ScotRail HSTs, here we go again...

[mcmad]

I agree. You perhaps missed the point? There was a suggestion above that instead of HSTs they should have gone with loco+ carriages. However, if memory serves correct, the ITT specifically said that locomotive-hauled stock wasn't permitted, but HSTs were allowed since they were treated as MUs. This is particularly important on the HML where locos have quite restrictive speed limits as compared to MUs and HSTs.

From what I remember of the ITT it was written to favour an HST type solution mainly I suspect for political reasons (i.e. wanting proper 'intercity' trains) rather than any practical reason. The whole process and some of the behaviours I've heard about since have done nothing to shake the view that the railways in Scotland (both infrastructure and trains) is treated as the personal trainset of TS/SG..

 

[Bletchleyite]

From what I remember of the ITT it was written to favour an HST type solution mainly I suspect for political reasons (i.e. wanting proper 'intercity' trains) rather than any practical reason. The whole process and some of the behaviours I've heard about since have done nothing to shake the view that the railways in Scotland (both infrastructure and trains) is treated as the personal trainset of TS/SG..

68-hauled Mk5as* would have met it, wouldn't they? Or anything else that manufacturers would bid that didn't involve underfloor engines.

* I am not saying they are wonderful, just that they are a brand-new solution to "100mph InterCity diesel train without underfloor engines".

 

[Journeyman]

68-hauled Mk5as* would have met it, wouldn't they? Or anything else that manufacturers would bid that didn't involve underfloor engines.

* I am not saying they are wonderful, just that they are a brand-new solution to "100mph InterCity diesel train without underfloor engines".

Wouldn't have met MU speed differentials, though.

 

[43096]

Wouldn't have met MU speed differentials, though.

And not met the budget requirements for Transport Scotland.

 

[najaB]

From what I remember of the ITT it was written to favour an HST type solution mainly I suspect for political reasons (i.e. wanting proper 'intercity' trains) rather than any practical reason.

Oh, the political nature of the ITT is undeniable. That's one of the factors that led to the smorgasbord of bad options.

 

[ajrm]

Absobloodylutely. No-one cared about the type of train, it was about capacity, and to a smaller extent about catering. Absolutely nothing pairs of refurbed 170s couldn't fix.

I'm not sure the capacity argument holds water, certainly on the Aberdeen line, where pre-Covid the LNER HSTs were always extremely busy. No greater chance of finding a seat on a busy 9-coach HST than on a 3-coach Turbostar...

 

[najaB]

I'm not sure the capacity argument holds water, certainly on the Aberdeen line, where pre-Covid the LNER HSTs were always extremely busy. No greater chance of finding a seat on a busy 9-coach HST than on a 3-coach Turbostar...

Indeed. I dare say the five-car HSTs will be full and standing.

 

[HSTEd]

A fleet of seven-car DMUs would have been far more suitable.

Be they 19x or something else

 

[najaB]

A fleet of seven-car DMUs would have been far more suitable.

Be they 19x or something else

I agree that shiny new fleet would have been more suitable, but that wasn't an option at the time. Transport Scotland wasn't in the mood to stump up for it and there was no way the Franchisee was going to buy it on their dime.

 

[HSTEd]

I agree that shiny new fleet would have been more suitable, but that wasn't an option at the time. Transport Scotland wasn't in the mood to stump up for it and there was no way the Franchisee was going to buy it on their dime.

ULtimately it appears to be yet another case where the political-economic construct of the modern railway is penny-wise and pound-foolish

 

[Rhydgaled]

A fleet of seven-car DMUs would have been far more suitable.

No they wouldn't (assuming you mean new DMUs). There is an active electrification programme in Scotland (and if there wasn't, there should be) - any new DMUs would jepordise that. 7-car class 222s cascaded from EMT might have been a better choice than IC125s, but the IC125s were available when ScotRail was being relet - the 222s are not available yet.

 

[HSTEd]

No they wouldn't (assuming you mean new DMUs). There is an active electrification programme in Scotland (and if there wasn't, there should be)

It will be a very very long time before a fleet of 182 DMU carriages cannot find gainful employment elsewhere on the UK railway system.

The nice thing about something like a DMU is that modern ones can be relatively easily reformed as required.

 

[najaB]

It will be a very very long time before a fleet of 182 DMU carriages cannot find gainful employment elsewhere on the UK railway system.

But they won't find a home elsewhere in Scotland. Which is an important consideration given that it would be Transport Scotland footing the bill.

 

[Rhydgaled]

The nice thing about something like a DMU is that modern ones can be relatively easily reformed as required.

Reformed to different train lengths perhaps, but not converted to make use of OHLE or third rail. That is still prohibitively difficult/expensive.

It will be a very very long time before a fleet of 182 DMU carriages cannot find gainful employment elsewhere on the UK railway system.

That depends. If the UK government's stance on electrification (cancel, cancel, cancel) doesn't change then you would be right. However, do we want to use negative carbon technologies (and photosynthesis) to offset the emissions of the UK railway in order to meet our climate targets or would we rather electrify the railways and save the negative carbon stuff for offseting things like steelworks? Network Rail have shown us what a net zero railway would look like and, if we are to obtain that by 2050, the vast majority of passenger stock will need to be capable of electric operation by 2045.

You might have an argument for DEMUs with pantograph wells and a "facility to supply electricity for the traction motors from elsewhere within the unit" (something Voyagers don't have) which could be easily converted to bi-modes.

I believe XR are now demmanding net-zero by 2025; that is plainly not acheivable but being 'realistic' with rates of electrification and government goodwill the railway won't be net-zero by 2050 - to meet the level of GHG cuts needed in this climate crisis we need to be ambitious. We won't get where we need to be moving at a 'realistic' pace - we need to go faster; we won't make 2025 but if we push faster than 'realistic' 2050 (or a little sooner) could be acheivable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But they won't find a home elsewhere in Scotland. Which is an important consideration given that it would be Transport Scotland footing the bill.

At least some might, because you've still got the Far North, Kyle and West Highland Lines to think about, and those (other than possibly hydrogen) are not suitable for batteries due to their length.

However, I'd favour bi-modes as that solves that issue.

 

[HSTEd]

However, do we want to use negative carbon technologies (and photosynthesis) to offset the emissions of the UK railway in order to meet our climate targets or would we rather electrify the railways and save the negative carbon stuff for offseting things like steelworks?

Steelworks are not likely to require negative emissions resources given that it appears likely hydrogen steelmaking will be available.

It's being held back primarily by economic factors rather than technical ones (MIDREX etc)

Certainly the amount of negative emissions tech for a handful of relic diesel railways will be negligible next to that which will be required to support aviation!

Network Rail have shown us what a net zero railway would look like and, if we are to obtain that by 2050, the vast majority of passenger stock will need to be capable of electric operation by 2045.

So... 25-30 years of operation?

It might not be as long as the Sprinters managed, but it is far from a bad innings

 

[Davester50]

I'm not sure the capacity argument holds water, certainly on the Aberdeen line, where pre-Covid the LNER HSTs were always extremely busy. No greater chance of finding a seat on a busy 9-coach HST than on a 3-coach Turbostar...

They had at least 16 more of one of the most sought after DMUs in the country, which would have allowed for plenty of 6 car running, so capacity worries don't really come in to it.