HSTs to other TOCs that need Diesel stock

[Nym]

Yes I know the HSTs are going to need modifications to the Mk3 coaches by 2020 for the DDA etc etc... But, if Chiltern get the modifications working and these are relativly easy to apply to the Mk3s the HSTs will have another good 20 years gentle life left in them, so where would be good for them when the HST2 or a sensible idea is replacing them?

TP North? Norwich - Liverpool? Blackpool - York? Portsmouth - Cardiff?

Or would having the Mk6s for new stock, be displacing Medirans and Voyagers for TPE North and South and LIV - NOR from the Midland Mainline (assuming these would be fitted with additional generator and panto/transformer coaches by bombardier)

Yes, I know the're getting on for 35 years old but, is there anywhere else (asside from preservaton or scrap) they could be used?

PS: Sensible idea IMO = Mk6 Coaches (23m long, potenitally TASS for a Mk6T) + Locomotives of various types, Diesel or Electric dependant on route, possble standard distributed traction system throughout the coaches

 

[387star]

Dont the bodyshells have serious corrosion? When is iep to be confirmed? Life extension and different traction weres ruled out

 

[ainsworth74]

When is iep to be confirmed?

It might not be, that's why its still to be confirmed! We have to wait and see, there is a report due out (can't remember the name) at some point in the coming months that will hopefully clear things up (yeah right ). But IEP (in its current form at least) is most certainly not guaranteed to happen.

 

[tbtc]

For these routes you'd want something with decent acceleration rather than top-speed

 

[Adamw5433]

Dont the bodyshells have serious corrosion?

At this point in time, corrosion could be treated.
But there is far too much mainline demmand to take any out of service for the treatment time they would require.

The MTU engines and the VP185s would proberaly need replacing too.
As far as i was aware the MTUs fitted to HSTs were only refurbed from other users.

Traction motors might need replacing with something better, as faster acceleration on mainlines would most likely needed.

I'm in favour for replacing the power cars with something new as long as it sympathetic to the original HST design.
Lessons learnt from the orignal HST should be applied ofcourse, new builds from scratch has proven problematic in the past and with new stock we see today.

So anything new should be built on the HSTs past findings.
I personaly think with correct care and upgrades, the HST in its current form (maybe not with MTUs) could last another 20 years.

I would like to see 4 powers cars and 1 mk3 set go to NRM
2 PC + mk set (mainline cert'ed
1 PC for spares
1 PC to be cannibalised to get the prototype HST PC back to running.

Adam

---old post above--- ---New post below---

Although maintance isn't any where near as tight, and health and safety is non-existant.
In india there is stuff from WWII still running aroun on thier mainline.
To a lesser extent, in South Africa Garrett locomotives ran until they were almost 60 years old.

 

[mallard]

I doubt many of them would be scrapped immediately - maybe a few of the worst examples, but there is such a high demand for diesel stock that I expect most would find alternative work, at least in the short-medium term.

I could easily imagine 5/6 (+2) carriage versions on routes that currently suffer from overcrowding like Norwich-Liverpool, Stansted-Birmingham, etc. They could be regeared for 100MPH to increase acceleration, if the lighter carriage loads aren't enough.

Additionally, trains could be made up of 43+3/4 Mk3s+DVT (or a DVT modified to include passenger seating making it a Mk3 DBSO), for peak-time relief and "DMU substitute" services.

They would need a full refurbishment of course and probably power doors, but these are far from impossible. Virgin were intending to do similar things to their HST fleet under their "challenger" programme.

 

[Pumbaa]

A seminar in Swindon the other week was told by the development team for HST2020 (led by fGW, EC and respective ROSCOs) that these modifications and subsequent rebuild work would see the HSTs good for service until 2035.

 

[EWS 58038]

I expect some will transfer to the spot hire or charter train market.

 

[sprinterguy]

A seminar in Swindon the other week was told by the development team for HST2020 (led by fGW, EC and respective ROSCOs) that these modifications and subsequent rebuild work would see the HSTs good for service until 2035.

hock: Blimey. I know I had a quip on another thread about the HSTs carrying on until they were fifty, but I didn’t think that there was a chance they’d actually go on that long. At this rate they’ll still be in service into the 22nd century!

I doubt many of them would be scrapped immediately - maybe a few of the worst examples, but there is such a high demand for diesel stock that I expect most would find alternative work, at least in the short-medium term.

I could easily imagine 5/6 (+2) carriage versions on routes that currently suffer from overcrowding like Norwich-Liverpool, Stansted-Birmingham, etc. They could be regeared for 100MPH to increase acceleration, if the lighter carriage loads aren't enough.

Additionally, trains could be made up of 43+3/4 Mk3s+DVT (or a DVT modified to include passenger seating making it a Mk3 DBSO), for peak-time relief and "DMU substitute" services.

They would need a full refurbishment of course and probably power doors, but these are far from impossible. Virgin were intending to do similar things to their HST fleet under their "challenger" programme.

A 2+3/4 HST formation wouldn’t be viable on cost grounds IMO, it would be quite a fuel hungry option on the sort of services that would require three or four carriage trains, and even in a formation consisting of one power car and one DVT, then the 2250hp available would be superfluous for the requirements of the service. In much the same way that the class 180 Adelantes aren’t the perfect solution for Northerns’ Manchester-Blackpool runs.

I can see the attraction of shorter 2+5/6 HST formations for long distance regional services though, with the benefit being on faster acceleration rather than maximum speed. In the future, I can see FGW still having a requirement for HSTs on the South West services for many years yet, and even if electrification to Aberdeen goes ahead, then East Coast will still need diesel trains of some form to run to Inverness and the other English destinations that are off the wires served by EC. Though East Coasts’ requirement for diesel trains will be based on its’ future policy on serving destinations that lie beyond the limits of electrification. I’d imagine that HST use will dwindle beyond 2025, and it remains to be seen if refurbishing 45 year old trains for regional services after their use on Intercity services is over is the best way forward for such routes as could use them.

I would dearly like to see the “Challenger” project resurrected for the Crosscountry routes in the future, with 2+5 HST formations bolstering the XC fleet to allow more Voyagers to be doubled up (The problem with using 2+7 or 2+8 HSTs, negating the complications of having no walk through between paired up Voyagers of a comparable length, is the slower acceleration of the HST formation, which is why Virgin chopped it’s HSTs down to 2+5 formation prior to total Voyagerisation.)

 

[ChrisCooper]

I think Virgin worked out that a 2+6 HST could maintain Voyager timings once they had slackened them a little from the original Voyager times. A 2+7 can keep to Super Voyager times without tilt, AFAIK the current XC HSTs run in Super Voyager diagrams (and since they run on the South West - North East route there is no tilt).

 

[387star]

Rail reports atw refurbishing mk3 coaches? These for wag express to replace mk2?

 

[MCR247]

I think Virgin worked out that a 2+6 HST could maintain Voyager timings once they had slackened them a little from the original Voyager times. A 2+7 can keep to Super Voyager times without tilt, AFAIK the current XC HSTs run in Super Voyager diagrams (and since they run on the South West - North East route there is no tilt).

They are slightly different,

ie

1125 Voyager
1223 HST

IIRC

 

[387star]

http://www.railpro.co.uk/news/?idArticles=694

 

[Nym]

Oh for god's sake no!

The stupid solutions to an even stupider set of specifications from the DaFT...

 

[387star]

Devon and Cornwall will become like the North of England with all the leftovers

 

[A0]

HSTs are only effective on limited stop services where they can utilise their top speed between station stops. That rules out services like Norwich - Liverpool or many of the Trans Pennine services - mainly because the linespeeds are too low and the stops too frequent to make them worthwhile.

The Midland Mainline (now EMT) HSTs have suffered worse reliability than their East Coast or GW Mainline counterparts, particularly on gearboxes, which it is suspected is due to the more stop/start nature of the services with the more frequent acceleration putting additonal strain on them.

It's really difficult to see where you could put the HSTs usefully:

ECML - doesn't need many as most services are electric
GEML - electrified
MML - pretty much at capacity and the Meridians have proved to be capable at running the shorter services there.
WCML - Maybe on North Wales, but Virgin seem happy enough with Voyagers.
GWML - If electrified then will reduce the demand.
SWML - not sure Waterloo - Exeter is suitable for them.
Cross Country - only a limited number of services can justify them as the acceleration will struggle for the timetables when compared to the Voyagers.

Fact is they were designed to do a specific job 40 years ago - that job has changed and they aren't really suitable moving forward.

 

[mallard]

HSTs are only effective on limited stop services where they can utilise their top speed between station stops. That rules out services like Norwich - Liverpool or many of the Trans Pennine services - mainly because the linespeeds are too low and the stops too frequent to make them worthwhile.

Why? With reduced carriage loads, or even regeared to 100MPH they could be quite effective. Since the modern rail industry seems to be wholly incapable of building reliable and lightweight secondary long-distance DMUs* (i.e. 158 replacements), overhauled and refurbished HSTs could do the job and at a much lower cost.

The Midland Mainline (now EMT) HSTs have suffered worse reliability than their East Coast or GW Mainline counterparts, particularly on gearboxes, which it is suspected is due to the more stop/start nature of the services with the more frequent acceleration putting additonal strain on them.

Except that MML HST routes are no more stop-start than some of the secondary GWML routes, such as Paddington-Oxford or the Cotswold line. I expect that the real reason for any reliability difference is the use of older VP185 engines instead of MTUs.

*170s are underpowered, 175s are/were unreliable, 185s are too heavy.

 

[Nym]

Lets hope that 172s are Juuuusst right...

And that at some point they can put doors at the unit ends and make them 4 carrages long

 

[WillPS]

Lets hope that 172s are Juuuusst right...

And that at some point they can put doors at the unit ends and make them 4 carrages long

LM's 172s do...

 

[MCR247]

No they don't.....

 

[YorkshireBear]

No they don't.....

If he meant end gangways then the Lm 172's do surely? they are not 4 carriges though

 

[The Planner]

A 2+7 can keep to Super Voyager times without tilt, AFAIK the current XC HSTs run in Super Voyager diagrams (and since they run on the South West - North East route there is no tilt).

No they can't and no they don't, they are timed as completely seperate schedules.

 

[tbtc]

If he meant end gangways then the Lm 172's do surely? they are not 4 carriges though

They have gangways, but I think Nym meant that the 172s have doors at "one third/two thirds" along the side of the coach, like 170s, and wanted them to have "end" doors like older stock has

 

[A0]

Why? With reduced carriage loads, or even regeared to 100MPH they could be quite effective. Since the modern rail industry seems to be wholly incapable of building reliable and lightweight secondary long-distance DMUs* (i.e. 158 replacements), overhauled and refurbished HSTs could do the job and at a much lower cost.



Except that MML HST routes are no more stop-start than some of the secondary GWML routes, such as Paddington-Oxford or the Cotswold line. I expect that the real reason for any reliability difference is the use of older VP185 engines instead of MTUs.

*170s are underpowered, 175s are/were unreliable, 185s are too heavy.

You're conveniently ignoring the fact they are nearly 40 years old and an HST is far heavier than most DMUs.......

The MML is FAR more stop/start than virtually any other route of its type - interestingly the HSTs have been taken OFF the stop/start services with Meridians on those. Most (not all) HST journeys are fast to Market Harborough / Leicester.

In terms of the stop/start nature, I don't think the GWML even comes close.

Leicester - London stoppers usually have 5 stops on them and a journey of about 80 miles. Compare that with say Peterborough where the HSTs would have 1 stop to Kings Cross or the Oxford services which have 2 stops.

The Cotswold line isn't a reasonable comparison since you're looking at 6 journeys a day using HSTs - when HSTs did the stoppers between London and Leicester it was at least 2 per hour. Far more arduous and the reliability reflected this.

 

[Nym]

They have gangways, but I think Nym meant that the 172s have doors at "one third/two thirds" along the side of the coach, like 170s, and wanted them to have "end" doors like older stock has

That, 172 with the door and gangway config of a 158

 

[djw1981]

HSTs are only effective on limited stop services where they can utilise their top speed between station stops. That rules out services like Norwich - Liverpool or many of the Trans Pennine services - mainly because the linespeeds are too low and the stops too frequent to make them worthwhile.

The Midland Mainline (now EMT) HSTs have suffered worse reliability than their East Coast or GW Mainline counterparts, particularly on gearboxes, which it is suspected is due to the more stop/start nature of the services with the more frequent acceleration putting additonal strain on them.

It's really difficult to see where you could put the HSTs usefully:

ECML - doesn't need many as most services are electric
GEML - electrified
MML - pretty much at capacity and the Meridians have proved to be capable at running the shorter services there.
WCML - Maybe on North Wales, but Virgin seem happy enough with Voyagers.
GWML - If electrified then will reduce the demand.
SWML - not sure Waterloo - Exeter is suitable for them.
Cross Country - only a limited number of services can justify them as the acceleration will struggle for the timetables when compared to the Voyagers.

Fact is they were designed to do a specific job 40 years ago - that job has changed and they aren't really suitable moving forward.

Short formation - Edin/Glas to inverness/aberdeen and with powered doors, fife circle.

 

[jopsuk]

Fife Circle? Really? A route with frequent stops, and many platforms that are only just long enough for six-car formations?

 

[WillPS]

That, 172 with the door and gangway config of a 158

Why would you want that? Having doors at carriage ends means dwell times are significantly higher, and modern air conditioning/heating combined with automatic door closing means there's no need to seal the saloon as there was with the 158s.

If 158s had doors at 1/3 and 2/3, like Turbostars, the Norwich-Liverpool timetable could probably receive a considerable lift just from reduced dwell times through the Manchester stations!

 

[Nym]

Why would you want that? Having doors at carriage ends means dwell times are significantly higher, and modern air conditioning/heating combined with automatic door closing means there's no need to seal the saloon as there was with the 158s.

If 158s had doors at 1/3 and 2/3, like Turbostars, the Norwich-Liverpool timetable could probably receive a considerable lift just from reduced dwell times through the Manchester stations!

Or just having enough carrages and wider doors? bet they would all be quicker if diagramed as 4 or 6 car 158s