Scotrail HST alternatives?

[hexagon789]

They're certainly harder on the track than HSTs. I suspect that they might have extra limits imposed on the Highland Mainline.

222s have a lower RA than HSTs...

 

[najaB]

222s have a lower RA than HSTs...

Oh dangit. I remember the last time "what are they going to replace HSTs with" came up the suggestion was 185s, which is what I was thinking of.

That said, two 43s are easier on the track than 5 222 vehicles.

 

[hexagon789]

Oh dangit. I remember the last time "what are they going to replace HSTs with" came up the suggestion was 185s, which is what I was thinking of.

That said, two 43s are easier on the track than 5 222 vehicles.

185s are the same - RA5.

Well, I suppose its 70+34×4+70 tonnes vs 46-53×5 tonnes

How that actually works in terms of impact damage I've no idea.

 

[Railperf]

755/4's could run at SP limits - but what is their range? I understand they need frequent refuelling on Norwich diagrams @dk1 ?

 

[hexagon789]

755/4's could run at SP limits - but what is their range? I understand they need frequent refuelling on Norwich diagrams @dk1 ?

Iirc they can only run at SP speeds if the fuel tanks are ~half full?

Perhaps @dk1 could also confirm if that is the case?

 

[Railperf]

Looks like around three Norwich to Cambridge round trips are possible on diesel before the units head off to Crown Point - that seems to be a range of 300-400miles! If Scotrail can electrify between Stirling and Perth, then hopefully a 755/4 could do two return trips up the HML between Perth and Inverness with enough fuel to drive within SP limits?

 

[dk1]

755/4's could run at SP limits - but what is their range? I understand they need frequent refuelling on Norwich diagrams @dk1 ?

Yes 755s can run in SP speeds but their fuel tanks were modified to comply with weight restrictions. They do need refuelling more often and have something like 40% of the range of a standard DMU which was 1500 miles (1750 miles at a push).

 

[hexagon789]

So potentially two return trips Perth/Inverness (leaving a large fuel margin but not enough to reliably achieve a 5th run it seems), before refuelling.

 

[gingertom]

Anybody know what the difference in weight is between a diesel + fuel tank and a battery raft? The APT throwback refers to having 2x power pods each with 2x diesel gensets and 2x battery rafts. Would this make it a 756?

 

[RobShipway]

I don't think racing harnesses are what is required, but certainly a seat belt no different than what you would have in an ordinary car. That seat belt if needed can be released at a touch of a button, so that the driver can move away from the drivers seat, if he felt that the train would not stop in time and the cab could possibly have a bad impact.

I believe for GWR, the intention was as a stop gap where either new AT300 trains join the fleet to replace them or as is now going to be the case, there is enough spare capacity with their AT300 fleet, such that they can be used instead of the HST trains. I am not sure though whether either Cross Country or Scotrail had such plans. Certainly, it could be that they take on the class 221 fleet from Avanti West Coast, but many alterations to them are going to have to take place prior to them entering service with Avanti. The only possibility for Scotrail, as has been mentioned is the class 222 fleet, otherwise it is using the class 175 fleet. However, I am not sure that there would be enough of the class 175 fleet to make up the 26 HST trains that Scotrail have in their fleet. There is 11 2-car and 16 3-car class 175 units, which if you are lucky would barely make up 13 5 car trains in replacing those Scotrail HST trains. Even adding the 4 class 180 units that are stored to those class 175 units, would not give you enough of a replacement.

With the class 222 units, there are 27 units. However, 4 of those are 7 car units. You probably would have to keep as spare 2 carriages from each of these 4 units and run them as 5 car trains, as I doubt that they would needing 7 car trains on any of the routes that the Scotrail HST units serve and it maybe pushing it a bit with having 5 car trains depending on the platform lengths at some of the platforms that the Scotrail HST stop at, as I know some of their HST trains are 4 Mk3 coach trains.

I was going to say that the only other possibility would be for Scotrail to take on the Mk4 coaches and driving trailers from LNER, once they have been released. But there is not enough of them to be making up 26 4 coach trains, as there is only about 73 MK4 coaches with LNER, with the other 37 being with Transport for Wales.

Which just leaves ordering new trains which I would imagine is either Stadler Flirt trains or CAF Civity units in some form, which for all we know may already be going through the ordering process just with no details about the order as yet in the public domain.

Copied from the thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-legacy-traction-and-its-safety.249602/page-5.

 

[Vectron383]

I have to say that a longer-lagged Stadler product is probably the optimum solution long-term. Not only are they somewhat proven in service but the passenger environment is far better than some other new trains.

 

[gingertom]

I have to say that a longer-lagged Stadler product is probably the optimum solution long-term. Not only are they somewhat proven in service but the passenger environment is far better than some other new trains.

A 7 or 8-car version of Greater Anglia's inter-city 745 would work well.

 

[najaB]

A 7 or 8-car version of Greater Anglia's inter-city 745 would work well.

That might be overkill on the number of seats, no?

 

[gingertom]

That might be overkill on the number of seats, no?

FLIRT cars are shorter. Plus if you want to encourage modal shift, standing from Edinburgh or Glasgow to/from Aberdeen or Inverness from underproviding seats isn't the way to do it.

 

[MattRat]

That might be overkill on the number of seats, no?

Rather overkill than underkill. Especially due to induced demand.

 

[Bletchleyite]

FLIRT cars are shorter. Plus if you want to encourage modal shift, standing from Edinburgh or Glasgow to/from Aberdeen or Inverness from underproviding seats isn't the way to do it.

FLIRT cars have either 16 or about 19m of passenger accommodation,depending if fully articulated or only half articulated. In the former case 7 sections are just under 5 coaches at 24m.

 

[najaB]

FLIRT cars are shorter. Plus if you want to encourage modal shift, standing from Edinburgh or Glasgow to/from Aberdeen or Inverness from underproviding seats isn't the way to do it.

According to Wikipedia, 12-car Class 745s have 704 seats so a 8-car should be somewhere around 460 seats. The 5-car HSTs seat about 220.

 

[gingertom]

According to Wikipedia, 12-car Class 745s have 704 seats so a 8-car should be somewhere around 460 seats. The 5-car HSTs seat about 220.

12-car 745s have 6 articulated bogies, making all cars half articulated. I'd suggest 4 fully articulated, 4 half articulated (to allow for 3 traction bogies, front rear and middle), making the seat count around 430. A 7 car set (3 fully articulated, 4 half articulated) would seat roughly 365 so might be a more appropriate formation.

 

[najaB]

12-car 745s have 6 articulated bogies, making all cars half articulated. I'd suggest 4 fully articulated, 4 half articulated (to allow for 3 traction bogies, front rear and middle), making the seat count around 430. A 7 car set (3 fully articulated, 4 half articulated) would seat roughly 365 so might be a more appropriate formation.

So mostly 6 and a few 7 car sets might be a better mix.

 

[Clansman]

Longer term, contracts are already being prepared for the tendering process for new builds going forward.

While the HST project and ScotRail's whole 'rail revolution' is very much ditched in this post-covid world, it is still realistic to expect that Transport Scotland may still wish to go down the bespoke route, rather than to want to go for something that is just another knocked-off by extension order of another classs of train (such as the 745s or IETs). The core project for the HSTs - as much as it was drafted and proposed by those favourable towards them - was as much about providing a premium product for intercity services with a uniquely Scottish marketable tinge.

For replacing the HSTs as a stop gap until that point, it has gotten to the stage where anything would be on the table if the numbers were right should the need arise to bin the HSTs before the new procurements.

The most realistic solution I can see is for ScotRail to extend the lease of the 156s displaced by East Kilbride and Barrhead electrification ~2024/25 and absorb them around Fife and the Borders on routes crewed solely by Waverley drivers/guards. Or recasting the timetable to temporarily remove Montrose services and reducing Arbroath services to release another few units.

This solution releases enough 158s and 170s for replacing the HSTs without the need for another fleet cascade, and it minimises costs and the general operational mumbo-jumbo that the HSTs have plagued ScotRail with which would reoccur again with a fleet cascade from down south (the inevitable 2 year phased introduction while 7 depots train up on them, to name an example).

I can only see 222s coming in if there is no other alternative rather than being a leading option, and even then focused not on the entire intercity network but limited solely to Aberdeen and the central belt to quicken the introduction.

Certainly ScotRail would be looking in house before looking outwardly. And in the case of the former, the options are there.

 

[chuff chuff]

I believe the Montrose services were/are being looked at.

 

[najaB]

The core project for the HSTs - as much as it was drafted and proposed by those favourable towards them - was as much about providing a premium product for intercity services with a uniquely Scottish marketable tinge.

Stadler will build FLIRTs in basically whatever configuration you want, so there's no reason that we couldn't get a Scottish version of them if we wanted to.

 

[Clansman]

Stadler will build FLIRTs in basically whatever configuration you want, so there's no reason that we couldn't get a Scottish version of them if we wanted to.

Very true.

My main point was that it is arbitrary to assume that ScotRail would go for off-the-shelf 745s (or by extension IETs) simply because other operators have.

I believe the Montrose services were/are being looked at.

Not surprising.

They are some of the most subsidised services in the country outside the rural areas.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Very true.

My main point was that it is arbitrary to assume that ScotRail would go for off-the-shelf 745s (or by extension IETs) simply because other operators have.

Most trains are off the shelf in some form - or rather made of your choice of modular components. Other than the Intercity Express Programme itself, has anyone specced from scratch since the Pendolinos and Voyagers (and the rather niche case of the Caledonian Sleeper)? I don't think they have.

 

[Clansman]

Most trains are off the shelf in some form - or rather made of your choice of modular components. Other than the Intercity Express Programme itself, has anyone specced from scratch since the Pendolinos and Voyagers (and the rather niche case of the Caledonian Sleeper)? I don't think they have.

True. To clarify, I wasn't meaning to exclude new types of trains that have mechanical derivations that evolve from an existing family of rolling stock, but rather procuring a like-for-like design based on another operator or existing variants or spec - such as the 803s and 810s being tweaked knock-offs of 801s within the IET platform.

The best example I can think of is the SWT 444s. Bespoke enough that it is tailored for SWT's intercity specs and was the first of its kind, yet from a tried and tested family of MUs across Europe (Siemens Disiros) such that it wasn't completely from mechanical scratch.

If for example it were suggested that ScotRail simply go for new built tartan painted 444s (in the same vein that one would suggest 745s or IETs) or utilise the 444 modular design and calling it a 447; that would fit what I was responding to. I wouldn't put it passed Transport Scotland to look beyond this.

I hope that makes sense

 

[gingertom]

True. To clarify, I wasn't meaning to exclude new types of trains that have mechanical derivations that evolve from an existing family of rolling stock, but rather procuring a like-for-like design based on another operator or existing variants or spec - such as the 803s and 810s being tweaked knock-offs of 801s within the IET platform.

The best example I can think of is the SWT 444s. Bespoke enough that it is tailored for SWT's intercity specs and was the first of its kind, yet from a tried and tested family of MUs across Europe (Siemens Disiros) such that it wasn't completely from mechanical scratch.

If for example it were suggested that ScotRail simply go for new built tartan painted 444s (in the same vein that one would suggest 745s or IETs) or utilise the 444 modular design and calling it a 447; that would fit what I was responding to. I wouldn't put it passed Transport Scotland to look beyond this.

I hope that makes sense

let's not forget the considerable political brownie point scoring if whoever got the contract were to build a factory in Scotland = Scottish jobs...?

 

[najaB]

let's not forget the considerable political brownie point scoring if whoever got the contract were to build a factory in Scotland = Scottish jobs...?

There's no way any company could justify building a factory in Scotland for such a small order - even if just for final assembly of components made elsewhere. They *might* just be able to have it make sense to do interior fit-out at an existing works (e.g. Brodies).

 

[gingertom]

There's no way any company could justify building a factory in Scotland for such a small order - even if just for final assembly of components made elsewhere. They *might* just be able to have it make sense to do interior fit-out at an existing works (e.g. Brodies).

for purely the HST fleet replacement, I agree. However the sweetener could be in the form of the 318/320/334 and 156/158/170 replacement as well. There would be advantages in having such a homogeneous fleet. That's a lot of vehicles, so I'd imagine there'd be a bit of pressure to spread any risk about.

 

[jagardner1984]

There's no way any company could justify building a factory in Scotland for such a small order - even if just for final assembly of components made elsewhere. They *might* just be able to have it make sense to do interior fit-out at an existing works (e.g. Brodies).

In the best traditions of “pork barrel politics” for example putting ship building on the Clyde (when frankly the far east likely to be far cheaper) - if loads of taxpayers money can go Incentivising Hitachi to locate in Newton Aycliffe, it seems quite extraordinary that from a rich tradition - there is now little to no railway engineering in Scotland, and would seem equally reasonable to locate “A N Other” manufacturers next factory in Scotland.

Not specifically for this, but for wider rolling stock orders.

Increasingly I suspect the costs of shipping bits of half finished steel and aluminium around the world will play a bigger part in Carbon calculations for the tendering process. Which might play a role in “onshoring” some manufacturing to these shores. Which might not be a bad thing.

 

[najaB]

In the best traditions of “pork barrel politics” for example putting ship building on the Clyde (when frankly the far east likely to be far cheaper) - if loads of taxpayers money can go Incentivising Hitachi to locate in Newton Aycliffe, it seems quite extraordinary that from a rich tradition - there is now little to no railway engineering in Scotland, and would seem equally reasonable to locate “A N Other” manufacturers next factory in Scotland.

Not specifically for this, but for wider rolling stock orders.

If there's a market for other orders then it might make sense - the Hitachi facility in Newton Aycliffe has been quite busy all things considered.