HST replacement

[MattRat]

Not enoogh range for intercity routes, surely?

It would at minimum reduce the amount of electrification needed.

 

[Clarence Yard]

New stock wasn’t an option. The DfT were looking for a quick fix by using older stock, preferably one that didn’t need too much driver or fitters training.

 

[class 9]

If that is the case then why did DfT authorise the expenditure to the GWR franchise to take them on ? Presumably also, GWR will be paying a higher leasing charge on them.
Logic suggests they should have acquired new Hitachi AT200 platform multiple units - probably a huge benefit of staff training and maintenance inventory.

Everything has changed since covid, the focus of the industry is cost cutting at any cost, many TOCs are having cancellations due to Driver shortages, but these very TOCs are being prevented from entering into Rest Day working agreements.

 

[computerSaysNo]

It would at minimum reduce the amount of electrification needed.

I'm a fan of electric units with short-range batteries or other propulsion, as they would allow Network Rail to electrify more of the easy/cheap parts of the network while still allowing electric trains to operate over a wider area.

 

[snowball]

It would at minimum reduce the amount of electrification needed.

In the medium term, yes, Scotland seems to be committed to partial electrification of main routes with the use of battery trains, as the quickest way of eliminating diesel. But for the longer term they seem to be aiming for full electrification for all but the most peripheral routes.

 

[MattRat]

In the medium term, yes, Scotland seems to be committed to partial electrification of main routes with the use of battery trains, as the quickest way of eliminating diesel. But for the longer term they seem to be aiming for full electrification for all but the most peripheral routes.

And what exactly is the harm of the interim solution? I don't think it could end up being wasteful.

 

[Nova1]

For GWR: Buy a good fleet of 196s and call it a day? although I'd probably wait to see what they are like in service once CAF have finally sorted them out.

 

[XAM2175]

So I just stumbled across something. Apparently Porterbrook are considering putting batteries in their 350s. Would this fit Scotland's needs?

There is a presumption against units with mid-saloon doors for these routes. It should be remembered the HSTs were selected because passenger surveys indicated a strong desire for intercity-style door configuration and the absence of underfloor engines. There is an argument that passengers said this simply because they were comparing VTEC's HSTs with SR's 170s, but I would assume that Transport Scotland will continue to be influenced by those surveys when seeking the long-term replacement fleet.

And what exactly is the harm of the interim solution? I don't think it could end up being wasteful.

Interim solutions still cost money, and they can very easily be wasteful if they're inadequate and/or little-used.

But tilting the scales back the other way is the need to consider further 'reasonably practicable' steps to improve the crashworthiness of HSTs, and withdrawal is explicitly mentioned as an option in the RAIB report on the Stonehaven derailment.

The comment of mine that you quoted was meant as context for an explanation of why the Voyagers were once a sensible choice over HSTs, but yes - and as I also noted - the exact extent of the withdrawal fervour will influence the relative acceptability of other fleets.

 

[swt_passenger]

So I just stumbled across something. Apparently Porterbrook are considering putting batteries in their 350s. Would this fit Scotland's needs?

Nothing’s happened since that was first announced, mainly because the units haven’t become available yet. I’m not holding my breath that they’ll be fitted with batteries, they’re already about the heaviest EMUs there are…

 

[JonathanH]

For GWR: Buy a good fleet of 196s and call it a day? although I'd probably wait to see what they are like in service once CAF have finally sorted them out.

The aim is not to buy diesel powered vehicles, and to eek out the remaining life of the BR legacy fleet to fill the gap before something better is available.

It could of course be that 196s retire to Cornwall once electrification removes them from the West Midlands, with the 15x / 16x fleets managing until then (but I don't think a 196 would get to Gunnislake or Looe).

 

[Nova1]

The aim is not to buy diesel powered vehicles, and to eek out the remaining life of the BR legacy fleet to fill the gap before something better is available.

What is this "better" going to even be though?
Battery technology seems a long way off
Electrification even further off
Some hybrid solution maybe?

 

[Bletchleyite]

80x are a drop in fit, and would work well with progressive electrification.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

80x are a drop in fit, and would work well with progressive electrification.

As would Stadler Flirts.

For GWR short-sets, 158s from TfW or EMR seem like the obvious replacement. For XC, the Voyagers from AWC likewise.

Scotrail's I7C fleet is a bit more tricky if we assume that the features that led to HSTs being chosen, still apply. Providing that funding can be found, a variant of the Flirt would be ideal:- diesel and/or battery in class 755-style pods, plus 25kv capability.

 

[XAM2175]

Scotrail's I7C fleet is a bit more tricky if we assume that the features that led to HSTs being chosen, still apply. Providing that funding can be found, a variant of the Flirt would be ideal:- diesel and/or battery in class 755-style pods, plus 25kv capability.

That's very much my hope. Stadler have already managed to get just shy of 140 miles of range out of the FLIRT Akku (admittedly on mostly-flat ground, but in near freezing conditions) and the technology is only going to mature further.

Plus, the FLIRT's low-floor boarding will be a massive improvement over the current situation on the HML (and I say this as somebody who's taken a fall trying to negotiate the vast step-up boarding an HST at Perth).

 

[LOL The Irony]

I feel like giving ScotRail 22xs will be robbing Peter (XC) to pay Paul (ScotRail). AFAIK, XC also won't need crew training (at least on the 221s). GWR would be best served by trains from Bombarderstom or Hitachi and ScotRail would be best served by trains from Hitachi or Stadler.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I feel like giving ScotRail 22xs will be robbing Peter (XC) to pay Paul (ScotRail). AFAIK, XC also won't need crew training (at least on the 221s). GWR would be best served by trains from Bombarderstom or Hitachi and ScotRail would be best served by trains from Hitachi or Stadler.

To be fair there are 2 lots of 22x coming up, and XC won't necessarily need both.

 

[43096]

80x are a drop in fit, and would work well with progressive electrification.

They’re not. They are massively over specified for those routes. You do not need a 140mph call able train for 100mph routes.

 

[Snow1964]

This is where a new standard design secondary route longer distance train should be built.

Say 100-150 units of 5cars, with something like class 444 bodywork, with top speed of 110mph. All built as hybrids (diesel and 25kv, with say 40-50 units also equipped for 3rd rail).

Use the tri-mode ones on Cardiff-Portsmouth and Waterloo-Exeter, allocate the others to replace shortened HSTs and few similar services with newer diesels and faster spare 22x which can be redeployed, and will have covered virtually all Britain’s new train requirement until 2030.

Even if DFT and GBR think they need the latest new train that is only on a drawing board, and will probably be delivered with faulty software, what really should do is take the Lego approach and just re-use parts of existing trains that work, and put them together. Does it really matter if you use say hybrid system from 807, with bogies from a 110mph EMU, with seats from something else, and a reliable toilet from another recent design etc.

 

[Irascible]

Yes, we did discuss the "new 158" a lot over the last year or two... I am starting to think we should actually throw new engines/ancilliaries at the 158s/16x & wait until battery tech is more mature ( and possibly until there's a bigger budget ), unless there's a smoking gun hidden in the units. I suspect down this way we're going to be riding the things for a couple of decades anyway unless they disintegrate, so might as well. Cummins offer some in-class bus engines with stop-start capability, that might be worth looking at. Modern engines are also already set up for biofuels or compressed gas too.

80x on the stoppers is ... excessive. I guess they do get to use the wires for a tiny bit of the journey just to tick a box... wonder how much fuel that saves compared to ripping the transformers out ( no I'm not suggesting actually doing that ).

 

[JonathanH]

80x on the stoppers is ... excessive.

Yes, it is but GWR have them on a long lease that they can't get out of so if they use them instead of having to lease extra units they are actually saving money.

 

[Irascible]

Yes, it is but GWR have them on a long lease that they can't get out of so if they use them instead of having to lease extra units they are actually saving money.

Are they allowed to sub-lease them? I shall take a pre-emptive guess of "no", but I don't know.

 

[Wyrleybart]

New stock wasn’t an option. The DfT were looking for a quick fix by using older stock, preferably one that didn’t need too much driver or fitters training.

Yes. I realise that "CY" but when did the DfT actually employ joined up thinking ? It is the one thing the DfT probably have got right, but when do the lines on the graph converge between continued costs of operating the 2+4s, and making the most of the sliding door investment, before carting them off to the scrapyard ? The XC "sliders" are barely two years old - or at least it feels like it. In the case of GW01-GW16 they must have saved a fortune on "reusing" the existing HST traction skills in the West Country, but perhaps that has now got to the point where training a new driver on HST is at least as costly now as training on DMUs. The 2+4s did a fantastic job at the time, and maybe there could be a little more to eke from that.

 

[LOL The Irony]

To be fair there are 2 lots of 22x coming up, and XC won't necessarily need both.

But introducing both will introduce 7 car 22x and allow pretty much all voyager services to operate as double units. The 7 car 222s and any extra remaining double Voyagers can then replace the HSTs.

This is where a new standard design secondary route longer distance train should be built.

Say 100-150 units of 5cars, with something like class 444 bodywork, with top speed of 110mph. All built as hybrids (diesel and 25kv, with say 40-50 units also equipped for 3rd rail).

Yes, and then give the contracts to Siemens to make up for the HS2 debacle.

Yes, we did discuss the "new 158" a lot over the last year or two... I am starting to think we should actually throw new engines/ancilliaries at the 158s/16x & wait until battery tech is more mature ( and possibly until there's a bigger budget ), unless there's a smoking gun hidden in the units.

Corrosion is the biggest factor and their welds are known issues (see welding aluminium and Ladbrook Grove).

 

[Bletchleyite]

This "super 158" or "Class 344" already exists - 5 car 80x. Yes, they have an unnecessarily high top speed, but that offers flexibility of deployment and avoids them getting in the way if they run onto fast mainlines, even temporarily. Just get an order in, and it doesn't even need the awful seats now First have had a new one certified.

I suppose you could get Hitachi to build one with a 110mph top speed and more seats towards the nose, but then you lose the benefits of standardisation.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I suppose you could get Hitachi to build one with a 110mph top speed and more seats towards the nose, but then you lose the benefits of standardisation.

Or bi modal AT100s, since they'll share components.

 

[Irascible]

Corrosion is the biggest factor and their welds are known issues (see welding aluminium and Ladbrook Grove).

This "super 158" or "Class 344" already exists - 5 car 80x. Yes, they have an unnecessarily high top speed, but that offers flexibility of deployment and avoids them getting in the way if they run onto fast mainlines, even temporarily. Just get an order in, and it doesn't even need the awful seats now First have had a new one certified.

So, er, instead of using older units we think might have some cracking issues, we order new units which we can almost guarantee will have cracking issues? :P 80x also somewhat overkill on WoE & Barnstaple runs, as examples ( I'm sure there's others elsewhere in the country ).

Other than the initial yaw damper bracket problems have there been known cracking problems with the 158 fleet? not talking about isolated cases.

 

[Pete_uk]

Ok, TPE could be offered a load of new 800s to replace the Mk5s and loco which will go to replace the ScotRail HSTs.

The Great Western HSTs can be replaced with 4 or 5 car 800s bimode which are geared to, say, 100mph.

A shed load of 3 car 19x (or Staderler equivalent) bi modes (Diesel & pantograph/batteries) to replace 150s (and 156s for other operators)

 

[Bletchleyite]

There would be some sense in that swap as it would give TPE a more homogeneous fleet.

 

[MattRat]

There would be some sense in that swap as it would give TPE a more homogeneous fleet.

Locos would also be easier to swap out than a unit, with the locos likely handled by DRS. However, I think it would be more likely for ScotRail to obtain the stock separately than via TPE, as TPE seem dedicated to maintaining the MK5a stock, although there is speculation of them replacing the 68s with 93s.

 

[Clansman]

In light of the Carmont report, if political will forced the ScotRail HSTs into being replaced before new built net zero stock is procured, then the solution is a straight forward one.

Keep the 156s after Barrhead/EK electrification and cancel plans to displace them on GSWR/WHL by ~2023/24 (presumably by 158s).

Any remaining gaps, if at all, get plugged in by absorbing 156s through the Borders, Fife, or Anniesland centralised around linear routes from depots which still sign them (Edinburgh and Queen Street), and the 158s/170s blanket cover everything else as per pre Abellio.

No 22Xs, no Mk5s, and no 175s. Extend the leases, take a short term 2018-style capacity hit, and make do and mend from then on in until 2030 knowing that the past 7 years has been a catastrophic write-off.