tilts throughout it's lifetime. The expense of building a new tilting train combined with software updates for TASS would make it uneconomical to just have it run in tilt mode until HS2 is operational. You'd want a maximum return on investment, so either you'd go for non-tilt stock or chose the more expensive option to support it for another 30 years even when it becomes redundant.

 

[zwk500]

I think using tilt as a short-term solution would be less preferable than just having one that tilts throughout it's lifetime. The expense of building a new tilting train combined with software updates for TASS would make it uneconomical to just have it run in tilt mode until HS2 is operational. You'd want a maximum return on investment, so either you'd go for non-tilt stock or chose the more expensive option to support it for another 30 years even when it becomes redundant.

Maximum return on investment would be to abandon tilt, and everything that goes with it, and invest in improvements which as many trains as possible can benefit from.

 

[Sorcerer]

Maximum return on investment would be to abandon tilt, and everything that goes with it, and invest in improvements which as many trains as possible can benefit from.

I agree. Although the option for full lifetime tilt would be better than half-life just based on the expenses of the construction and TASS upgrades, it would be more economical to just run non-tilt from the start. I think now more than ever it's clear that 125mph running being reserved for tilting trains on the WCML was mostly because Virgin wanted a return on the Pendolino investment rather than because of engineering limitations.

 

[FGWHST43009]

I think using tilt as a short-term solution would be less preferable than just having one that tilts throughout it's lifetime. The expense of building a new tilting train combined with software updates for TASS would make it uneconomical to just have it run in tilt mode until HS2 is operational. You'd want a maximum return on investment, so either you'd go for non-tilt stock or chose the more expensive option to support it for another 30 years even when it becomes redundant.

I agree, ultimately as mentioned before, I think a separate order for more coaches for 250/275m sets and maintenance at Polmadie and Longsight should be doable. Increase non-tilt speeds on the northern WCML and run limited stop, Euston, Old Oak Common, Preston, Carlisle, Glasgow Central

 

[Sorcerer]

I agree, ultimately as mentioned before, I think a separate order for more coaches for 250/275m sets and maintenance at Polmadie and Longsight should be doable. Increase non-tilt speeds on the northern WCML and run limited stop, Euston, Old Oak Common, Preston, Carlisle, Glasgow Central

I think the less variation the better, so I would say maybe a batch of 200m 8-coach sets and 300m 12-coach set would be preferable, or failing that possibly a 275m 11-coach set. Not sure if the Zefiro platform can run in odd numbers but it can certainly run in 8 and 16-coach formations, so perhaps a 12-coach isn't outside the realm of possibility. There are three-coach Vasttrafik sets in Sweden but I don't know if that means a high-speed set can run in odd formations too.

 

[Krokodil]

You really don't want it any longer than a 390/1 because most of the stations you'd be looking at serving can only just fit one of those.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think the less variation the better, so I would say maybe a batch of 200m 8-coach sets and 300m 12-coach set would be preferable, or failing that possibly a 275m 11-coach set. Not sure if the Zefiro platform can run in odd numbers but it can certainly run in 8 and 16-coach formations, so perhaps a 12-coach isn't outside the realm of possibility. There are three-coach Vasttrafik sets in Sweden but I don't know if that means a high-speed set can run in odd formations too.

I think that if we leave the original 200m order alone then best to order just one longer than 200m version of the same platform. Make the longer version about the same length as an 11car 390/1, no longer. As others have said maintained at Polmadie and Longsight.
The only downside is then perhaps we will have a surplus of 200m sets ?.
SO perhaps just order extra coaches for some of the existing sets ordered - is that too much of a variation ?.

 

[FGWHST43009]

I think that if we leave the original 200m order alone then best to order just one longer than 200m version of the same platform (make it almost the same length as an 11car 390/1. As others have said maintained at Polmadie and Longsight. The only downside is then perhaps we will have a surplus of 200m sets ?.

Use the remaining 200m sets to replace Pendolinos on classic WCML routes

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Apr 2026 ==

I think the less variation the better, so I would say maybe a batch of 200m 8-coach sets and 300m 12-coach set would be preferable, or failing that possibly a 275m 11-coach set. Not sure if the Zefiro platform can run in odd numbers but it can certainly run in 8 and 16-coach formations, so perhaps a 12-coach isn't outside the realm of possibility. There are three-coach Vasttrafik sets in Sweden but I don't know if that means a high-speed set can run in odd formations too.

I reckon buying more coaches to run 11-car 895s and modifying Polmadie and Longsight will probably cost less than buying bespoke 300kmh, UK loading gauge tilting trains and the associated depot modifications and maintaining TASS balises