Scotrail HSTs?

[170401]

Can anything be done to give them a bit more grunt whilst accelerating?

Scotrail experimented with this a few years back with more powerful engines being fitted to 2 units (431 and 432 if I remember right?). They were absolute beasts and had to wait time regularly at intermediate stations, I believe the experiment was not deemed a success due to the higher running costs (correct me if I am wrong).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surely 222/Voyager stock spare from early 2020s would be ideal to replace turbostars etc.

This would be the ideal solution, Scotrail did flirt with the idea of using class 180 stock a few years back when it became redundant at FGW.

Refurbished and reconfigured class 170 stock may also be the way forward, where internal doors are fitted the travelling environment can actually be quite pleasant and, contrary to what enthusiasts would have you believe, most people don't bother about having engines under the floor.

 

[158722]

As has been said, this story has gone around for years whenever HSTs were up for replacement from somewhere. Despite TFS having made reference to the use of HSTs, I really doubt it will happen as they are not really suitable, even for the Aberdeen and Inverness services mentioned. That and add in that most sets will be 40+ years old when available and without power doors. Sadly, I don't see HSTs being retained by any franchised operators, so open access or scrap beckons.

Much more sensible, would be 220s or 221s, the latter possibly freed up from WC if they ever get around building some more Pendos/EMUs to replace them on the Euston-Brum-Scotland services. Despite the Highland main and Aberdeen line having limited fast running, even 100mph potential let alone 125, using Voyagers would surely still speed journeys up given faster acceleration and hill climbing abilities, something which is frequently complained about as regards the 170s. Running most services with 4/5 cars would also be beneficial, the Aberdeens even off-peak are often full and standing south of Perth, with perhaps pairs of 170s on peak time extras.

 

[scotraildriver]

Scotrail experimented with this a few years back with more powerful engines being fitted to 2 units (431 and 432 if I remember right?). They were absolute beasts and had to wait time regularly at intermediate stations, I believe the experiment was not deemed a success due to the higher running costs (correct me if I am wrong).

They were a success performance wise but we're deemed too noisy and they both caught fire twice.

 

[matchmaker]

Scotrail experimented with this a few years back with more powerful engines being fitted to 2 units (431 and 432 if I remember right?). They were absolute beasts and had to wait time regularly at intermediate stations, I believe the experiment was not deemed a success due to the higher running costs (correct me if I am wrong).

In that case, what would be the running costs of an HST with 4500bhp of MTU power as compared to a 6 car 170 with just over 2500 bhp?

 

[richa2002]

Sadly, I don't see HSTs being retained by any franchised operators, so open access or scrap beckons.

Which pretty much sums up the bonkers state of our railways when we have packed 3/4/5 car DMUs running about.

 

[Mark62]

HST's stop at belper and Dronfield on the through morning train even though they are too long for the respective platforms . So what's the problem elsewhere. The Inverness to London HST has way too much running time between Inverness and Perth. Plenty of time can be pulled from the timetable.

 

[TheEdge]

Which pretty much sums up the bonkers state of our railways when we have packed 3/4/5 car DMUs running about.

To which HSTs are incomparable in use and flexibility. What the railways should be doing is building new stock, not re-purposing trains that are between 30 - 40 years old.

Compare this to the airline industry. When the HSTs were introduced BA (or its predecessors) were flying Tridents, they were replaced by 757s, they've since been replaced by the A320 family. So while the railways are still toying with 30+ year old trains the airline industry has gone through three generations of aircraft.

 

[bnm]

40 year old carriages that are well past their best. Dodgy electrics, dodgy patched up corrosion, expensive replacement parts, non-retention toilets, manual doors, poor air-con due to droplight windows.

All very expensive to address and there comes a point when that expense for an extra 10 years service outweighs the cost of new rolling stock with a 30+ year lifespan. But if the Scots want to pay for further 'Trigger's broom' (or 'Ship of Theseus' if you're of a classical bent) 'improvements' to ancient rolling stock then who am I to say how they should waste their money.

Much as I like the Mk3 stock, they are old and no longer fit for purpose.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

HST's stop at belper and Dronfield on the through morning train even though they are too long for the respective platforms . So what's the problem elsewhere....

IIRC, trains that are too long for a platform can stop at said platform if:

1) They are fitted with Selective Door Operation (SDO)
2) They stopped at that platform before SDO rules came into force
3) Local Door Operation is employed

I imagine HSTs at Belper/Dronfield fit into category 2.

 

[dubscottie]

To which HSTs are incomparable in use and flexibility. What the railways should be doing is building new stock, not re-purposing trains that are between 30 - 40 years old.

Compare this to the airline industry. When the HSTs were introduced BA (or its predecessors) were flying Tridents, they were replaced by 757s, they've since been replaced by the A320 family. So while the railways are still toying with 30+ year old trains the airline industry has gone through three generations of aircraft.

True.. Aircraft get replaced because of fatigue after so many "rotations".

Regional Railways planned to keep the Class 108's as a "long life fleet" but after a minor accident they discovered that the alloy bodyshell of a 108 had the same fatigue issues as aircraft have. Hence the steel bodied 101 & 117's got kept.

I heard a rumour that the first 14 158's have major issues with bodyshell fatigue and the whole 158/159 class might not last much longer either. (Not sure if that refers to 14 vehicles or 14 units)

So perhaps HST's may have a brief future but I can not see it.

But perhaps the visit of a HST to Oban was for other reasons???

 

[The Ham]

I've suggested on other threads that if HST's could split in two with cabs fitted to the middle two coaches so the two half could be use indipendently of each other. As that could be very useful in that they could run as their full length where they were there was more demand and then split on route (much like DMU's are able to) to serve two routes which are less busy and/or to run more shorter services.

Obviously such works would be fairly costly, but would it be something that could be of benefit for Scotland?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

True.. Aircraft get replaced because of fatigue after so many "rotations".

Regional Railways planned to keep the Class 108's as a "long life fleet" but after a minor accident they discovered that the alloy bodyshell of a 108 had the same fatigue issues as aircraft have. Hence the steel bodied 101 & 117's got kept.

I heard a rumour that the first 14 158's have major issues with bodyshell fatigue and the whole 158/159 class might not last much longer either. (Not sure if that refers to 14 vehicles or 14 units)

So perhaps HST's may have a brief future but I can not see it.

But perhaps the visit of a HST to Oban was for other reasons???

Is that every single class 158 and 159 (inc all sub-classes) might have to be scrapped within a few years? If so that's going to be interesting, it'll cut a load of DMUs out of the overall avaiable list around the country when there's already a shortage of DMUs. Are the rest of the 15x classes affect as well?

How much longer have any Mk3s got until their bodies are life expired?

I've suggested on other threads that if HST's could split in two with cabs fitted to the middle two coaches so the two half could be use indipendently of each other. As that could be very useful in that they could run as their full length where they were there was more demand and then split on route (much like DMU's are able to) to serve two routes which are less busy and/or to run more shorter services.

Obviously such works would be fairly costly, but would it be something that could be of benefit for Scotland?

Not sure if that would be feasible, the new cabs would have to pass the crash regs

 

[al.currie93]

How much longer have any Mk3s got until their bodies are life expired?

A recent study showed 2035, so 21 years.

Link: http://archive.today/TTAs

As to the HSTs, as I've said elsewhere, I hope that they do find a use for them, as they are great trains that perform very well, and also have an awful lot of legacy, and I don't like seeing machines that perform perfectly well going to waste! Some train services in Scotland do seem like potential candidates and it would be great to see them continue on there; however whether they will contimue on anywhere or not, I honestly cannot say.

 

[Emblematic]

How much longer have any Mk3s got until their bodies are life expired?

I think that some Mk 3s will be around for decades. Steel structures don't suffer fatigue problems in the way that aluminium alloy ones do. Corrosion is a different matter, but control of this seems to be well in hand with the maintenance regimes for Mk 3 stock. New traction packages for the SWT 455s wouldn't be on the cards if the units didn't have a decade or more of life remaining.

Interestingly, the current group standards state that the fatigue design life of the structure
"... shall be at least equal to either the design life of the vehicle or a predetermined maintenance interval at which point the structure shall be
considered to be life expired."
If I read this correctly, this means that new trains must have a specified maximum design life, after which, game over - more so even than aircraft, which simply have an increasingly onerous inspection regime (effectively ending their life due to costs.)

 

[Western Lord]

I've suggested on other threads that if HST's could split in two with cabs fitted to the middle two coaches so the two half could be use indipendently of each other. As that could be very useful in that they could run as their full length where they were there was more demand and then split on route (much like DMU's are able to) to serve two routes which are less busy and/or to run more shorter services.

Obviously such works would be fairly costly, but would it be something that could be of benefit for Scotland?

Sounds like you want redundant HSTs to mate with redundant Class 442s!

The only reason that HSTs are still in service is that there are currently no alternative 125mph trains available. Once this situation changes, their raison d'etre will be gone and no other operator is likely to want to pay the high operating and maintenance costs.

 

[Emblematic]

The reason the HSTs are still in service is because they are very cost effective. There have been some displacements over the years, but almost every unit built remains is in use, save a few written off through collision damage. Moreover, it was deemed cost effective to re-engine all of the power cars within the last decade - more so than replacing with Voyagers, Coradias or anything else in the market. With most of the remaining non-electrified main lines being wired in the next few years, I think their number may finally start to diminish, but there is no replacement planned for some routes, and certainly no present appetite for procuring new diesel-only trains.

 

[92002]

Consider the following. In ICEC days Queen Street had a daily HST.

The first units available will be from Paddington and could easily be used as a 6 car sets.They are even getting done up at Kilmarnock now.

If power doors were fitted to the HST, then dwell times will reduce. Perhaps even fit toilet tanks.

Result cheap fix to a DMU service for longer distance services.

 

[Max]

The "sob sob, why are we getting 35 year old trains?" argument doesn't wash in my view. Chiltern have transformed their Mk3s to such an extent that few passengers would believe they aren't brand new trains. Furthermore, they are using LHCS to market their premium services, directly competing with Virgin and demonstrating a marked improvement over their Turbostars, which is exactly what Scotrail could do on their central belt-highland services.

 

[route:oxford]

Consider the following. In ICEC days Queen Street had a daily HST.

The first units available will be from Paddington and could easily be used as a 6 car sets.They are even getting done up at Kilmarnock now.

If power doors were fitted to the HST, then dwell times will reduce. Perhaps even fit toilet tanks.

Result cheap fix to a DMU service for longer distance services.

In the olden days it didn't really matter if an HST fouled the points at Queen Street for a while. The station was relatively quiet. These days - delays to incoming services due to platform congestion are not uncommon.

If you're going to take up 8 cars worth of space on a Queen Street platform then for goodness sake make it 7.x cars worth of passenger carrying capacity.

It's standing room only on even off-peak services nowadays when they depart Weegieland

 

[170401]

The "sob sob, why are we getting 35 year old trains?" argument doesn't wash in my view. Chiltern have transformed their Mk3s to such an extent that few passengers would believe they aren't brand new trains. Furthermore, they are using LHCS to market their premium services, directly competing with Virgin and demonstrating a marked improvement over their Turbostars, which is exactly what Scotrail could do on their central belt-highland services.

The politics of Scotland are very far removed from that of the Chilterns sadly and whilst many of us up here will see HSTs as a vast improvement many will simply see it as 'them English' dumping their cast offs on Scotland, sadly an endemic political outlook that simply will not exist in the Chilterns.

 

[455driver]

The only reason that HSTs are still in service is that there are currently no alternative 125mph trains available. Once this situation changes, their raison d'etre will be gone and no other operator is likely to want to pay the high operating and maintenance costs.

So you are saying that a HST is more expensive to run than these all singing all dancing IEPs are you?

Going by all the talk of the huge leasing costs for the IEP I would like you to link to information (not wikipedia though ) that backs up your statement!

 

[The Ham]

So you are saying that a HST is more expensive to run than these all singing all dancing IEPs are you?

Going by all the talk of the huge leasing costs for the IEP I would like you to link to information (not wikipedia though ) that backs up your statement!

Yes, based on track access charges, even if the IEP was the same cost as a Super Voyager then the cost per mile for a 10 coach set would be 120.9ppm compared with 145.62ppm for an 8 coach HST set. Even class 390's as a 10 coach set woulc be 136.8ppm and they are higer because of their tilting caperbility.

Yes about 9ppm or 25ppm isn't a lot, but given trains could be do hundreds of miles a day that all soon adds up over a year. On top of that there's likely to be the fule savings, savings form having a uniform fleet, etc.

 

[47802]

I'm sure some refurbished 170's will do the job, while there probably not the most ideal long distance train, although I would prefer a 170 over a voyager, they are flexible in that they can just as easy work a medium distance stopping train and a longer distance one, and the electrification schemes will release more capacity for these units on the non electrified routes. While towards the end of the decade there may be an option to look at Meridians or 185's

I'm sure you could use an HST but they will need a significant upgrade and I doubt the cost of maintaining these 35+ year old trains will be cheap, plus I'm not sure replacing 15 year old trains with 35+ year old trains would go down very well, without getting into the old trains in north debate on this thread, there was an article in the Mirror recently which highlighted that, and I'm sure the Scottish Government Independent or more devolved wouldn't be interested in that.

Everybody bangs on about the Chiltern MK3's except I suspect if they could get hold of enough 170's tomorrow the MK3's would be gone.

 

[deltic08]

Yes, based on track access charges, even if the IEP was the same cost as a Super Voyager then the cost per mile for a 10 coach set would be 120.9ppm compared with 145.62ppm for an 8 coach HST set. Even class 390's as a 10 coach set woulc be 136.8ppm and they are higer because of their tilting caperbility.

Yes about 9ppm or 25ppm isn't a lot, but given trains could be do hundreds of miles a day that all soon adds up over a year. On top of that there's likely to be the fule savings, savings form having a uniform fleet, etc.

Are we talking pence per mile or pounds per mile? The former appears too cheap and the latter far too expensive.

 

[jopsuk]

The "old stock foisted on Scotland/chilternised mark 3s are as good as new stock" arguments are pretty much meaningless. What is important is Queen Street's platform lengths and capacity. It simply isn't acceptable now to foul the points at Queen Street, and as others say, even when the platforms are extended to take 8x23m carriages, the Edinburgh-Glasgow trains will still likely be crowded- so the solution cannot be trains with power cars! By the time the platforms are long enough to fit 2+6 HSTs, ScotRail will have a glut of 170s freed up by the Central Scotland electrification. They're not perfect by any means, but they will be the mainstay of Edinburgh/Glasgow-Aberdeen/Inverness services for many years, of that I'm pretty confident.

 

[The Ham]

Are we talking pence per mile or pounds per mile? The former appears too cheap and the latter far too expensive.

We are talking about just the track access charges in pence per mile.

 

[Class 170101]

The overall cost between a Voyager and HSTs are pretty similar so I understand.

 

[Emblematic]

When electrification reaches the point that we do finally have a surplus of long-distance diesel units, it will be interesting to see which ones end up getting parked first. I suspect the class 180s will be near the top of the list, they seem generally unloved. FGW will doubtless get shot of theirs as soon as the first electrics become available for the Thames Valley.

 

[NotATrainspott]

When electrification reaches the point that we do finally have a surplus of long-distance diesel units, it will be interesting to see which ones end up getting parked first. I suspect the class 180s will be near the top of the list, they seem generally unloved. FGW will doubtless get shot of theirs as soon as the first electrics become available for the Thames Valley.

Indeed.

People are complaining that the IC225s and Class 442s won't see their full life but I can't see any non-Turbostar D(E)MUs ever living out their full design life either. Once the MML and GWML are wired it won't take long for enough of the CrossCountry routes to be wired for bi-mode operation to be the best option. Even if the thirsty express DMUs were detuned they would suffer from their lack of capacity compared to the scores of Turbostars that could do their job just as well. The 175s and 185s will suffer from being a small fleet and so when the time comes to start decommissioning post-privatisation stock they'll be the first to go, most probably even before older models of Clubman/Turbostar are sent to the scrapyard.

 

[455driver]

'We' are talking about overall costs not just track access charges.

The overall cost between a Voyager and HSTs are pretty similar so I understand.

Yes they are but the HST consists of 8 coaches and the Voyager only 5!

How about normalising it so it is cost per seat per mile!
I wonder how much cheaper the HST would be compared to all the other 'InterCity' trains?