Should the HSTs be Replaced?

[SansPareil]

What about using the driving cars of the 442's with half an HST set. That could conceivably produce a relatively cheap short term solution that would release a lot of DMUs.

 

[The Ham]

What about using the driving cars of the 442's with half an HST set. That could conceivably produce a relatively cheap short term solution that would release a lot of DMUs.

it depends on what work would be needed to convert them to run with the HST's. If it is a lot it maybe just better and cheaper to build DBSO's from some of the existing Mark 3's and keep the 442's as they are.

Especially if you add in the cost of replacing the 442's, as for every two end coaches you gain you then scrap 3 other coaches.

 

[DarloRich]

Yes of course HST should be replaced. My only criteria is that they are replaced with something that is at least as comfortable to travel on and has seats that line up with the windows.

 

[AndyLandy]

...has seats that line up with the windows.

The thing that really bugs me about this, is that there's no good reason not to. If you know what your internal layout is going to be, even if you have to pack people in more densely, you should be able to make the windows line up with the seats.

 

[LoverOfTrains]

Well, sort of...

I love the HSTs. Once in a while i go to Maidenhead to do trainspotting and the HSTs zoom past and i love it! The HSTs are lovely, reliable trains dating back from InterCity 125 and yes they are old trains, but they soldier on. If they are good to go until 2035 there's no point replacing them until then.

On the other hand, i love new trains! Its a new bit of technology that will change the design of trains and as time passes technology will evolve and so will the trains.

Unfortunately the HSTs won't last forever, but i would like to keep them for now.

 

[starrymarkb]

Well, sort of...

I love the HSTs. Once in a while i go to Maidenhead to do trainspotting and the HSTs zoom past and i love it! The HSTs are lovely, reliable trains dating back from InterCity 125 and yes they are old trains, but they soldier on. If they are good to go until 2035 there's no point replacing them until then.

On the other hand, i love new trains! Its a new bit of technology that will change the design of trains and as time passes technology will evolve and so will the trains.

Unfortunately the HSTs won't last forever, but i would like to keep them for now.

While it might be possible to keep them going that long, they would cost a lot to maintain (and that cost will increase with age)

Plus I can't see it being acceptable to have 60 year old stock in use on flagship routes (I mean where else could you put one)

 

[Rhydgaled]

While it might be possible to keep them going that long, they would cost a lot to maintain (and that cost will increase with age)

Plus I can't see it being acceptable to have 60 year old stock in use on flagship routes (I mean where else could you put one)

They are apparently more acceptable than class 222s for users of the Paddington - Penzance route... Mrk3 rakes similar to the WAG express, formed of coaches from redundant IC125s, wouldn't go amiss on ATW's Manchester services either (they could use the extra capacity, 2-car 175s (at times) are rediculus).

As full length sets, I can only see them being useful for Paddington - Taunton and beyond and XC (even a 60 year old 8 carriage train has to be more acceptable than being crammed into a short Voyager and being sat (or stood) atop a diesel engine), until electrification of those routes.

 

[tbtc]

While it might be possible to keep them going that long, they would cost a lot to maintain (and that cost will increase with age)

Plus I can't see it being acceptable to have 60 year old stock in use on flagship routes (I mean where else could you put one)

That's the important point - its fine saying that they could go on until 2035 if enough money is thrown at them - but what realistic use is there for all of the HSTs?

The fact that GC would rather jettison HSTs and try to pick up more 180s rather than the other way round (considering that there are going to be a lot of spare HSTs in five years time, but not a lot of spare 180s) suggests to me that there's not a great appetite for upgrading HSTs.

 

[The Ham]

They are apparently more acceptable than class 222s for users of the Paddington - Penzance route.

Depends on what you are trying to achieve. Running 222's would allow faster end to end times due to faster acceleration and not needing to worry about doors not being shut. Likewise the 222's would enable the possibility of splitting services.

As full length sets, I can only see them being useful for Paddington - Taunton and beyond and XC (even a 60 year old 8 carriage train has to be more acceptable than being crammed into a short Voyager and being sat (or stoop) atop a diesel engine), until electrification of those routes.

A lot of the problems with the Voyagers is that they are too short. If Voyagers were 9 coaches long and the HST's were 4 or 5 coaches long there would lots of calls for the HST's to be replaced as soon as possible or at the very least enough replaced to lengthen the remaining sets.

If the Voyagers/Meridians were running at a length appropriate for the number of passengers who wanted to use them, then there would probably be a lot less pressure to keep loco hauled trains. This is made worse by the fact that there will not be any new IC stock to replace some of the 22x's to free them up for use elsewhere in the next few years when they could have done with being replaced/lengthened some few years ago.

 

[D365]

At least with the HSTs, Mk3 LHCS can and has been converted for use... I can understand the comparison though.

 

[AndyLandy]

They are apparently more acceptable than class 222s for users of the Paddington - Penzance route.

What's the rationale for that? My understanding of the Cornish Main Line is that a Voyager-esque DEMU design is far more suited to the service patterns on PAD-PNZ than an HST ever was.

 

[Rhydgaled]

What's the rationale for that? My understanding of the Cornish Main Line is that a Voyager-esque DEMU design is far more suited to the service patterns on PAD-PNZ than an HST ever was.

First Great Western managing director, Mark Hopwood is reported (I believe in Modern Railways) to have said something like:

stakeholders did not find this acceptable, as they did not like the underfloor diesel engines and cramped interiors of those trains

So the underfloor engines were a factor in the users of that line considering class 222s unacceptable for that route. Anything replacing the IC125s on that route now is likely to have underfloor engines, and would therefore not be liked by the stakeholders.

 

[swt_passenger]

'Not liked by stakeholders' isn't much of a reason for DfT not to specify 22x for the route. They are hardly likely to go unused just because of that.

Presumably no-one ever uses the Voyagers that run in Devon and Cornwall, preferring to wait for the next HST that comes along?

 

[Rhydgaled]

'Not liked by stakeholders' isn't much of a reason for DfT not to specify 22x for the route. They are hardly likely to go unused just because of that.

Not just 'not liked', 'considered unacceptable'. I agree with the bit in bold, but if 222 and 220 vehicles can be made compatable they would be useful to boost capacity on XC (I agree that shortness is the biggest flaw of Voyagers, inserting extra carriages from 222s into 220s or from 220s into 222s would be useful).

 

[starrymarkb]

Yep, DfT is not obliged to give stakeholders what they want, it can take their views on board but if it's a choice between a 100mph Vossloh 68 on some stock or a 125mph DMU I think the'll go for the latter (given their other issue is maintaining or improving existing journey times)

 

[tbtc]

As ever, it depends on the question.

If you asked me whether I'd want a train with underfloor engines or one with no underfloor engines (and everything else the same) then there's obviously no advantage to the background noise of an engine.

But if you asked me hether I'd want a modern train with underfloor engines (222) or old train with no underfloor engines (HST) then I'd be torn. If the train with underfloor engines is more reliable/ faster at accelerating etc then it becomes an easier choice.

I'll remember this carefully selected survey next time I hear complaints that "the south west doesn't get new trains" though.

 

[AndyLandy]

Not just 'not liked', 'considered unacceptable'. I agree with the bit in bold, but if 222 and 220 vehicles can be made compatable they would be useful to boost capacity on XC (I agree that shortness is the biggest flaw of Voyagers, inserting extra carriages from 222s into 220s or from 220s into 222s would be useful).

I have to confess that I have basically no sympathy whatsoever for people who complain about underfloor engines.

I recently did Euston to Crewe on a 221. I'm doing it again in two weeks time. I cannot hear the difference to a Pendolino. I deliberately listened out for this engine noise last time and I will do so again. But I genuinely don't believe it.

Compare that to a Northern 150. Those things are deafening.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Yep, DfT is not obliged to give stakeholders what they want, it can take their views on board but if it's a choice between a 100mph Vossloh 68 on some stock or a 125mph DMU I think the'll go for the latter (given their other issue is maintaining or improving existing journey times)

But it's not a choice between a 100mph LHCS or a 125mph DMU, it's a choice between:

1. A life-extended 125mph IC125 until 2030/2035, by which time the route might have been electrified, at least partially, or
2. A 125mph DMU which, assuming it is an IEP and enters service in 2019, will probably ensure underfloor engines and no further electrification of the route until 2046* at the earliest

* And that's using the 27 year contracted IEP life rather than the expected life of a diesel train of 30-35 years.

I have to confess that I have basically no sympathy whatsoever for people who complain about underfloor engines.

I recently did Euston to Crewe on a 221. I'm doing it again in two weeks time. I cannot hear the difference to a Pendolino. I deliberately listened out for this engine noise last time and I will do so again. But I genuinely don't believe it.

Compare that to a Northern 150. Those things are deafening.

Your last paragraph partly contradicts the others. Maybe those who complain about underfloor engines are basing their opinions on Pacers and lesser-Sprinters (150-156), which are certainly noisy (it isn't just Northern's 150s). Then again, they really could dislike the engine noise on Voyagers (which I haven't used enough to comment on how noisy they are).

 

[AndyLandy]

Your last paragraph partly contradicts the others. Maybe those who complain about underfloor engines are basing their opinions on Pacers and lesser-Sprinters (150-156), which are certainly noisy (it isn't just Northern's 150s). Then again, they really could dislike the engine noise on Voyagers (which I haven't used enough to comment on how noisy they are).

Sorry, my first paragraph wasn't as clear as I'd perhaps intended. I don't have much sympathy for people who complain about underfloor engines in 22x sets. I've made an effort to listen out for these noises, or feel the vibrations of the under-floor engines and I swear the trains are the same as the EMUs I travel on.

On the other hand, the grumbling of Pacers and Sprinters is most definitely noticeable. I'm not in the slightest bit surprised to hear people finding those less than comfortable to ride on.

Of course, I only have my own experiences to go on. Perhaps some people really are more sensitive to the noise and vibrations of 22x trains. It'd be rather arrogant of me to dismiss them entirely out of hand, but I don't believe it's nearly the big deal it's often made out to be.

 

[RobShipway]

Sorry, my first paragraph wasn't as clear as I'd perhaps intended. I don't have much sympathy for people who complain about underfloor engines in 22x sets. I've made an effort to listen out for these noises, or feel the vibrations of the under-floor engines and I swear the trains are the same as the EMUs I travel on.

On the other hand, the grumbling of Pacers and Sprinters is most definitely noticeable. I'm not in the slightest bit surprised to hear people finding those less than comfortable to ride on.

Of course, I only have my own experiences to go on. Perhaps some people really are more sensitive to the noise and vibrations of 22x trains. It'd be rather arrogant of me to dismiss them entirely out of hand, but I don't believe it's nearly the big deal it's often made out to be.

I have to agree with you Andy, the underfloor engine noise on the 22x Voyagers/Meridians is hardly noticeable to be honest times when I have travelled on any of them.

I find it far easier to go to sleep on a 22x, than a pacer or sprinters any day.

 

[joeykins82]

I disagree that IEP will lead to "no more electrification", in fact I think the opposite is true. Here we have a train that can operate on both the electrified and non-electrified lines. This now makes it viable to steadily spread the OHLE installation outwards, replacing life-expired DMUs that operate suburban/regional routes with new or cascaded EMUs without having to prolong the lifespan of diesel-only intercity stock and then operating that stock under the wires for the majority of its journey. It also means that the treasury is less likely to scupper an electrification scheme because it can be presented piecemeal rather than big scary numbers putting people off from doing the right thing!

 

[RobShipway]

I disagree that IEP will lead to "no more electrification", in fact I think the opposite is true. Here we have a train that can operate on both the electrified and non-electrified lines. This now makes it viable to steadily spread the OHLE installation outwards, replacing life-expired DMUs that operate suburban/regional routes with new or cascaded EMUs without having to prolong the lifespan of diesel-only intercity stock and then operating that stock under the wires for the majority of its journey. It also means that the treasury is less likely to scupper an electrification scheme because it can be presented piecemeal rather than big scary numbers putting people off from doing the right thing!

The IEP hybrid trains are going to be designed such that if all routes that they operate are OHLE, then the underfloor diesel engines would be removed. This is far cheaper than having to buy a new train or cascade EMU stock, just because OHLE has been put up on the line.

 

[joeykins82]

Yeah I know, that's partly why I think it won't cause electrification to suddenly cease once the first batch of IEP stock is delivered!

 

[tbtc]

Bi-mode is the only realistic way to allow the Cross Country "core" to be electrified, since it gives an incentive for a rolling scheme of electrification.

Otherwise we'd have to wire several hundred miles before we could convert any longer distance services to EMU.

 

[starrymarkb]

The engine noise was very noticeable on the Voyager I had this evening, but then that coach was also very very noisy when I alighted - it was drowning out the rest of the train. It was still much quieter then the 153 on the way back!

Usually with Voyagers I get the rumble as they accelerate and little else.

Plus there is no way HSTs will last till 2035, it might be possible, but the increase in maintenance costs will put pay to that idea. I suspect a few in good condition will last about 10 years max.

 

[Beveridges]

I have had the occasional Voyager that sounds loud for some reason, but usually the under floor engine noise on a 22X is not even noticeable. But even that "loud" Voyager engine was absolutely *nothing* compared to the type of Unit that I'm going to talk about in my next paragraph:

On the other hand, the grumbling of Pacers and Sprinters is most definitely noticeable. I'm not in the slightest bit surprised to hear people finding those less than comfortable to ride on.

The Class 150 is without doubt the loudest train in the UK. That loud, thunderous engine is deafening in the extreme, the noise is tremendous, it sounds even louder than having a tractor right behind you!!
I was on one the other night with the windows open and the noise was almost unbearable, my ears were hurting, I couldn't wait to get off! I couldn't even read the newspaper as my mind could not even think with the tremendously heavy racket the engine and turbocharger were making, reaching ear-piercing decibels when we entered the tunnels or passed beneath overbridges. My ears were ringing afterwards for ages. Ear defenders should be handed out at stations before travelling on these!

Pacers may be loud as well but the noise is NOTHING compared to a 150 with all saloon windows open. It is the only advantage Pacers have over a 150 in that you can travel on them without getting deafened on a hot day. Having said that if you can get over the noise levels, the 150 is a much better unit in every other way.

 

[starrymarkb]

Ah but that is the thrash of a proper unit

(had a similarly loud 153 this evening which was louder inside then an HST/Voyager from outside, glad I was only on for 2 stops)

 

[Rhydgaled]

The IEP hybrid trains are going to be designed such that if all routes that they operate are OHLE, then the underfloor diesel engines would be removed.

I know that, I just don't think DfT/Treasury will think much of the case for electrification if it involves throwing away diesel engines that are only a few years old (though this applies to Hull, Harrogate, Cheltenham and Weston-Super-Mare wires more than the far south-west, since the latter will be further down the list for wires).

Maybe around half way through the contract (about 14 years) taking the engines out of IEP bi-modes will been seen attractive. That'd be arround 2033, which would make it a choice of suffering underfloor engines for 14 years with an IEP or stick with IC125s for the same period. IEP is so expensive that I wouldn't be supprised if the heavy work required on IC125s to get them to last that long is still cheaper. Additionally, the record of fuel ecconomy with Intercity DMUs that try to accelerate like EMUs is not good. As such, I'd expect a decent-sized IEP to drink more diesel between Newbury and Plymouth than an IC125.

 

[The Ham]

Bi-mode is the only realistic way to allow the Cross Country "core" to be electrified, since it gives an incentive for a rolling scheme of electrification.

Otherwise we'd have to wire several hundred miles before we could convert any longer distance services to EMU.

By 2020 a fair amount of the XC rail network will have wires on it, although only the Manchester to South Coast route will be able to run as EMU's. However finish wiring up the two routes York/Sheffield (about 45 miles) and wire up Derby/Birmingham (about 40 miles) and the Newcastle/Reading services. Do that and wire up the routes between Birmingham/Bristol and Cardiff (about 125 miles) and you could then run all the following as EMU services:
- (Southampton) Reading to Newcastle (85 miles of wires)
- (Cardiff) Bristol Temple Meads to Manchester Piccadilly (125 miles of wires)
- Bournemouth to Manchester Piccadilly (CP5 scheme)
- Cardiff Central to Nottingham (165 miles of wires)

That would only leave the following services as DMU's (miles of wires would be in addition to the above):
- (Penzance/Newquay) Plymouth to Edinburgh Waverley (Glasgow Central/Aberdeen) (350 miles of wires to include the extentions, however only 145 miles of wires to be able to run Plymouth to Glasgow Central)
- Guildford to Newcastle (35 miles of wiring but only twice a day)
- Paignton to Manchester Piccadilly (100 miles of wires, or 10 miles if the line between Exeter and Plymouth has been done)
- Birmingham to Stansted Airport (125 miles of wires)

Yes that is still a lot of services run by DMU's, but it is only about 210 miles of wires post CP5 to allow a significant number of services to become EMU's.

Yes to have EMU's running all XC services you would need to wire up 730 miles (605 for just the Voyagers) which would take a significant length of time and is highly unlikely to be suitable to be all done in one control period.

However if you don't include or pass to local operators the EdinburghAberdeen and Penzance & Newquay/Plymouth services then it would be possible for XC to get rid of their Voyagers (or at least have a lot less of them) by building just 400 miles of wires. Which is unlikely in one control period but could be likely to have been done by the end of CP7 (subject to what other lines are seen as a priority).

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As such, I'd expect a decent-sized IEP to drink more diesel between Newbury and Plymouth than an IC125.

But there has already been talk of extending the wires beyond Newbury because of the Bedwin services, one option even included running to Westbury and then back to Bath to allow for diversion works on the GWML.

As such, you could be looking at running IC125's for about 1/3 of the way from London to Plymouth under the wires. Which could push things quite a long towards IEP's. Espcially if there is a good case to wire up the line between Taunton and Plymouth (another 1/3 of the distance) for XC services.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

By 2020 a fair amount of the XC rail network will have wires on it, although only the Manchester to South Coast route will be able to run as EMU's. However finish wiring up the two routes York/Sheffield (about 45 miles) and wire up Derby/Birmingham (about 40 miles) and the Newcastle/Reading services. Do that and wire up the routes between Birmingham/Bristol and Cardiff (about 125 miles) and you could then run all the following as EMU services:
- (Southampton) Reading to Newcastle (85 miles of wires)
- (Cardiff) Bristol Temple Meads to Manchester Piccadilly (125 miles of wires)
- Bournemouth to Manchester Piccadilly (CP5 scheme)
- Cardiff Central to Nottingham (165 miles of wires)

That would only leave the following services as DMU's (miles of wires would be in addition to the above):
- (Penzance/Newquay) Plymouth to Edinburgh Waverley (Glasgow Central/Aberdeen) (350 miles of wires to include the extentions, however only 145 miles of wires to be able to run Plymouth to Glasgow Central)
- Guildford to Newcastle (35 miles of wiring but only twice a day)
- Paignton to Manchester Piccadilly (100 miles of wires, or 10 miles if the line between Exeter and Plymouth has been done)
- Birmingham to Stansted Airport (125 miles of wires)

Yes that is still a lot of services run by DMU's, but it is only about 210 miles of wires post CP5 to allow a significant number of services to become EMU's.

Yes to have EMU's running all XC services you would need to wire up 730 miles (605 for just the Voyagers) which would take a significant length of time and is highly unlikely to be suitable to be all done in one control period.

However if you don't include or pass to local operators the EdinburghAberdeen and Penzance & Newquay/Plymouth services then it would be possible for XC to get rid of their Voyagers (or at least have a lot less of them) by building just 400 miles of wires. Which is unlikely in one control period but could be likely to have been done by the end of CP7 (subject to what other lines are seen as a priority).

I imagine Cross country electrification will be a priority scheme for CP6 given Network Rail Electrification RUS gives it a BCR of 5.1

Network Rail Electrification RUS Cross-Country Options A13.4, A13.5b and A19.2: Overhead AC electrification of the following track sections in three phases, following GWML, North Cross-Pennine and MML electrification: – Birmingham to Oxford via Solihull, Coventry to Leamington and Reading to Basingstoke, and north of Birmingham enabling access to Central Rivers depot (via Water Orton and Lichfield routes); – Infilling the route between Central Rivers and the North East/ Scotland, including the route to Derby, Doncaster to Sheffield, and Moorthorpe to Swinton; – Bromsgrove to Plymouth, including the short spur to Gloucester.

Option permits the following services to convert to electric traction: – Cross-country long distance services to/from South Coast, South West, North West, North East and Scotland – Reading to Basingstoke – Oxford to Banbury – Bristol Parkway/Temple Meads to Weston Super Mare/Taunton services, and reinstatement of Cardiff to Taunton services which were assumed to be split at Bristol following Great Western electrification – Paignton to Exeter St. Davids – Paddington to West of England services (including Weston Super Mare) which operate via Bristol Temple Meads.

But there has already been talk of extending the wires beyond Newbury because of the Bedwin services, one option even included running to Westbury and then back to Bath to allow for diversion works on the GWML.

As such, you could be looking at running IC125's for about 1/3 of the way from London to Plymouth under the wires. Which could push things quite a long towards IEP's. Espcially if there is a good case to wire up the line between Taunton and Plymouth (another 1/3 of the distance) for XC services.

Once the main cross country route is wired the case for wiring from Newbury goes through the roof so could be done concurrently or in CP7

Network Rail Electrification RUS Berks and Hants Option A12.2c: Overhead AC electrification of Newbury to Cogload Junction, following GWML electrification and cross-country electrification to Plymouth. This permits long distance West of England services from Paddington to convert to electric traction. Beyond Plymouth, the RUS assumes that through services will be maintained by attaching a diesel loco at Plymouth. Paddington to Bedwyn services are also assumed to convert to electric traction.