HST's future careers

[BestWestern]

Apologies if this one has already been discussed, mods please point me in the right direction if it has!

I was pondering the other day what might become of the bulk of FGW's HST fleet once they've been displaced by the dreaded IEP effort. Aside from the perpetual theories about First's small batch of owned power cars and trailers, what do we think the future may hold for the fleet as a whole? Considering the massive expenditure lavished on them over the past decade it it surely likely that at least some of them will live on elsewhere, be it within the UK or perhaps even further afield given their basic underpinnings and relatively new power units.

What are the popular theories on if and where they might go? Would XC have a likely interest in bolstering their current allocation for example, or indeed any of the other current intercity TOCs using them? The popular idea that Hull Trains might end up running some seems credible, but would First likely send across the small fleet it owns or retain those vehicles within Great Western, assuming it retains the franchise? A thousand possibilities!

 

[Rich McLean]

First are likely to keep a fair few HSTs for WoE services, including the 5 that they own, and lease a few others. The rest will get returned to the leasing company.

Unless there is a cascade, I can't see them replacing the Voyagers on XC, as the current lease agreement is HSTs on a pay per use basis, and the voyagers are on a fixed term contract. Add to the fact XC are not making a profit, they would lose money by taking them on. Currently, their HSTs are only used to satisfy franchise requirements.

Another option would be sending them to Chiltern, however, they have just fitted power doors and invested a lot into their Mk3's, so that looks like a no go.

My money is on Scotrail on a tempoary basis, where they replace 170 routes between Glasgow and Edingbrough, which in turn the 170s replace some 158's and those 158's get sent into the UK pool, which would boost capacity where needed (northern or ATW to indirectly replace Pacers).

Or they could head straight for the scrap heap

 

[RobShipway]

First are likely to keep a fair few HSTs for WoE services, including the 5 that they own, and lease a few others. The rest will get returned to the leasing company.

Unless there is a cascade, I can't see them replacing the Voyagers on XC, as the current lease agreement is HSTs on a pay per use basis, and the voyagers are on a fixed term contract. Add to the fact XC are not making a profit, they would lose money by taking them on. Currently, their HSTs are only used to satisfy franchise requirements.

Another option would be sending them to Chiltern, however, they have just fitted power doors and invested a lot into their Mk3's, so that looks like a no go.

My money is on Scotrail on a tempoary basis, where they replace 170 routes between Glasgow and Edingbrough, which in turn the 170s replace some 158's and those 158's get sent into the UK pool, which would boost capacity where needed (northern or ATW to indirectly replace Pacers).

Or they could head straight for the scrap heap

I cannot see how an HST would replace a two or three car Class 170 train and the routes the Scotrail class 170's do, I would suspect are not passed for HST Operation anyway.

The only place if they are to stay running, I could see them appearing is on the SWML doing the trains from Waterloo - Salisbury/Exeter replacing the Class 158/159 trains which quite often run as 6 - 8 car trains.

Then I can see the SWT Class 158/159's replacing Class 142/143 trains.

 

[bnm]

First are likely to keep a fair few HSTs for WoE services

That rather presupposes that First are running WoE services when IEP comes on stream. There's a franchise renewal before then.

 

[broadgage]

My natural cynicism leeds me to suspect that most of the HSTs will be scrapped.
There seems to be a general view that HSTs are too good for todays railway and that the future is short high density multiple units with minimum facilities.

I suspect that once some of the wretched new trains have been delivered, that HSTs will suddenly become "dangerous" or "non compliant" or "no longer maintainable"

A lot of money has been spent in recent years on new rolling stock, but this has largely been replacements, not additions to improve capacity. In many cases the replacement trains have been shorter, or of lower capacity, or less comfortable than those replaced. This is known as progress.

I remember the replacement of slam door units on South East London services with the wretched networkers. A huge publicity campagain told us how wonderfull the new trains would be. They were shorter and less reliable.
8 car slam door units on the Catford loop line were displaced in theory by 6 car networkers, but often in practice by 4 car units.
And of course the old trains had to be scrapped urgently because they became dangerous on the day that some of the networkers were delivered.

The railway industry found it challenging to persuade people that standing on a new 4 car unit was an improvement over sitting on an 8 car one.

More recently the replacement of cross country HSTs or full length loco hauled sets by the new half size voyagers seems to have to been regarded by the rail industry as an improvement. Passengers standing on the newer half size trains, who would have been seated on the "obsolete" trains probably have different views.

The sensible thing would be to retain HSTs as well as the new trains in order to improve capacity, on the GW and elswhere.
Not likely to happen though is it ?
After all, who needs say forty full length HSTs when you could have say 36 new 5 car DMUs.
A smaller, newer fleet of shorter trains must be better surely ?

 

[The Ham]

This has been discussed previously on a few threads, basiclly the views were:
- a number are likely to be scrapped, partly because of the rules about being having to be accessiable post 2019 and partly because there will be the risk that there will need to be a lot of rewiring and structural work to keep them running beyond that point anyway.
- There is a good chance that whoever is running the GW franchise will retain them to run to Cornwall, although there have been suggestions that post MML electrification it could be possible for the class 222's to be looked at running these services
- It is more likely that if they survive on the UK network that they would be used on routes where they couldn't run at 125mph (at least most of the time), so as to not be work quite so hard.
- There were various suggestions of routes (i.e. Portsmouth-Cardiff) and options (i.e. being able to split them and/or running them with only one loco and/or running with an electric loco at the other end) and potential redistrubtion of coaches (i.e. more coaches for Chiltern)
- There was also the possibility that a number of them (possibly just the Mark 3's) could be used by rail tours

What also has to be thought about is there COULD be the possibility that there are also a load of Mark 4's available if IEP replaces the IC225's on the EC, which may be prefabale to use as they are younger and where built with power doors and the like so will be a lot cheaper to refresh.

Failing that, there is the possibility that the IEP's which are currently set as an option for replacing the IC225's could be used to further remove the need for IC125's and/or Voyagers in the early 2020's. With then an ongoing rolling program as more lines are electrified allowing the cascading of the bi-modal IEP's to the partly electrified lines. (i.e. new electric IEP's for services to Weston-Super-Mare and/or Cheltenham once they are eleectrified allowing the bi-modal IEP's needed for them currently to be used elsewhere)

 

[jopsuk]

By the time IEP are actually in service, the extra fatigue life they were certified for will almost be expired. If you try to run the the things for ever, they will fall apart- and this is more of a problem with high speed stock.

 

[The Ham]

My natural cynicism leeds me to suspect that most of the HSTs will be scrapped.
There seems to be a general view that HSTs are too good for todays railway and that the future is short high density multiple units with minimum facilities.

I suspect that once some of the wretched new trains have been delivered, that HSTs will suddenly become "dangerous" or "non compliant" or "no longer maintainable"

A lot of money has been spent in recent years on new rolling stock, but this has largely been replacements, not additions to improve capacity. In many cases the replacement trains have been shorter, or of lower capacity, or less comfortable than those replaced. This is known as progress.

I remember the replacement of slam door units on South East London services with the wretched networkers. A huge publicity campagain told us how wonderfull the new trains would be. They were shorter and less reliable.
8 car slam door units on the Catford loop line were displaced in theory by 6 car networkers, but often in practice by 4 car units.
And of course the old trains had to be scrapped urgently because they became dangerous on the day that some of the networkers were delivered.

The railway industry found it challenging to persuade people that standing on a new 4 car unit was an improvement over sitting on an 8 car one.

More recently the replacement of cross country HSTs or full length loco hauled sets by the new half size voyagers seems to have to been regarded by the rail industry as an improvement. Passengers standing on the newer half size trains, who would have been seated on the "obsolete" trains probably have different views.

The sensible thing would be to retain HSTs as well as the new trains in order to improve capacity, on the GW and elswhere.
Not likely to happen though is it ?
After all, who needs say forty full length HSTs when you could have say 36 new 5 car DMUs.
A smaller, newer fleet of shorter trains must be better surely ?

IEP on East coast is going to have more central carriages (157) than the current number of Mark 3's (117) that they are going to replace (also each coach has a higher capacity and the end coaches have some seating meaning a lot more capacity that at present). It is harder to do the same comparrison with GW (225 central IEP coaches compared with 464 Mark 3's) as the services to Devon and Cornwall are not programed to be replaced yet and where the shorter IEP's are programed to be run the services are not busy enough to need anything more than the shorter trains anyway.

Yes Voyagers were built too short, but they were ordered at a time when the railways were viewed as going to be run as a managed decline (as were many of the rolling stock orders early in privitisation). Conversly new orders always have an option for a few more units if they are needed and apear to be often allowing the cascading of stock rather than the straight replacement and scraping.

 

[alex17595]

What about HSTs running the services between Inverness and Edinburgh as they already do. some platform alterations would be need due to their length.

 

[JohnCarlson]

This has been discussed previously on a few threads, basiclly the views were:
- a number are likely to be scrapped, partly because of the rules about being having to be accessiable post 2019 and partly because there will be the risk that there will need to be a lot of rewiring and structural work to keep them running beyond that point anyway.
- There is a good chance that whoever is running the GW franchise will retain them to run to Cornwall, although there have been suggestions that post MML electrification it could be possible for the class 222's to be looked at running these services
- It is more likely that if they survive on the UK network that they would be used on routes where they couldn't run at 125mph (at least most of the time), so as to not be work quite so hard.
- There were various suggestions of routes (i.e. Portsmouth-Cardiff) and options (i.e. being able to split them and/or running them with only one loco and/or running with an electric loco at the other end) and potential redistrubtion of coaches (i.e. more coaches for Chiltern)
- There was also the possibility that a number of them (possibly just the Mark 3's) could be used by rail tours

What also has to be thought about is there COULD be the possibility that there are also a load of Mark 4's available if IEP replaces the IC225's on the EC, which may be prefabale to use as they are younger and where built with power doors and the like so will be a lot cheaper to refresh.

Failing that, there is the possibility that the IEP's which are currently set as an option for replacing the IC225's could be used to further remove the need for IC125's and/or Voyagers in the early 2020's. With then an ongoing rolling program as more lines are electrified allowing the cascading of the bi-modal IEP's to the partly electrified lines. (i.e. new electric IEP's for services to Weston-Super-Mare and/or Cheltenham once they are eleectrified allowing the bi-modal IEP's needed for them currently to be used elsewhere)

I am sure Grand central would take a few. I would also not rule out East Coast having some either. One or two will presumably go into preservation and I think there will be a few takers for the coaches. I would much rather have them than the Voyagers and maybe a deal to put them on XC could be worked out.

 

[E&W Lucas]

They'll be 40 years old, near as. They're life - expired.
Maybe a few to charter operators, but otherwise, scrap. No machine lasts forever.

 

[The Ham]

They'll be 40 years old, near as. They're life - expired.
Maybe a few to charter operators, but otherwise, scrap. No machine lasts forever.

Although the engines in the locos are fairly new (cerca 2005)

 

[whhistle]

Wild Thought: Stick the 91 on one end and give to XC who can run diesel in the country and electric under the wires.

Reality: Scrapped.

 

[TheEdge]

A few will probably find odd work with Open Access and charter operators but I think the majority will go straight to the torch.

 

[sprinterguy]

I cannot see how an HST would replace a two or three car Class 170 train and the routes the Scotrail class 170's do, I would suspect are not passed for HST Operation anyway.

Edinburgh to Inverness, or Edinburgh to Aberdeen? Both currently see HSTs daily.

Scotrail's 3-car class 170s often work in multiple, or with class 158s bolstering capacity, and Scotrail's long distance routes such as these could really do with some longer-distance style stock, with carriage end doors.

The only place if they are to stay running, I could see them appearing is on the SWML doing the trains from Waterloo - Salisbury/Exeter replacing the Class 158/159 trains which quite often run as 6 - 8 car trains.

The maximum length of HST that you would be able to accomodate on the West of England route would be a 2+8 formation, compared to the 9 or 10-car class 159/158 formations that are currently seen at the London end. And the HSTs would have to stay in these formations throughout their journey, rather than being able to operate as shorter 3 or 6 car trains West of Salisbury as passenger demand requires, as is presently the case. So HSTs would represent a drop in capacity where it is needed (London to Salisbury) and a gross over-provision of capacity where it is not (Salisbury to Exeter). Running costs would no doubt be somewhat increased, in terms of track access charges and fuel consumption for starters.

Plus, the fairly regular stop-start nature of the Waterloo-Exeter route is not at all suitable for HSTs, which have slow acceleration and a historical propensity to overheat on regular stop services. It is this feature of the West of England route that killed the 50s, after all.

 

[E&W Lucas]

and a historical propensity to overheat on regular stop services. It is this feature of the West of England route that killed the 50s, after all.

No longer a problem, post MTU.

 

[sprinterguy]

What about HSTs running the services between Inverness and Edinburgh as they already do. some platform alterations would be need due to their length.

Shortened 2+6 HST formations would be perfick for the Inverness and Aberdeen routes, in my opinion, if only they weren't so old already. There's nothing to say that the HSTs would have to be kept in their current (Long) formations if they did move on to pastures new. Shorter formations would result in improved acceleration, and breaking up the surplus trailer vehicles would provide much needed spare parts for the remaining active fleet.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

First are likely to keep a fair few HSTs for WoE services, including the 5 that they own, and lease a few others. The rest will get returned to the leasing company.

Fifteen or sixteen sets retained for the West of England services seems probable, if continued HST operation is the adopted policy of the new franchise. I’m not sure how much weight such rumour and hearsay actually holds, but it would seem to make sense to retain the sixteen Laira long-distance sets (or the equivalent of, based on the vehicles that are in best condition).

Unless there is a cascade, I can't see them replacing the Voyagers on XC, as the current lease agreement is HSTs on a pay per use basis, and the voyagers are on a fixed term contract. Add to the fact XC are not making a profit, they would lose money by taking them on. Currently, their HSTs are only used to satisfy franchise requirements.

I believe that the current wet-lease contract for the Voyagers expires in 2016, before the Great Western HSTs will be due to be released. However, I agree with you that it is still highly unlikely that Crosscountry would take on any additional HSTs. I feel that your prediction below is probably far more likely for the majority of the released HST sets:

Or they could head straight for the scrap heap

...as I'm not sure why some posters on this forum seem to assume that the HSTs will just go on forever.

 

[Buttsy]

As some are bound to got to preservation, I hope there's a couple of Valentas lurking round for retro fitting so, once again, we can experience the scream...

 

[HSTEd]

You might be able to justify 4 HST power cars being retained for the Night Riviera if the sleeper formations could be properly rewired to accept them.

Would remove the rather troublesome 57s from service and give Laira a uniform fleet of traction for all services.

 

[455driver]

As some are bound to got to preservation, I hope there's a couple of Valentas lurking round for retro fitting so, once again, we can experience the scream...

Have a look through this-

http://www.125group.org.uk/

 

[ry34081]

Surely it will make sense to put the hst s on xc north south services and move the voyagers to work their east west route, the 170s could then be cascaded to remove pacers 153s etc elsewhere or to just increase capacity

 

[Yew]

You might be able to justify 4 HST power cars being retained for the Night Riviera if the sleeper formations could be properly rewired to accept them.

Would remove the rather troublesome 57s from service and give Laira a uniform fleet of traction for all services.

Now that could be very clever, also it would give more space for passengers luggage. But on the other hand, with wires going up, wouldn't electric traction be preferable?

 

[HSTEd]

Now that could be very clever, also it would give more space for passengers luggage. But on the other hand, with wires going up, wouldn't electric traction be preferable?

Not really, the bulk of the journey will still be spent away from electrified territory, even if the train goes via Bristol instead of the Berks and Hants all the time. (Rather than taking whatever route is convenient on each night).

 

[CC 72100]

.

The only place if they are to stay running, I could see them appearing is on the SWML doing the trains from Waterloo - Salisbury/Exeter replacing the Class 158/159 trains which quite often run as 6 - 8 car trains.

There's quite often posts on here with people wanting to cascade something or other to replace the 159s on the West Of England line, but I don't understand why! The current stock is perfect for the route, decent top speed which suits the line speed well, comfortable and well-looked after, corridor connections which are useful for the splitting (2x 158 has got to be better than 2 x 170 when doing portion working) so I don't really understand why people are so desperate to replace them.

With regards to the HSTs, with my enthusiast and passenger head on I'd like to see them put to good use somewhere. The problem is finding that use, and apart from the Devon + Cornwall services at present, I just can't find one.

(Unless there's some radical proposal, like peak time crowd busters running in 2+8 as present but all standard coaches on fast Oxford runs for example, which would be very radical given how this is due to be electrified!)

 

[tbtc]

With electrification of the busiest part of the GWML (London - Oxford/ Swansea/ Bristol) and MML (as far as Sheffield), there's not going to be much suitable for many HSTs by the end of the decade.

Given how they struggle with the number of stops on XC (compared to a Voyager), it's hard to see much of a role. Central Belt - Inverness/ Aberdeen is a possibility, but how many trains would that need? And would the ScotRail franchise want a fourth type of diesel stock (which can't work in shorter formations and can't couple to other DMUs)?

The coaches are getting pretty old and the power cars are too powerful for many stop/start services.

There's quite often posts on here with people wanting to cascade something or other to replace the 159s on the West Of England line, but I don't understand why! The current stock is perfect for the route, decent top speed which suits the line speed well, comfortable and well-looked after, corridor connections which are useful for the splitting (2x 158 has got to be better than 2 x 170 when doing portion working) so I don't really understand why people are so desperate to replace them

I agree - there's basically nothing wrong with the 159s - the only criticism could be the fact that they can't interwork with EMUs (which isn't a huge issue at the moment, given that there are no wires west of Basingstoke) and the fact that they are limited to 90mph (when EMUs between Waterloo and Basingstoke are capable of 100 - whether this is regularly achieved or whether 159s hold anything up I do not know).

159s are certainly much better than 170s / 222s / HSTs (or anything else I've seen suggested on here!

 

[ffm]

Razor blades

 

[route:oxford]

I'd recommend the HSTs for Scotland - as soon as the majority of Platforms at Glasgow Queen Street can accommodate a 2+7 HST and the Mk3 HST coaches have been power-doored.

 

[SkinnyDave]

I would prefer 220s for Scotland

 

[yorksrob]

I remember the replacement of slam door units on South East London services with the wretched networkers. A huge publicity campagain told us how wonderfull the new trains would be. They were shorter and less reliable.
8 car slam door units on the Catford loop line were displaced in theory by 6 car networkers, but often in practice by 4 car units.
And of course the old trains had to be scrapped urgently because they became dangerous on the day that some of the networkers were delivered.

Well, the Networkers are rather space age, but compared to an EPB, the seating is pretty much like sitting on a park bench. The later BR built EPB's were no more dangerous than any of the other Mk 1's around until the mid-noughties, so I'd have thought the sensible thing would have been to refurb a few of these to bolster out the peak services.

 

[HSTEd]

The EPBs have terrible performance compared to the Networkers, which means the timetable would have to account for EPB performance preventing any travel time benefits purchased at great expense from being implemented.

And frankly proven trains that are well run in and are being maintained by a workforce that has maintained them for decades will always be more reliable than brand new stock.
Its the U shaped reliability curve again.