What stock will Scotrail procure to replace HSTs?

[northscots]

With the HSTs being replaced, and it also suggested that if more units were ordered to replace 170/158 on the non HST operated Inter City 7 services could result in a cascade of 170 to allow 156 withdrawl, it looks now that all 42 Scotrail Class 156 units are going to visit Wolverton for a C6, so looks like they will be here until at least 2030 now also.

As I understand it, there's more 170/158 on intercity routes than Scotrail would like because of a lack of HST availability. There's 25 HSTs but around 16/17 in use daily. A more reliable Intercity unit would free up more 170/158s which would likely be used to support services in Fife and the borders which are frequently short formed. Transport Scotland have said 158/170/318/320/334 will be replaced by a single type BEMU around 2030. 156 will be replaced by 380/385 on East Kilbride routes and another type yet to be disclosed on rural routes (hydrogen power suggested)

 

[kkong]

In your opinion.

Factually, the 222's are accessible and meet the legislation. Comfort wise I always found them more comfortable than EMT/EMR's HSTs.

Are the 222s any more accessible than the HSTs?

If so, in which way(s)?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Sep 2024 ==

Scotrail HSTs are kept running on one engine constantly, even when stabled.

That isn't true.

I've seen many instances of HSTs in stations which are only fired into life shortly before departure.

 

[JamesT]

Are the 222s any more accessible than the HSTs?

If so, in which way(s)?

They are, mostly due to being newer and having accessibility being in mind when constructed.
Compare the final page of https://assets.publishing.service.g...cotrail-short-form-hsts-2020-dispensation.pdf
With https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/954/note/made
Which lists the areas where the two types do not meet current standards. The list for the HST is rather longer.

 

[kkong]

They are, mostly due to being newer and having accessibility being in mind when constructed.
Compare the final page of https://assets.publishing.service.g...cotrail-short-form-hsts-2020-dispensation.pdf
With https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/954/note/made
Which lists the areas where the two types do not meet current standards. The list for the HST is rather longer.

Thanks for that - interesting to see the non-conformities detailed (even minor ones such as the colour of toilet seats).

I see the Exemption Order for the Class 222 was said to expire in May 2019.

Do we know if that has been extended, or if the necessary modifications to bring the 222s into conformity have been carried out?

 

[chuff chuff]

That isn't true.

I've seen many instances of HSTs in stations which are only fired into life shortly before depdeparture

They are left with one power car running for days sometimes if stabled.Buffer end power car shut down on arrival and restarted before departure.

 

[northscots]

Are the 222s any more accessible than the HSTs?

If so, in which way(s)?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Sep 2024 ==



That isn't true.

I've seen many instances of HSTs in stations which are only fired into life shortly before departure.

One engine, the other will be running/idling already.

 

[3RDGEN]

They are, mostly due to being newer and having accessibility being in mind when constructed.
Compare the final page of https://assets.publishing.service.g...cotrail-short-form-hsts-2020-dispensation.pdf
With https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/954/note/made
Which lists the areas where the two types do not meet current standards. The list for the HST is rather longer.

The ScotRail HST's, (and 170's), don't have wheelchair access to First Class whereas the 222's do so an improvement there.

222's fully refurbished would be a suitable replacement for the HST's in 5-car format given they will be available in the next couple of years and are reliable trains.

As already mentioned I can't see how they meet the stated requirement "will reduce emissions from Intercity services and will support our efforts to decarbonise Scotland’s railways.", TS have previously stated they don't want anymore second-hand trains so a new build hybrid would be more likely and takes them nearer to 2030 for HST replacement.

 

[Harpo]

The mk5 sets have been mentioned but that doesn’t automatically have to mean class 68s. However, an AC/ICE solution needs more grunt away from the wires than existing types.

Maybe a suitable loco type could interwork with the sleepers* too and reduce their carbon footprint?


* Yes. I realise there are probably coupling burgerations to contend with.

 

[ABB125]

One engine, the other will be running/idling already.

What's the logic behind this?

 

[chuff chuff]

What's the logic behind this?

Not supposed to start the engine if engine below 40 degrees so the other power car supplies the electrical power to keep the coolant in shut down engine warm.

 

[ABB125]

Not supposed to start the engine if engine below 40 degrees so the other power car supplies the electrical power to keep the coolant in shut down engine warm.

Do they not have shore supplies for places where the HSTs regularly stable? (Or even a portable generator to plug into the power system if it's been several days?)

 

[chuff chuff]

Yeah but not a lot of them,transport scotland didn't want to spend the money. When training at the depot a portable one was suggested but again no one wanted to sign off the expense.

 

[LudwigTails]

Because low floor/level boarding means you don't need that staff member and ramp anymore. The current system of booking assistance is not fit for purpose - every few weeks we hear about a new situation where someone has been failed in this regard by the railway in some way.
There's a moral and legal responsibility to close that gap.

so are we just getting rid of people's job to do these jobs now. Even when theres is a gap that could trap wheelchairs, in situation where its DOO, like this that kinda makes low floor a bit pointless.

I fail to see how any of what you have described here is an issue. Let’s not forget that these trains won’t be being used for suburban routes with lots of stops with hundreds of passengers boarding and disembarking every minute, plus as others have said level boarding will substantially reduce dwell times when compared to the current system of manual ramp deployment. Greater Anglia’s FLIRTs manage perfectly well with one pair of doors per coach, but even if having one door per coach is a problem, TfW have 2 pairs of doors on each driving coach so ScotRail could order their FLIRTs with that configuration. Stadler are well recognised for their modular designs, so it would be easy and inexpensive for ScotRail to spec a FLIRT that really suits its needs.

I just hate the look of the flirts, they dont look like a normal train at all and they look like trams. I hate them with a burning passion when there are also other trains that are deemed accessible that doesnt even need low floor.

 

[Davester50]

so are we just getting rid of people's job to do these jobs now. Even when theres is a gap that could trap wheelchairs, in situation like this that kinda makes low floor a bit pointless.

You don't have to be in need of additional assistance to benefit from level or as near level boarding, and there's plenty of unstaffed or partially staffed stations these trains will stop at.

 

[Vectron383]

so are we just getting rid of people's job to do these jobs now. Even when theres is a gap that could trap wheelchairs, in situation where its DOO, like this that kinda makes low floor a bit pointless.

I just hate the look of the flirts, they dont look like a normal train at all and they look like trams. I hate them with a burning passion when there are also other trains that are deemed accessible that doesnt even need low floor.

Let’s get this clear: the FLIRTs and other Stadler products are by far the most accessible units on the UK network and the only ones which reliably eliminate the need for staff to assist wheelchair users and those with restricted mobility (not to mention how much easier it is to get a bike or buggy on board the Stadler units). If your main objection to the FLIRTs is that you don’t like their looks, then I would suggest you take a step back and re-evaluate what is actually important in the design of a new train.

 

[Sorcerer]

I just hate the look of the flirts, they dont look like a normal train at all and they look like trams. I hate them with a burning passion when there are also other trains that are deemed accessible that doesnt even need low floor.

Perhaps you should consider looking at some of Stadler's trams because the FLIRT most certainly doesn't look like one of them. But besides which that is not really a good argument against them when the priority for rolling stock orders should be maximum efficiency which includes accessibility (which the FLIRTs excel at compared to other stock). Can you also imagine if we rejected the advancement to diesel units in the 1960s because they didn't look like the steam engines of the day? There is a much bigger difference in aesthetics between them and yet nobody here would argue that one design doesn't look like a train.

 

[jfowkes]

so are we just getting rid of people's job to do these jobs now.

I don't think a single job would be lost as a result of level boarding. Existing staff will just get more time to do other tasks.

I just hate the look of the flirts, they dont look like a normal train at all and they look like trams

I mean, fine, you can have any opinion you like about how they look, but it's hardly a reason to not use them.

 

[sannox]

The ScotRail HST's, (and 170's), don't have wheelchair access to First Class whereas the 222's do so an improvement there.

222's fully refurbished would be a suitable replacement for the HST's in 5-car format given they will be available in the next couple of years and are reliable trains.

As already mentioned I can't see how they meet the stated requirement "will reduce emissions from Intercity services and will support our efforts to decarbonise Scotland’s railways.", TS have previously stated they don't want anymore second-hand trains so a new build hybrid would be more likely and takes them nearer to 2030 for HST replacement.

I mean the talk was that Intercity was the last planned to see replacement but it's now the first presumably due to HST unreliability and safety.
I get that the plan is for de-carbonisation but it's pretty slow going - I wonder if waiting to see how finances go might be sound. In that case a stop-gap available ASAP does make sense.

 

[hux385]

I think the initial plan for the suburban fleet was to be a mix of EMUs and BEMUs. I imagine the new intercity fleet will need to be tri-mode since the wires will be nowhere near Aberdeen/Inverness by 2030 and batteries certainly won't have the range to get trains that far.

Anything which has the option to remove the diesel engines at a later stage would be ideal because then the diesel traction can be branded as a temporary measure while the wires are put up (that's assuming electrification actually gets some momentum).

I imagine the suburban fleet replacement will also have to feature some tri-modes as well unless Fife & Tweedbank electrification picks up.

 

[Trainbike46]

I'm going to take an educated guess and say that the 222s will be units to replace the HSTs, and that the procurement tender will be worded in such a way that only the 222s will meet the criteria.

Why would they do that?

Realistically the tender should leave the door open for new stock, in case that turns out cheaper than the 222s. New stock would definitely be better.

Scotland to get new Intercity fleet | Transport Scotland

www.transport.gov.scot

As discussed in other subforums, Transport Scotland announced the replacement of the ScotRail HST fleet, with replacements arriving in roughly 4 years time.

Any ideas as to what could be replacing them? I'm thinking new builds, but I'm curious to hear other thoughts.

perfectly in line with a phase-out of the HSTs by 2030, when the guaranteed lease on the HSTs ends

I’m intrigued as to how you think fuel hungry 222s fit with the dr-carbonisation agenda referenced in the press release.

being more efficient than the short HSTs isn't that hard though, is it?

FLIRTs are probably the best option for the routes ScotRail are looking to replace. Can be future proofed for wires, very positive reviews from GA and Wales, level boarding and a decent onboard ambience, especially when compared to anything built by CAF or Hitachi. However I’m sure they’ll go for something much worse instead.

exactly, FLIRTs are a very good option; the 745s even have internal doors to create vestibules, which may be desirable

Completely agree on this. level boarding should be non-negotiable.

Absolutely

 

[800001]

so are we just getting rid of people's job to do these jobs now. Even when theres is a gap that could trap wheelchairs, in situation where its DOO, like this that kinda makes low floor a bit pointless.

I just hate the look of the flirts, they dont look like a normal train at all and they look like trams. I hate them with a burning passion when there are also other trains that are deemed accessible that doesnt even need low floor.

Have you travelled on a flirt?

They are a very nice train! Comfortable, airy, smooth ride!
I’d much rather travel on a flirt for a considerable distance than on a 80X!

Travelling on flirts in Switzerland, they even have vending machines and bean to cup coffee machines for self service, they are a very good train!

 

[Trainbike46]

yea and said design is killing off great amount of passenger boarding because you only get one door per carriage.

Remember FLIRT carriages are shorter than HST carriages, and doors not at the ends leads to more efficient boarding, so 1 door per carriage FLIRT will likely matching boarding with a 2 door per carriage HST carriage.

On top of that, stadler offers it with 2 doors per car, some of the TfW units have that. It is a choice of the operator, depending on their priorities (more seats or more doors)

and when said accessibility is not even always matching the platform height is not call full accessibility when that applies to every train.

A level-boarding train is more accessible than one that doesn't have level boarding, even when the platform does not meet the standard.

Over the ~40 year life span of a train, I'd hope the platforms that aren't up to standard will be upgraded.

In any case, some platforms not being up to standard isn't a train issue,

you're costing more to build just a carriage (and at this point it might as well be a long tram) when you could've (and what it still works) just build longer carriages, which one amount of money can go to and can carry more passengers. At the moment i am seeing this as a similar thing with the Merseyrail's new stadler trains. (And i seriously HATE the long short long short design, its so inconsistent this design makes me mad.) Like the electrical things for each carriage needed, how much does that cost for each carriage?? You're saying short short short carriages are the way to go? Its like asking a Class 700 to run these services. You might as well just have something like the IET body to do intercity/regional services of the scotrail HST. Not the FLIRTs. And i dont have a degree in train designing but i am sure there is a reason why intercity/long distance trains carriages on EMUs or Carriages are designed to have pair of doors on each end of the carriage. And not whatever FLIRTs have that is atrocious.

Well, if another manufacturer is willing and able to build a train with level boarding for less than stadler, and meets the requirements set out by Scotrail I'd absolutely be up for them buying that. However, FLIRTs have advantages over alternative designs, most notably that it is an existing design for the UK market.

Have you travelled on the 745/0, which is a FLIRT with a more IC layout, including a buffet, internal doors to create "vestibules", and nice seats?

 

[Mikey C]

Politically, if this was the Welsh government in charge of the decision then CAF in Newport would have an advantage, and if it was the London UK government, then any of the domestic plants might be favoured, but as Scotland doesn't have any rail manufacturing capacity (the Talgo factory never happened) and it's a rival party running Scotland to the Westminster government, no manufacturer has any advantage over another.

If Labour was to win in Holyrood, then the order might then be slanted more towards job protection.

 

[Trainbike46]

I just hate the look of the flirts, they dont look like a normal train at all and they look like trams. I hate them with a burning passion when there are also other trains that are deemed accessible that doesnt even need low floor.

(My bold) That's obvious! There doesn't appear to be much logic behind it, other than a personal preference for different looks

Regarding accessibility, the low-floor level-boarding is MUCH better than any other modern train. Discounting them because you personally don't like the look of them, would be a case of terrible priorities.

Of course, if any other manufacturer is able to offer a level-boarding design, they should be considered equally to the FLIRTs, and the best unit for Scotland's needs selected. I understand both CAF and Siemens do have a level-boarding design, though apparently the CAF one is absurdly expensive!

They are a very nice train! Comfortable, airy, smooth ride!
I’d much rather travel on a flirt for a considerable distance than on a 80X!

Travelling on flirts in Switzerland, they even have vending machines and bean to cup coffee machines for self service, they are a very good train!

Seconding this!

 

[Vectron383]

I understand both CAF and Siemens do have a level-boarding design, though apparently the CAF one is absurdly expensive!

And to my knowledge neither CAF or Siemens have a level boarding design in use in the UK- meaning much higher costs for certification and proving.

 

[Trainbike46]

And to my knowledge neither CAF or Siemens have a level boarding design in use in the UK- meaning much higher costs for certification and proving.

Not in service or on order no!

CAF offered a level-boarding design to LNER, but it wasn't selected as it was apparently very expensive.

Siemens has mentioned in publicity that they do offer one, but once again, it has not been ordered by anyone, so how well developed it is remains to be seen

 

[duffers2324]

I did think the 222's could be used as well but then that might have a slight capacity hit and as much as i would like the 68's and Mk5a's then that's not happening as there is not enough and i feel they would still be too expensive to run and too expensive to maintain in the long run.

I do like the thoughts of using a FLIRT variant which seem to be the norm on European railways for regional as well as some Intercity routes, i would however have to concede that i think the government will go down the route of cheapest bidder and therefore we might end up with more Hitachi 80x stock of some description

Its quite clear to me that the Scottish government have realised the whole HST plan and rollout has been a complete and utter disaster being very costly to run, as well as being costly to maintain so have thought it cheaper to bin the HST's possibly a little earlier than planned and get new stock than carrying on with them right all the way til 2030 and therefore get new stock in order to try and move on quickly from it.

 

[800001]

I did think the 222's could be used as well but then that might have a slight capacity hit and as much as i would like the 68's and Mk5a's then that's not happening as there is not enough and i feel they would still be too expensive to run and too expensive to maintain in the long run.

I do like the thoughts of using a FLIRT variant which seem to be the norm on European railways for regional as well as some Intercity routes, i would however have to concede that i think the government will go down the route of cheapest bidder and therefore we might end up with more Hitachi 80x stock of some description

Its quite clear to me that the Scottish government have realised the whole HST plan and rollout has been a complete and utter disaster being very costly to run, as well as being costly to maintain so have thought it cheaper to bin the HST's possibly a little earlier than planned and get new stock than carrying on with them right all the way til 2030 and therefore get new stock in order to try and move on quickly from it.

Based on LNER order, CAF would be cheapest option versus Hitachi!

 

[43096]

Its quite clear to me that the Scottish government have realised the whole HST plan and rollout has been a complete and utter disaster being very costly to run, as well as being costly to maintain so have thought it cheaper to bin the HST's possibly a little earlier than planned and get new stock than carrying on with them right all the way til 2030 and therefore get new stock in order to try and move on quickly from it.

If you look at the timescales, they’re pretty much bang on for new train procure and build ahead of a 2030ish service introduction. Which is in line with the lease expiry date.

 

[LudwigTails]

Have you travelled on a flirt?

They are a very nice train! Comfortable, airy, smooth ride!
I’d much rather travel on a flirt for a considerable distance than on a 80X!

Travelling on flirts in Switzerland, they even have vending machines and bean to cup coffee machines for self service, they are a very good train!

I have never because i have no reason to take a ride to the Anglia region. And i missed my chance on it to ride behind class 90s before they were kicked out by plastics. I have considered trying them out at one point because apparently countless people say that its so good that they need to vote kick every train in existence in the UK because apparently existing trains cant do jobs well enough.

I can still never understand why how 1 pair of door is better than 1. Just through picture the 2 doors are almost just as similar size as those seen on electrocstar. How are doors size like seen on class 444 or the voyager Classes are worse doors on the flirt. They are literally a big piece of sliding door. But FLIRTs just does the same but with 2 piece of doors in one set. All those doors are big is like people complaining existing doors aren't big enough.