HST 8 or 9 coach?

[sprinterguy]

I don't recall how many of the HST's are GW franchise assets, but there could be an argument that if there are enough of them to consider lengthening some rakes then there wouldn't be any additional leasing costs.

Five sets are owned by First Group, but I wasn't aware that this made them assets of the Great Western franchise in the way that three of the 143s are - the HSTs are tied to First rather than the franchise, as I understand it.

On a slightly crazy side question, would it be possible to run a pair of class 43's with six coaches with a further class 43 and a further 3 coaches (so the class 43 is at the end of the train) on one end so as to be able to leave the third class 43 and the 3 coaches at (say) Plymouth?

43, coach, coach, coach, coach, coach, coach, 43, coach, coach, coach, 43

In terms of length is would be slightly longer than 260m so not too dissimilar to a 10 coach 80x.

As I said a crazy question, which would likely be impractical if for no other reason that the horrendous track access charges that it would incur (208.14 ppm). Although some of that would be offset by a slightly lower track access charge west of Plymouth (138.76 ppm vs 156.14 ppm for the current set up).

In general, HSTs are only fitted with an emergency coupler at the nose end. As far as I know, this is incompatible with the buckeye coupler fitted to HST mark 3 stock - they don't have conventional coupling hooks. You might have more luck if you fitted a dropable buckeye to the nose end of the buffer fitted power cars, although as you say it is a bit of a crazy suggestion: The Great Western HSTs have only got three more years to go, the track access charges and probably fuel costs would be prohibitive and that's an awful lot of wasted platform space with having three power cars in the formation.

 

[heart-of-wessex]

Also FGW do use 2+9 in the summer to Newquay on some services.

Was that not the one that was 2+9 but only 8 was open, the 9th being an extra TGS, locked out for passenger use, as a surfboard coach? Or was that for some other Newquay service?

 

[The Ham]

Five sets are owned by First Group, but I wasn't aware that this made them assets of the Great Western franchise in the way that three of the 143s are - the HSTs are tied to First rather than the franchise, as I understand it.

OK, thanks I wasn't sure. I knew someone (other than a ROSCO) owned some.

 

[jimm]

Was that not the one that was 2+9 but only 8 was open, the 9th being an extra TGS, locked out for passenger use, as a surfboard coach? Or was that for some other Newquay service?

Yes. As was already explained in post 20 on page 2 of this thread by 455driver.

 

[sprinterguy]

You might have more luck if you fitted a dropable buckeye to the nose end of the buffer fitted power cars, although as you say it is a bit of a crazy suggestion...

Having thought about it some more, it's not just a bit crazy, it's completely unworkable: While the buckeye coupler provides a physical connection, there'd be no way to provide electrical supply to the coaches of the rear portion, or control signals to the rear power car. The rear power car would have to be left at idle in order to provide heat and light to that portion, and as was found with the surrogate DVTs at the time of the ECML electrification, this is seriously detrimental to the health of the power car.

Plus, this would result in the sets hauling around the added weight of an extra trailer AND a dead power car over the current 2+8 formations - Not good for the Devon banks, or scheduling in general.

Additionally, the coupling and uncoupling procedure wouldn't be a straightforward procedure like it is with the autocouplers on modern units, and would be a lengthy faff on requiring the driver to get down on the ballast and inbetween the vehicles on a regular basis. HST formations are only rarely split (although FGW sets more often than others, it seems) and always at depots (excepting major failures).

Totally unworkable.

 

[43096]

Five sets are owned by First Group, but I wasn't aware that this made them assets of the Great Western franchise in the way that three of the 143s are - the HSTs are tied to First rather than the franchise, as I understand it.

You are correct. The sets are owned by FirstGroup (think it is (or was) technically First Rail Holdings) and are not franchise assets. The GWR franchise leases them as it does with other stock, just from an internal First company.