Is the suggestion that single 170s and possibly pairs of 158s directly replace HSTs in due course with some attempt to price passengers off the trains?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
HST replacement
- Thread starter Helvellyn
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
A pair of 158s gives a decent capacity, to be fair, and TfW's will be available soon.
Yes, but I think the OP was suggesting that the existing Scotrail 158 fleet is used.
Clansman
Established Member
To put it bluntly, absolutely. Though not too sure with the price off trains part. Getting rid of HSTs with the solution coming from within would likely save money.
No cascades, just interal displacements. Retain 156s to displace 158s/170s to replace HSTs. The loss of 170s and 158s that went down south a couple year ago is mitigated by the size of the 156 fleet and the covid service cuts.
It's the most hassle free contingency ScotRail have at the moment if they are ever directed to be rid of HSTs by 2023/24.
Remember the 156 fleet totals 43, all of which was planned to be binned over the next two to three years in place of new EMUs for Barrhead/EK and 158s for the WHL and GSWR (originally!).
Extending the 156 fleet lease provides enough to replace all HSTs and double most if not all I7C services by displacing 158s/170s onto everything diesel operated north of Edinburgh/Glasgow (except WHL).
Why ScotRail would want the hassle of another stop gap cascade after the shambles of the past 7 years is beyond me.
Especially when I7C services require 7 depots signing rolling stock for full flexibility - as opposed to keeping 156s contained on linear routes from depots which already sign them.
It's the same depot principle which enabled ScotRail to shove a single 156 diagram through Fife per day until recently. And that same situation would enable them to be concentrated through the Borders, GSWR, WHL, or at a push Fife on a more regular basis.
Until decarbonisation, if the HSTs have to go, then the best strategy to any stop gap is to minimise cost and hassle, and to provide a period of organisational calm among the front line and management alike for the latter to regroup and get the finger out ahead of an important period ahead post 2030.
If push comes to shove, 156s that ScotRail already have, allow that.
Cascades from down south do not in comparison.
Last edited:
I can imagine a lot of TFW stock going to Northern first, and then maybe GWR. I don't think that leaves a lot of room for ScotRail.
Sprinters will absolutely not be economical to life extend beyond 2030, which is a key reason why Transport Scotland want to be rid of the 156s in Scotland sooner rather than later. This makes them fairly irrelevant to the replacement of HSTs, which will also need to go by around 2030.
Clansman
Established Member
Agreed.
The point I was making was about stop gap solutions in the event that political will requires HSTs to be gone in the near future from ScotRail.
Hence why 156s may be relevant as ScotRail seemingly have an in house solution they can pursue until 2030.
Wyrleybart
Established Member
But why are you all talking about new diesels in 2022 which, if ordered tomorrow would not be delivered until at least 2024 - 16 years from the end of diesel in the UK. Yes, I know 2040 won't be the real end but you can bet your boots that the price of diesel fuel will never sink in price to anything appreciable, and may well be more difficult to procure.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Because bi modes can be used as bi modes during the period of electrification. It has worked (and is working) superbly as the Great Western is progressively electrified.
Even now, fewer stinking DMUs in Waverley is still a big selling point.
Has anything happened in the last two or three years towards further electrification of the GW?
Not unless you count Bristol Temple Meads and Bristol East Junction. Which wasn't really an electrification scheme.
Not in the direction of the HSTs. TFW has shown an interest in electrifying the whole of South Wales so you could run a train from London to South Wales pure electric, but even then problems arise with the tunnel under the Severn.
If something with commitment is struggling, what hope does something without those commitments have?
I'm sure it is challenging to keep the electric supply working in the Severn Tunnel but GWR got 387s to Cardiff on Friday night without issues.
Maybe I got capacity and electrification mixed up. I just know there's been a big fuss trying to sort out South Wales, and electrification generally does revolve around increasing capacity, so maybe that's where the confusion comes from.
But I do know I've not heard anything about Devon and Cornwall electrification, so that will be even harder.
For I7C routes I can see Scotrail with a variation of the EMR810, 5-car units with 2x gensets and 2x battery rafts. With 100mph max speed Central Belt to AB/IV neither the uprated diesels nor traction motors of the 810 will be needed so standard 80x components are all that's needed. If ScotGov is intent on decarbonising a procurement needs to get underway very soon. Perhaps they are waiting for the takeover from Abelio before they make that announcement.
cactustwirly
Established Member
No because they'll be paying Agility trains extra to use them.
800s aren't on a normal lease
They aren't but it is up to GWR what to use them for between the time they come off depot and the time they need to be returned. Within that constraint, what would the issue be?
quantinghome
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,835
Capacity on XC has always been desperate and there needs to be a step change in provision. Every train should be doubled up (North of Edinburgh and West of Plymouth may be debatable).
cactustwirly
Established Member
Well they will do to give XC a meaningful capacity boost.
XC had severe overcrowding issues before covid.
They are only just managing atm with a very stripped out timetable.
Ideally the Avanti 221s would go on the Manchester - Bournemouth/Bristol routes so they can be operated by double units.
NE- SW gets 80xs or the 222s with the 7cars replacing the HSTs and the 5 cars doubled supplementing the Voyagers on the route
irish_rail
On Moderation
Can we not have the 222s on SW to NE please. The seating somehow manages to be even less comfortable than standard voyager seating!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I find them comfortable but claustrophobic as they are a high backed bench with no gap between. But they are very tatty so really need replacing. I know a company that could help
Wynd
Member
For those of us on Aberdeeen - Waverly/Queen street, the question is, whats the difference? I can count on one hand the number of times iv been on an HST for these routes despite the being "introduced" years ago. I have not once had a 5 car set.
Then what have you had? Might as well just commit to that
For a small number of small capacity ( in engine size! ) units, there might well be enough biodiesel or some other renewable supply - you can run IC engines on an amazing array of things. It was one reason that made me consider re-engining 158s & 16x still *somewhat* practical. You'd probably have to redo ancillaries too ( Cummins still make the original engine line as generators, but that would rather destroy the point of doing it! ) so it'd be a little involved, but nothing like 769 levels of re-engineering. Slightly more powerful engines would allow scrubbers & to finally fix the aircon...
Honestly, to me, this seems like forum hysteria.
Firstly, other than a little bit of flapping by aslef and a knee-jerk media response - there isn't any serious suggestion that they'll be removed imminently or within the short-medium term due to crash performance. Infact, the wording in the Carmont report goes as far as to say the mk3s performed reasonably well (para 491).
Secondly, the HSTs are very fit for purpose and deliver exactly what customers want - it's in nobodies interest to rush them out of service in favour of smaller DMUs - perhaps except to reduce fuel bills.
Third, if we are suggesting HSTs need removing for safety reasons, it begs the question of what will replace them. Lets consider how a lighter class 156 (being suggested by some as a viable replacement or cascade leader), based on a similar design, would perform in the same 75mph crash. All things being equal; the leading class 43 plummeted some 7m, from a viaduct, to collide nose first with the ground. Is anyone here seriously suggesting they would rather be in the leading passenger vehicle of a 156 performing the same maneuver, than in the leading passenger vehicle of a HST? And that's before we even start to think about the fuel tanks strapped to the bottom of a DMU (I'm aware this comparison makes a fair few assumptions about vehicle behaviour in a crash - its more for illustrative purposes).
There's no issue with HSTs fundamentally. I would happily support some modifications (as highlighted in my post in the Carmont topic, specifically and foremostly around lifeguards), but to suggest a full fleet replacement, on the basis of one accident, that in itself brought together a heck of a lot of very unlucky coincidences, just seems to be quite unnecessarily feeding the hysteria of other media outlets.
Firstly, other than a little bit of flapping by aslef and a knee-jerk media response - there isn't any serious suggestion that they'll be removed imminently or within the short-medium term due to crash performance. Infact, the wording in the Carmont report goes as far as to say the mk3s performed reasonably well (para 491).
Secondly, the HSTs are very fit for purpose and deliver exactly what customers want - it's in nobodies interest to rush them out of service in favour of smaller DMUs - perhaps except to reduce fuel bills.
Third, if we are suggesting HSTs need removing for safety reasons, it begs the question of what will replace them. Lets consider how a lighter class 156 (being suggested by some as a viable replacement or cascade leader), based on a similar design, would perform in the same 75mph crash. All things being equal; the leading class 43 plummeted some 7m, from a viaduct, to collide nose first with the ground. Is anyone here seriously suggesting they would rather be in the leading passenger vehicle of a 156 performing the same maneuver, than in the leading passenger vehicle of a HST? And that's before we even start to think about the fuel tanks strapped to the bottom of a DMU (I'm aware this comparison makes a fair few assumptions about vehicle behaviour in a crash - its more for illustrative purposes).
There's no issue with HSTs fundamentally. I would happily support some modifications (as highlighted in my post in the Carmont topic, specifically and foremostly around lifeguards), but to suggest a full fleet replacement, on the basis of one accident, that in itself brought together a heck of a lot of very unlucky coincidences, just seems to be quite unnecessarily feeding the hysteria of other media outlets.
Mike Machin
Member
- Joined
- 19 Aug 2017
- Messages
- 376
Totally agree about the voyagers! It is these ancient, noisy, deafening, rattling, filthy, crowded, disease-ridden bug hutches that have forced my colleagues and I to give up rail for the clean, efficient, comfortable, convenient, cheaper and near-silent comfort of our electric cars.
Clansman
Established Member
Looking at the manner of the casualties in the Carmont Report, one was down to getting caught between separating gangways, one in the front Mk3 vestibule (from which the images speak for themselves), and the driver through the windscreen in the cab. Put any DMU ScotRail have in that situation and there's little reason to think that the casualty number would be less.
On your second point, the answer is the Scottish Government for the optics. Which is why the question of suitability of HSTs doesn't come into it in real terms.
From friends I know who work for ScotRail, one thing is for sure though, there is unease about the line quality north of Arbroath, and has been for some time. Laurencekirk to Stonehaven has always been notorious for poor ride quality long before Carmont (various nooks, crannies, and violent bridge kicks), but for the first time overall safety culture is being doubted more and more by those on the front line. The HSTs and their inconsistent ride qualities vs DMUs excacerbate the problem and give more credence to these concerns regardless of their current structural suitability (or lack of).
When i used them during "lockdown" i had the coach near enough to myself and they were fine.
They are not that old by rail standards.
I did not find them particularly noisy so they did not deafen me.
I did not notice any rattling or squeaking.
They were not dirty but they are a bit tatty regarding upholstery and carpets, but the seat comfort was good by modern standards.
I was not aware of any diseases or bugs in the coaches.
I would assume you chose to use your cheap electric car as opposed to being "forced".
Wyrleybart
Established Member
Each to their own opinion. For me as a lifelong railway employee and enthusiast I find the trains incredibly wasteful at a time when the trains should be considerably more economical. Less than 180 std class seats, but coupled together they use 7 crew for a train of barely more than a HST, which could be operated with 3 people.
quantinghome
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,835
As far as passenger experience goes, Voyagers are OK to travel on if they're not overcrowded. In the same way that the M25 is an OK drive if it's not busy.
But yes, an incredibly wasteful train. I'd like to see what the running costs per seat are like compared to other train designs.
But yes, an incredibly wasteful train. I'd like to see what the running costs per seat are like compared to other train designs.
- Status