Scotrail HST alternatives?

[XAM2175]

There are a number of bi-mode locos in use in the US for fast passenger services, including ones from GM EMD, Bombardier/Alstom & Siemens chargers. Obviously nowhere near UK loading gauge but not some untested technology for passenger trains

Yes, "UK-gauge" was the unwritten qualifier in my reply. It's obviously not untested technology; simply something that hasn't yet been needed here.

 

[David Goddard]

If only so many mk4 vehicles had not been ditched, Scotrail could have had some of those like the sets which TfW have, working with cl67s

 

[Bletchleyite]

If only so many mk4 vehicles had not been ditched, Scotrail could have had some of those like the sets which TfW have, working with cl67s

Having had trouble with old tat, why would they want more old tat?

 

[Meerkat]

Would one power module be enough for an I7C Flirt?

 

[Wynd]

mk5'S and loco haul would be my preferred solution. At least on Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen.

The operational flexibility offered by this would be worth it. Scotrail have been totally unable to support Rugby and some football services for years now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

mk5'S and loco haul would be my preferred solution. At least on Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen.

The operational flexibility offered by this would be worth it. Scotrail have been totally unable to support Rugby and some football services for years now.

The TPE Mk5s are single-ended multiple units and can't easily be reformed. Do you mean a new order of "proper LHCS" Mk5a, or a significant modification?

 

[Meerkat]

mk5'S and loco haul would be my preferred solution. At least on Edinburgh, Glasgow and Aberdeen.

The operational flexibility offered by this would be worth it. Scotrail have been totally unable to support Rugby and some football services for years now.

Surely it would make no difference to providing extra services unless they leased more than they generally need, something they could just do with the HSTs?

 

[ld0595]

Out of curiosity I looked at the service disruption page today and saw that there's a lot of short formations across the Inter7City network. There's at least 8 services between Glasgow and Aberdeen running with a 158 and a few others with 170s substituting for HSTs.

When I lived in Dundee between 2014 and 2018, single 158s up to Aberdeen weren't all that common other than late night, early morning or disrupted services. 170 on those routes were often quite cosy so it seems mad that we're going backwards 10 years on.

Although people are saying that HSTs are committed until 2030, surely there must be some sort of break clause in the contract that allows Scotrail to terminate the lease early if the HSTs simply aren't reliable enough. Obviously most of us don't have sight of the contract so we can't be sure if that's the case or not, but I would've thought that would be a standard term. It seems mad that Scotrail are paying for a fleet of coaches that spend most of their time in the maintenance shed.

 

[Trainbike46]

Would one power module be enough for an I7C Flirt?

to match or exceed the power of a 3-car 755, you can have up to 6 passenger carriages per power pack

one power pack fits up to 4 engines, a 3-car 755 has two, so 4 engines would be enough for a 6-car

 

[Meerkat]

to match or exceed the power of a 3-car 755, you can have up to 6 passenger carriages per power pack

one power pack fits up to 4 engines, a 3-car 755 has two, so 4 engines would be enough for a 6-car

Is a 6 cars what you need for the same capacity as a 4 car HST, or 5 car?
Dont the Anglian 755s have overheating issues - would a 4 engine power module cope with longer distances at high power?

 

[jagardner1984]

In some ways, for Government Ministers trying to avoid a “it’s the ferries all over again” headlines with the HST programme failure - doesn’t the “drivers refuse to drive them” give them a very convenient exit swifter exit strategy ?

Since many of the diagrams are currently on 2 a car 158, there is presumably little incentive to pay for diesel to haul around 272 tonnes rather than something less than a third of that.

It seems to me fairly inevitable that my car will degrade in mechanical performance over the coming decade, as components age and servicing becomes more challenging. what planet would someone be on to think that performance would improve or even remain stable on a 45 year old train ? That’s not how rusting works.

 

[Wynd]

Out of curiosity I looked at the service disruption page today and saw that there's a lot of short formations across the Inter7City network. There's at least 8 services between Glasgow and Aberdeen running with a 158 and a few others with 170s substituting for HSTs.

When I lived in Dundee between 2014 and 2018, single 158s up to Aberdeen weren't all that common other than late night, early morning or disrupted services. 170 on those routes were often quite cosy so it seems mad that we're going backwards 10 years on.

Although people are saying that HSTs are committed until 2030, surely there must be some sort of break clause in the contract that allows Scotrail to terminate the lease early if the HSTs simply aren't reliable enough. Obviously most of us don't have sight of the contract so we can't be sure if that's the case or not, but I would've thought that would be a standard term. It seems mad that Scotrail are paying for a fleet of coaches that spend most of their time in the maintenance shed.

This is, unfortunately, depressingly familiar, and a key reason as to why so many Aberdeen-Edinburgh commuters go LNER.

Serious questions arise in how Haymarket have performed regarding HST introductions.

Barely half of HST's are in service at any one time. Most of them are lying dead at Haymarket or Inverness on any given day.

 

[CJSwan]

Out of curiosity I looked at the service disruption page today and saw that there's a lot of short formations across the Inter7City network. There's at least 8 services between Glasgow and Aberdeen running with a 158 and a few others with 170s substituting for HSTs.

When I lived in Dundee between 2014 and 2018, single 158s up to Aberdeen weren't all that common other than late night, early morning or disrupted services. 170 on those routes were often quite cosy so it seems mad that we're going backwards 10 years on.

Although people are saying that HSTs are committed until 2030, surely there must be some sort of break clause in the contract that allows Scotrail to terminate the lease early if the HSTs simply aren't reliable enough. Obviously most of us don't have sight of the contract so we can't be sure if that's the case or not, but I would've thought that would be a standard term. It seems mad that Scotrail are paying for a fleet of coaches that spend most of their time in the maintenance shed.

There was a fatality between Stirling and Glasgow last night. Which resulted in quite a few HSTs and other units finishing the day in the wrong place, due to the disruption and a variety of cancellations.

But still, most days there’s quite a few substitutions due to how unreliable the HSTs can be/are.

 

[Wynd]

But still, most days there’s quite a few substitutions due to how unreliable the HSTs can be/are.

This is where questions arise.

OOC had them on 125 duty day in and day out with limited in service failures, orders of magnitude below what SR have managed. That's with 8 coaches.

What has gone so badly wrong that Haymarket cant keep even half of a smaller fleet in service doing fewer miles and hauling lighter loads?

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

I was thinking the other day, It seems strange that the Caledonian sleeper merited the investment of developing the MK5 coaches and building 75 for a niche sleeper service, while Scotrail's intercity service received reheated leftovers from other operators.

I suppose they could refurbish the sleeper coaches for use as loco-hauled passenger services. It'd be messy and I can't imagine they'd actually do it, but ScotGov tend to make strange decisions around transport. They're also in the mood to make cuts just now and have just stripped Serco of their franchise.

 

[Trainbike46]

I was thinking the other day, It seems strange that the Caledonian sleeper merited the investment of developing the MK5 coaches and building 75 for a niche sleeper service, while Scotrail's intercity service received reheated leftovers from other operators.

I suppose they could refurbish the sleeper coaches for use as loco-hauled passenger services. It'd be messy and I can't imagine they'd actually do it, but ScotGov tend to make strange decisions around transport. They're also in the mood to make cuts just now and have just stripped Serco of their franchise.

A big reason for using existing stock for the IC service was that the electrification plans were being thought of, and they didn't want to be stuck with unsuitable stock after the electrification strategy was finalised. Using existing stock, which has a shorter lifespan, sidesteps that issue

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was thinking the other day, It seems strange that the Caledonian sleeper merited the investment of developing the MK5 coaches and building 75 for a niche sleeper service, while Scotrail's intercity service received reheated leftovers from other operators.

I suppose they could refurbish the sleeper coaches for use as loco-hauled passenger services. It'd be messy and I can't imagine they'd actually do it, but ScotGov tend to make strange decisions around transport. They're also in the mood to make cuts just now and have just stripped Serco of their franchise.

That's been tried before. Cutting holes in sleeper coaches tends to damage the structure too much.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

That's been tried before. Cutting holes in sleeper coaches tends to damage the structure too much.

The corridor side windows are full size - I suppose you could make do with that. I know people on here get super excited about the idea of compartments.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Mar 2023 ==

A big reason for using existing stock for the IC service was that the electrification plans were being thought of, and they didn't want to be stuck with unsuitable stock after the electrification strategy was finalised. Using existing stock, which has a shorter lifespan, sidesteps that issue

Lots of nice electric locomotives going spare for the Mk5s

 

[LOL The Irony]

Lots of nice electric locomotives going spare for the Mk5s

The route north of Edinburgh isn't electrified, so any overnight or last minute replacement of HST sets would require diesel traction. Even then, Transport Scotland's 2030 HST replacements are currently proposed to be bi-modal, so full electrification isn't even on the cards for HST replacement.

 

[43096]

That's been tried before. Cutting holes in sleeper coaches tends to damage the structure too much.

If you’re referring to Mark 3s, no it doesn’t. The design work was done and was feasible from an engineering perspective. Obviously it would be more costly than leasing day coaches that Virgin was off-leasing, hence why it didn’t happen.

 

[gingertom]

Is a 6 cars what you need for the same capacity as a 4 car HST, or 5 car?
Dont the Anglian 755s have overheating issues - would a 4 engine power module cope with longer distances at high power?

The engines ought to be able to cope with long periods of high power running. I'd be more concerned about the fuel consumption and whether the tank would run dry short of its destination.

A 6-car set should be able to seat ~300. Is there maybe a case for starting off with 5-car sets? Then remove the power pod and replace it with an additional passenger vehicle once the wires are up? Could the power pods be recycled to west highland / far north / Kyle lines? There's many options here.

 

[popeter45]

a long distance FLIRT would prob use a longer engine unit with either more engines or more fuel

 

[Meerkat]

The engines ought to be able to cope with long periods of high power running.

I thought at Anglia the issue was the restricted space leading to heat issues - long periods at high power are going to make that worse

 

[gingertom]

I thought at Anglia the issue was the restricted space leading to heat issues - long periods at high power are going to make that worse

Sounds like the climbs to Slocht and Drumochter would kill them.... MK5s and a 68 please!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sounds like the climbs to Slocht and Drumochter would kill them.... MK5s and a 68 please!

The "thrash pod" is basically a cabless locomotive. There's no reason effective cooling couldn't be specified for it, making it a bit longer if necessary.

 

[gingertom]

The "thrash pod" is basically a cabless locomotive. There's no reason effective cooling couldn't be specified for it, making it a bit longer if necessary.

can it be made longer? The pod is wider so lengthening it may cause gouging gauging issues.

 

[MarkyT]

The "thrash pod" is basically a cabless locomotive. There's no reason effective cooling couldn't be specified for it, making it a bit longer if necessary.

It doesn't have traction motors though; they're accommodated under the cabs of the driving end vehicles. I agree a single 'super pod' might plausibly be made longer, perhaps by ~50% to accommodate up to say 6 separate thrash/storage modules. We shouldn't forget that the Scottish decarbonisation strategy focusses on discontinuous electrification and batteries with steadily increasing wiring.

 

[Meerkat]

It doesn't have traction motors though; they're accommodated under the cabs of the driving end vehicles. I agree a single 'super pod' might plausibly be made longer, perhaps by ~50% to accommodate up to say 6 separate thrash/storage modules. We shouldn't forget that the Scottish decarbonisation strategy focusses on discontinuous electrification and batteries with steadily increasing wiring.

How heavy would a 6 module power pod be, particularly as it shares its bogies.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How heavy would a 6 module power pod be, particularly as it shares its bogies.

I think there's no sense in going down the line of "but building a locomotive is impossible", because clearly building a locomotive isn't impossible. And if you can build one with cabs you can build one without and shove it in the middle if you want. Though you might also want to put it at one end instead.

If it couldn't share the bogies, you could have it on its own. Stadler offers both options. Basically if you want to do it and it can be done with the modular components, Stadler will do it for you, even if you only want a few.

There is also the option of having more than one power module. You could perhaps have three in a six-car train with two engines in each (allowing more space for cooling kit and potential battery addition).

 

[43096]

It doesn't have traction motors though; they're accommodated under the cabs of the driving end vehicles. I agree a single 'super pod' might plausibly be made longer, perhaps by ~50% to accommodate up to say 6 separate thrash/storage modules. We shouldn't forget that the Scottish decarbonisation strategy focusses on discontinuous electrification and batteries with steadily increasing wiring.

How heavy would a 6 module power pod be, particularly as it shares its bogies.

We could build a bigger pod, move it to one end of the train, or if needed have one at each end of the train. You’d need a cab in that case and could put traction motors under it.

We could call it a “power car”…