ScotRail HST - Alternative Provision

[Meerkat]

If it’s an issue IETs being 140mph then can’t you regear them so they can fly out the stations and up the hills?
Bi-modes might not have a lot of electrification to play with but that electrification is where it matters - in the centres of big cities and at two of the service termini where they will sit idling. You can then phase further electrification in islands to get pollution out of the cities and electrify commuter routes - Aberdeen cross rail for example - and use discontinuous to get lots of mileage done and in use whilst you sort out the really difficult bits (Killiecrankie tunnel......)

 

[hexagon789]

If it’s an issue IETs being 140mph then can’t you regear them so they can fly out the stations and up the hills?

They could be specified in a manner of different ways within reason. A 125 or 100mph geared 80x-type shouldn't be a problem

 

[GrimShady]

Care to back up that statement with evidence?

No one was willing to build them except CAF.

 

[HSTEd]

No one was willing to build them except CAF.

Well thats because noone else had a running production like for DMUs in the UK size.

The only two significant fleets of non-high speed DMUs built since privatisation before this were Turbostars and the 185s.
Turbostar production has now finished and the jigs for the 185s were cut up over a decade ago.

Tooling up costs for such a minor order would be huge.

 

[Journeyman]

No one was willing to build them except CAF.

What's that got to do with anything? In recent years a number of DMUs have been built. It just happens that demand tailed off a bit and a couple of models were discontinued. There's a lot of new DMUs coming - TfW are replacing their older ones, including a new InterCity fleet.

Quite why only one model being currently available means DMUs are unwanted is beyond me - for a long time the Turbostar was the only realistic choice, and loads of them were sold.

 

[GrimShady]

Well thats because noone else had a running production like for DMUs in the UK size.

The only two significant fleets of non-high speed DMUs built since privatisation before this were Turbostars and the 185s.
Turbostar production has now finished and the jigs for the 185s were cut up over a decade ago.

Tooling up costs for such a minor order would be huge.

What's that got to do with anything? In recent years a number of DMUs have been built. It just happens that demand tailed off a bit and a couple of models were discontinued. There's a lot of new DMUs coming - TfW are replacing their older ones, including a new InterCity fleet.

Quite why only one model being currently available means DMUs are unwanted is beyond me - for a long time the Turbostar was the only realistic choice, and loads of them were sold.

There's obviously no market for them seen as the EU mostly build EMUs. Before 195 construction, what was the last group of DMUs constructed in the last 20 years? 185s?

Electrification is the answer not more DMUs.

 

[Journeyman]

There's obviously no market for them seen as the EU mostly build EMUs. Before 195 construction, what was the last group of DMUs constructed in the last 20 years? 185s?

No, the 172s eight years ago, and there's still plenty of DMUs on secondary routes in Europe, including new ones.

Electrification is the answer not more DMUs.

Well, yes it is, but it takes time, and there's lines that will never be economic for electrification, like the West Highland and Far North.

 

[CJSwan]

With East Midlands Railway replacing their 158s (among others) with 170s, could making use of these allow ScotRail some breathing space while the glacial delivery of HSTs continues? (This of course is entirely dependent on the progress of 170s from other operators and if the 158s have future a home to go to already)
Fair enough a 158 can’t keep to 170 and HST diagram speeds, but could allow for some jogging of units to provides some more carriages on services which are in desperate need of more seats? And the vast majority of staff on the routes affected are already trained on 158s.

 

[sprinterguy]

With East Midlands Railway replacing their 158s (among others) with 170s, could making use of these allow ScotRail some breathing space while the glacial delivery of HSTs continues? (This of course is entirely dependent on the progress of 170s from other operators and if the 158s have future a home to go to already)
Fair enough a 158 cants keep to 170 and HST diagram speeds, but could allow for some jogging of units to provides some more carriages on services which are in desperate need of more seats? And the vast majority of staff on the routes affected are already trained on 158s.

Given that EMR's class 158s are only due off lease by the end of 2021 that doesn't seem like a particularly effective short term solution unfortunately. It's been my prediction for a while that Scotrail should actually receive the last of their HST sets during summer 2021.

Ironically EMR's regional fleet replacement is in fact reliant on them receiving five 170s from Scotrail: Possibly easier to hold onto those for a few months longer, if the lease agreement allows, than taking on extra 158s if HST deliveries don't step up their pace.

 

[CJSwan]

Ahh, drat! 2021 is the flaw in my idea haha ohwell

 

[Highland37]

No, the 172s eight years ago, and there's still plenty of DMUs on secondary routes in Europe, including new ones.

Well, yes it is, but it takes time, and there's lines that will never be economic for electrification, like the West Highland and Far North.

The railway isn't economic full stop. If it's economics which is your main focus, order a fleet of buses for the dualled A9.

 

[Journeyman]

I think this whole sorry episode shows that what are supposedly simple solutions often turn out to be anything but, and what looks good on paper when bidding can be fiendishly difficult to deliver.

I've had some insider info on this from a former boss who has been quite widely involved in rail franchise bidding, and the main driving force behind this whole project was someone on the bid team who is, I believe, long gone and therefore not having to deal with the day-in, day-out consequences. Apparently they were an HST enthusiast who ignored advice from others suggesting it was a bad idea. A fairly catastrophic error seems to have been made early on regarding the running costs, apparently based on only one power car!

I think a lot of people have defended all of this based around the idea that LNER services are much more popular, therefore ScotRail needed to up their game. Agreed, that's absolutely fine, but I think the assumption has been made that "people prefer LNER services because they're HSTs", and therefore it's been decided that HSTs are the best solution. I would suggest that 99.9% of people don't know or care what HSTs are, and that the real issue is that "people prefer LNER services because they have more seats, more space and better catering, which HSTs are able to provide." However, HST's are not the only trains able to provide this - there were a whole heap of other solutions. Abellio has now been running the franchise for four and a half years! They could easily have had new stock in service by now, even if there were delays!

Many of us in the industry could see this coming. I've worked with another company that operated Mark 3s until fairly recently, and they're in absolutely terrible condition, however smart you manage to get them looking on the outside. They're now somewhat beyond their design life and are suffering from terrible corrosion, and a whole heap of issues with obsolete electronics. I also question this unshakeable belief among enthusiasts that they represent the absolute pinnacle of rolling stock evolution. They don't - they've always had a number of flaws that are quite annoying, and while the power door refurb deals with some of the most significant ones, it certainly doesn't deal with all of them. On top of that, the power cars are noisy and polluting compared to more modern stock, and ScotRail have taken on the most unreliable sub-fleet of the lot.

I've been saying a lot of this since the beginning - it was an absolutely dreadful mistake, and I'm not surprised in the least that it's gone so badly.

Just order something new, FFS.

 

[Highland37]

I totally agree with the above (apart from the bit about units vs HSTs - no people don't really care if it's an HST but they do want a smoother and quieter environment and the 170 or 158 does not offer that (tangent!)).

There are appears to be an unshakeable belief that the past was better and because it's an HST it is automatically better. Nostalgia has held this country back for decades. Even in the face of hard evidence (low reliability, trains not able to work, overcrowding, more 158s (not less) and no sign of improvement), there are still people saying it will come good.

Electrify and order new stock and get rid of the ancient trains which are not capable of providing a service fit for 2019. The railway looks like a joke.

 

[Journeyman]

I totally agree with the above (apart from the bit about units vs HSTs - no people don't really care if it's an HST but they do want a smoother and quieter environment and the 170 or 158 does not offer that (tangent!)).

The IET/Azuma does, though - I've travelled on GWR ones quite a lot recently, and found the electric/diesel changeover almost completely unnoticeable. They're very quiet inside.

There are appears to be an unshakeable belief that the past was better and because it's an HST it is automatically better. Nostalgia has held this country back for decades. Even in the face of hard evidence (low reliability, trains not able to work, overcrowding, more 158s (not less) and no sign of improvement), there are still people saying it will come good.

Electrify and order new stock and get rid of the ancient trains which are not capable of providing a service fit for 2019. The railway looks like a joke.

Completely agree. Hopefully no-one will come up with the insane idea of attempting to use ancient stock like this again. I think it's all a bit hypocritical anyway - remember how much the Deltic and Western fans hated the HSTs?

 

[Highland37]

I haven't been on the IET so can't comment. Diesel seems so yesterday now but maybe that is what people want.

The railway industry, or maybe its armchair experts, are so desperate to point out why electrifying the HML will never happen. Norway and in the Alps have had it for decades in much more challenging terrain. Maybe we should look abroad for new thinking as the thinking here is stuck in the past like much of the country.

I look forward to the first 314 tour to Aviemore.

 

[Journeyman]

I haven't been on the IET so can't comment. Diesel seems so yesterday now but maybe that is what people want.

I don't think anyone wants diesel, but we are where we are, and we'll need to use it for now. Bi-modes can make effective use of what's there already in terms of electrification though. Plus, in my objective opinion, despite the hysterical squeals of some on here, the IET is a good train. It works. It provides a good, modern travelling environment.

I look forward to the first 314 tour to Aviemore.

You're clearly made of stronger stuff than I am!

 

[Energy]

I want to meet the person who thought 2+4/2+5 HSTs would be fuel economic and check how hollow his/her head is. Considering how long it has taken a fleet of (preferably) bimodes or diesels could have been built.
The castle GWR sets are obviously a temporary solution as they are trying to sort out prm before the end of the franchise and don't want to invest too much but Abellio ScotRail had the plan from the start.
Abellio seem to have s thing with their bidding team, this and GA.

 

[gingertom]

I want to meet the person who thought 2+4/2+5 HSTs would be fuel economic and check how hollow his/her head is. Considering how long it has taken a fleet of (preferably) bimodes or diesels could have been built.
The castle GWR sets are obviously a temporary solution as they are trying to sort out prm before the end of the franchise and don't want to invest too much but Abellio ScotRail had the plan from the start.
Abellio seem to have s thing with their bidding team, this and GA.

They had a thing about Flirts in GA. Would that work up here? Thinking specifically about
1. would the "girth" of the diesel pod fit through the Killiecrankie and Kinghorn tunnels?
2. is the inter city spec acceptable to Scotrail / ScotGov?
3. would 2600 BHP ie one 4 engine diesel pod be ok powering a 6 car set?
4. would they have sufficient range?

 

[Craig2601]

What are the emissions of an HST like when compared to a bi-mode IET operating under diesel?

 

[Energy]

3. would 2600 BHP ie one 4 engine diesel pod be ok powering a 6 car set?

The 158s only have 350/400hp so a 6 car of them would have about 1200hp, I know flirts will be a bit heavier but I think 2600hp will be enough

 

[mullac30]

They had a thing about Flirts in GA. Would that work up here? Thinking specifically about
1. would the "girth" of the diesel pod fit through the Killiecrankie and Kinghorn tunnels?
2. is the inter city spec acceptable to Scotrail / ScotGov?
3. would 2600 BHP ie one 4 engine diesel pod be ok powering a 6 car set?
4. would they have sufficient range?

A man can dream...
(thanks to rdlover777 for his excellent 755 drawings as a template btw)

 

[Energy]

A man can dream...
(thanks to rdlover777 for his excellent 755 drawings as a template btw)

They actually look really nice, I would add a little more to the carriages though.

 

[GrimShady]

I really don't care what the traction is as long as gives a traveling environment on par with MkIII, quiet and doesn't vibrate. IET does not satisfy this, not in its current form plus it's a very poor rider.

 

[jimm]

The railway industry, or maybe its armchair experts, are so desperate to point out why electrifying the HML will never happen. Norway and in the Alps have had it for decades in much more challenging terrain. Maybe we should look abroad for new thinking as the thinking here is stuck in the past like much of the country.

What has terrain got to do with it? Clearly the biggest issues when it comes to electrification on the Highland Main Line are likely to be things like the tunnels (and the huge sums of money being sunk into the parallel A9).

The Swiss had a very powerful incentive to electrify hard and fast, especially after the First World War - their lack of coal mines and the problems of buying it when the French coalfields had fallen into German hands and Germany and Britain were rather keener on keeping their war industries running (and in the case of Britain, shipping lots of coal to France to make up for its lost supplies) than worrying about the Swiss being able to run steam trains.

The Norwegian railways also relied heavily on British coal and the difficulty of keeping supplies flowing (with lots of timber burned instead) and a huge increase in coal prices gave them a push to start electrification as well in the 1920s, but at a rather slower pace than the Swiss.

The Norwegian Nordlandsbanen from Trondheim to Bodo (all 450 miles of it) is diesel-worked, as are the Rorosbanen secondary route from southern Norway to Trondheim (Hamar to Storen, south of Trondheim, is about 240 miles) and a few other lines in rural areas, with no prospect of that changing any time soon. The various dmus that work most of the passenger services will soon be replaced by bi-modes which can use the 15kv overhead when operating in the Trondheim area in particular, with some short extensions of the overhead planned north of Trondheim for suburban trains there and east to the Swedish border.

I really don't care what the traction is as long as gives a traveling environment on par with MkIII, quiet and doesn't vibrate. IET does not satisfy this, not in its current form plus it's a very poor rider.

The state of the track they are using does have just a teeny-weeny part to play in how trains ride - and there's a lot of less than perfect track out there, never mind what the track is sitting on, such as embankments of questionable construction quality (almost anything built by the GWR in the Edwardian period, for example), and the effects of recent hot dry summers and wet autumns and winters doing nothing to help matters.

 

[Meerkat]

The railway industry, or maybe its armchair experts, are so desperate to point out why electrifying the HML will never happen. Norway and in the Alps have had it for decades in much more challenging terrain.

Is their terrain more challenging for electrification? My impression is that the lumpy bits of Switzerland and Norway are rocky whereas in Scotland it is boggier . Drilling and bolting into rock is easier and more predictable than soft ground isn’t it?

 

[Highland37]

When you see the measures taken to get a railway through the Alps, I think emphatically yes.

 

[43096]

The Swiss had a very powerful incentive to electrify hard and fast, especially after the First World War - their lack of coal mines and the problems of buying it when the French coalfields had fallen into German hands and Germany and Britain were rather keener on keeping their war industries running (and in the case of Britain, shipping lots of coal to France to make up for its lost supplies) than worrying about the Swiss being able to run steam trains.

There were also other factors: operating steam trains over the Gotthard and Lötschberg routes must have been a nightmare for the crews, especially the firemen, and consequently limits on performance in terms of train weights, speeds etc. The other major factor was that as a mountainous country, Switzerland has plenty of water coming off said mountains, which is a useful source for hydro-electric power stations.

 

[Chester1]

a fleet of 30 units needs to be something off the shelf. 68 and mk5 coaches with DVT seems a decent shout.

There is no guarantee that CAF would offer to build more at a good price. The TPE fleet is rumoured to be cheap because they had a gap in their order book in Spain. The order has been finished (i.e. all built but most not in service. Scot Rail would need to move fast while further orders are still possible. With the benefit of hindsight TPE should have just ordered an extra 12 x 802s and waited for them.

The whole 68 + Mk5 thing seems to derive from people's opinion that the Mk5s are the natural successor to Mk3s wherever they operate, simply because they are LHCS and nothing else.

It baffles me as to why people think this is a good idea, despite the franchise spec all but eliminating single loco haulage as well as particular areas that would render the Mk5s incompatible.

Worth noting that the Mk5s for TPE are just an adaptation off the sleeper design, and not a dedicated production line in their own right. So it's not as if they are the perfect be all and end all coaches that many like to assume would take precedence in any future LHCS order.

I am too young to remember the HSTs heyday so it is amusing to see members of the site glorify them. I am sure plenty of people didn't like them when they where introduced and didn't think they were real trains because they have power cars not a locomotive etc etc. They are very comfortable but that is not the only metric that matters. They are awful on fuel efficiency, seating density (across whole length of train including power cars) and reliability compared to an 802.

 

[Journeyman]

I am too young to remember the HSTs heyday so it is amusing to see members of the site glorify them. I am sure plenty of people didn't like them when they where introduced and didn't think they were real trains because they have power cars not a locomotive etc etc.

Oh, the hypocrisy is ridiculous. HSTs were absolutely hated when new, because they replaced Westerns and Deltics!

They are very comfortable but that is not the only metric that matters. They are awful on fuel efficiency, seating density (across whole length of train including power cars) and reliability compared to an 802.

Absolutely spot on. The HST was a huge step forward in its day and transformed services, but building them with slam doors was a BIG mistake, and it's one of the reasons they need to go - it's clearly not proving easy or economic to fit power doors now.

I really question this attitude people have to the Mark 3 coach - again, it was good in its day, but it's absolutely not the completely silent magic carpet many make out. My recent trips on HSTs have been pretty lousy, with poor ride and horribly irritating squeaks from the gangway. This idea that we have to have loco-hauled trains "because of the Mark 3s" is nonsense.

Also agree with your points on the wasted space, massive fuel consumption, poor reliability, and on top of that, corrosion is terrible and the electronics are giving a lot of trouble.

The 80x trains are, in my opinion, very good. They're settling in to reliable service, they use space well (legroom is fantastic) and they ride quietly and smoothly - even when their satanic underfloor engines are running.

 

[Chester1]

Oh, the hypocrisy is ridiculous. HSTs were absolutely hated when new, because they replaced Westerns and Deltics!



Absolutely spot on. The HST was a huge step forward in its day and transformed services, but building them with slam doors was a BIG mistake, and it's one of the reasons they need to go - it's clearly not proving easy or economic to fit power doors now.

I really question this attitude people have to the Mark 3 coach - again, it was good in its day, but it's absolutely not the completely silent magic carpet many make out. My recent trips on HSTs have been pretty lousy, with poor ride and horribly irritating squeaks from the gangway. This idea that we have to have loco-hauled trains "because of the Mark 3s" is nonsense.

Also agree with your points on the wasted space, massive fuel consumption, poor reliability, and on top of that, corrosion is terrible and the electronics are giving a lot of trouble.

The 80x trains are, in my opinion, very good. They're settling in to reliable service, they use space well (legroom is fantastic) and they ride quietly and smoothly - even when their satanic underfloor engines are running.

If any additional ToCs order them then they should specify different seats and go through the trouble of getting another seat type certified for 125-140mph. Apart from that they are a good all round high speed train that can cope with services that have both long distance commuter flows. They are too expensive for ScotRail. Stadler Flirts would be cheaper and more than adequate. It looks like ScotRail will just muddle through with derogations until the whole fleet has been upgraded. Who knows what the options will be in 10 years time.