Scotrail HST alternatives?

[Christmas]

Moderator note: Split from

Scotrail HSTs - 4-5 years in

I know this might just prompt the repetition of many arguments that have already been had many times over... Perhaps we can keep this thread focused on the situation now rather than discussions about whether the HST project should have happened in the first place. So far it's had to survive the...

www.railforums.co.uk

Are most failures with the power cars or the coaches? If the coaches are reliable enough then how costly or difficult would it be to pair them with a bi-mode locomotive and DVT?

As others have said, the HSTs are only fit for the bin. The overhauls that ScotRail are attempting will only be a sticking plaster and a longer term solution needs to be addressed now, not in 2035. By gum, they couldn't even re-cover the driver's seat in the 'refurbished' power car, just take a look at how tatty they are to see how ScotRail prioritises costs.

 

[BRX]

Those stating authoritively and confidently that they are "only fit for the bin", I wonder if they have any particular insight into the details of the current situation, beyond what any of us as external observers have?

Whether or not the entire programme, in retrospect/hindsight was a good idea, is not really relevant to what makes sense now. It does appear that many things were bungled in the initial implementation, but surely that actually makes it more plausible that performance can be improved substantially by overhaul/modification now. The modifications appear to include things that really ought to have been part of the original rebuild.

The cost and disruption associated with these modifications - at this moment in time - have to be compared with the cost and disruption that would be associated with the alternatives, don't they?

If the HSTs can see things through to the point where electrification has proceeded further and appropriate new stock can be procured at that point, that seems a perfectly reasonable approach.

 

[John Bishop]

Those stating authoritively and confidently that they are "only fit for the bin", I wonder if they have any particular insight into the details of the current situation, beyond what any of us as external observers have?

Whether or not the entire programme, in retrospect/hindsight was a good idea, is not really relevant to what makes sense now. It does appear that many things were bungled in the initial implementation, but surely that actually makes it more plausible that performance can be improved substantially by overhaul/modification now. The modifications appear to include things that really ought to have been part of the original rebuild.

The cost and disruption associated with these modifications - at this moment in time - have to be compared with the cost and disruption that would be associated with the alternatives, don't they?

If the HSTs can see things through to the point where electrification has proceeded further and appropriate new stock can be procured at that point, that seems a perfectly reasonable approach.

In my view, as someone who drives them regularly, is that they are well past their use by date. The list of problems is extensive and notwithstanding the low adhesion season issues, mainly consists of everyday systems of the HSTs that are letting them down. No amount of modifications will sort these issues out. They are generally regarded as a pain in the backside by most who operate and maintain them, apart from a handful of cranks who can’t see past them.

The fact is they are costing a fortune to operate and any further money spent on mods etc is money down the drain which would be better invested in new rolling stock as a matter of priority. Yes, the passengers seem to enjoy them but that really is as far as it goes IMO. The whole project has been a shambles from start to finish.

 

[BRX]

Passengers seeming to enjoy them is no small thing though (especially given what appears to be a lacklustre effort to make the passenger experience as good as possible). I've done several journeys on them over the past coupler of months. None of these have suffered any major issues and all have been more comfortable than a 158, 170 or an Azuma. When traveling London to/from Inverness my first choice is now a change onto a Scotrail HST at Edinburgh rather than taking the direct LNER service.

 

[XAM2175]

If the coaches are reliable enough then how costly or difficult would it be to pair them with a bi-mode locomotive and DVT?

HST trailers are wired differently to loco-hauled Mk 3s, for a start, and even if you did scratch together some Mk 3 DVTs there are no diesel locos that will work with them out of the box (for example, Chiltern's DVTs were changed from TDM multiple working to AAR to work with the 67s, which then meant they needed to modify the 68s to work with AAR when they got them). As to bi-mode locos, nobody currently offers one for the UK market that can equal even one HST power car when running on diesel, so one capable of equalling the performance of two power cars would require an entirely new design.

Like it or not, the original plan was, and the current plan still is, to use them as they are until they're replaced by a new purpose-built fleet. Personally I agree that 2035 is likely to be pushing things a bit far, but I think that the best way to deal with that - should it become necessary - is to bring forward the order of the new fleet. Any further discussion along these lines needs to go in a speculative thread, though.

 

[MattRat]

HST trailers are wired differently to loco-hauled Mk 3s, for a start, and even if you did scratch together some Mk 3 DVTs there are no diesel locos that will work with them out of the box (for example, Chiltern's DVTs were changed from TDM multiple working to AAR to work with the 67s, which then meant they needed to modify the 68s to work with AAR when they got them). As to bi-mode locos, nobody currently offers one for the UK market that can equal even one HST power car when running on diesel, so one capable of equalling the performance of two power cars would require an entirely new design.

Like it or not, the original plan was, and the current plan still is, to use them as they are until they're replaced by a new purpose-built fleet. Personally I agree that 2035 is likely to be pushing things a bit far, but I think that the best way to deal with that - should it become necessary - is to bring forward the order of the new fleet. Any further discussion along these lines needs to go in a speculative thread, though.

Well the point of the thread is to talk about how the units are currently handling after just 4 years, and the general consensus appears to be not well, which at the very least does make you wonder how they'll ever make the next 20 years if they indeed try to push them to 2035.

 

[Speed43125]

Well the point of the thread is to talk about how the units are currently handling after just 4 years, and the general consensus appears to be not well, which at the very least does make you wonder how they'll ever make the next 20 years if they indeed try to push them to 2035.

Things like wheel slip protection are being retrofitted now after being left out of the refurb spec, so I don't particularly see why they have to necessarily become less reliable over the next 5 or 10 years. Its not 2019 when no one really knew how to troubleshoot them and solve issues any more. Maintenance and train crews have slowly gotten to grips with the (many) foibles.

 

[John Bishop]

Well the point of the thread is to talk about how the units are currently handling after just 4 years, and the general consensus appears to be not well, which at the very least does make you wonder how they'll ever make the next 20 years if they indeed try to push them to 2035.

Not a snowballs chance in hell that will happen! The operating costs are eye watering, not to mention the emissions.

Things like wheel slip protection are being retrofitted now after being left out of the refurb spec, so I don't particularly see why they have to necessarily become less reliable over the next 5 or 10 years. Its not 2019 when no one really knew how to troubleshoot them and solve issues any more. Maintenance and train crews have slowly gotten to grips with the (many) foibles.

Yes they are still horrendously unreliable and still failing on an almost multiple daily basis. Maintenance can only do so much when they are working with such old systems prone to failure. A glance inside the clean air compartment tells you everything you need to know about what they’re dealing with in this modern age.

 

[Ex-controller]

Oh god the emissions! Forgot about those. The fact that once you shut a power car down there’s a fair chance it’s not starting up again. The fact that even when idling for a day they’ll still use about a quarter of a tank of fuel, essentially wasting it, and if they lie off for two days they generally need fuelled again! They haven’t even turned a wheel eyet they use all that fuel up!

So much for a clean green railway. All the advances made through the class 385s on the central belt routes have been completely undone by these HSTs. It actually makes you cringe just how bad it is. They cannot go a moment too soon. It’d actually be better off replacing them with class 158s, and they’re hardly reliable themselves.

 

[John Bishop]

Oh god the emissions! Forgot about those. The fact that once you shut a power car down there’s a fair chance it’s not starting up again. The fact that even when idling for a day they’ll still use about a quarter of a tank of fuel, essentially wasting it, and if they lie off for two days they generally need fuelled again! They haven’t even turned a wheel eyet they use all that fuel up!

So much for a clean green railway. All the advances made through the class 385s on the central belt routes have been completely undone by these HSTs. It actually makes you cringe just how bad it is. They cannot go a moment too soon. It’d actually be better off replacing them with class 158s, and they’re hardly reliable themselves.

Agreed. At least you could plan an almost reliable service with the 158s. 1 HST failure yesterday morning saw a 158 operating Intercity services between Inverness and the central belt. Whilst at this time of year you can almost get off with that capacity wise, it won’t be long before that means leaving passengers behind at en route stations due to crush loading. Hardly an acceptable situation to tolerate for the next 10+ years!

 

[sannox]

How busy is the Inverness route actually as I'm pretty sure a 3 car 170 is fine, especially past Perth. The case for Aberdeen is very diffrent and 4 or 5 cars are definetly justified. The crowding is very bad when a 170 turns up so a medium term replacement for the HST is definetly needed, especially given the astronomical cost of their operation.

Isn't much of the issue on capacity now based on with leisure traffic usage around events. When someone plays a gig in Glasgow at Hampden or there is rugby on in Edinburgh, is where most of the complaints seem to come from. It's standard, I had reserved seats and when train got to <Insert Station Here> it was full and standing right through or only 3 coaches sort it out Scotrail etc.

 

[Christmas]

Agreed. At least you could plan an almost reliable service with the 158s. 1 HST failure yesterday morning saw a 158 operating Intercity services between Inverness and the central belt. Whilst at this time of year you can almost get off with that capacity wise, it won’t be long before that means leaving passengers behind at en route stations due to crush loading. Hardly an acceptable situation to tolerate for the next 10+ years!

An additional disadvantage of replacing an HST with a 158 is the timings on the Highland main line. 158s just can't keep up, hence some padding in the timetable at strategic points. A 158 could be struggling to push 75mph, screaming in notch 7 between Hylton and Auchterarder when an HST comfortably hits 100mph with loads of power left. That is when they are actually running.

Regarding the earlier comments about the HST refurbishments and modifications, I have to agree, this is just an example of good money after bad. Game's a bogey, they are done! The cabs are noisy and filthy, the equipment ancient. It's all very well for enthusiasts on this forum to lecture us all on how great they are and how they beat every other option hands down, but they don't have to work on them or drive them.

Imagine Royal Mail decided to start sourcing Bedford CFs for front line parcels delivery, or British Airways announced that they have decided to use DC10s to cross the Atlantic! Their management would have been shown the door.

 

[MattRat]

An additional disadvantage of replacing an HST with a 158 is the timings on the Highland main line. 158s just can't keep up, hence some padding in the timetable at strategic points. A 158 could be struggling to push 75mph, screaming in notch 7 between Hylton and Auchterarder when an HST comfortably hits 100mph with loads of power left. That is when they are actually running.

Regarding the earlier comments about the HST refurbishments and modifications, I have to agree, this is just an example of good money after bad. Game's a bogey, they are done! The cabs are noisy and filthy, the equipment ancient. It's all very well for enthusiasts on this forum to lecture us all on how great they are and how they beat every other option hands down, but they don't have to work on them or drive them.

Imagine Royal Mail decided to start sourcing Bedford CFs for front line parcels delivery, or British Airways announced that they have decided to use DC10s to cross the Atlantic! Their management would have been shown the door.

I do think setting parameters would help with a replacement. Its must be able to go at least 100mph, it has to be able to handle stop start if required, it must be cheap, it preferably has to be bi mode or easily changed out for a bi mode (power pack like FLIRTs, or loco hauled to changed loco), it must be at least 5 coaches long, and it must feel 'intercity', and not anything lesser.

Anything I missed?

 

[Wyrleybart]

An additional disadvantage of replacing an HST with a 158 is the timings on the Highland main line. 158s just can't keep up, hence some padding in the timetable at strategic points. A 158 could be struggling to push 75mph, screaming in notch 7 between Hylton and Auchterarder when an HST comfortably hits 100mph with loads of power left. That is when they are actually running.

Regarding the earlier comments about the HST refurbishments and modifications, I have to agree, this is just an example of good money after bad. Game's a bogey, they are done! The cabs are noisy and filthy, the equipment ancient. It's all very well for enthusiasts on this forum to lecture us all on how great they are and how they beat every other option hands down, but they don't have to work on them or drive them.

Imagine Royal Mail decided to start sourcing Bedford CFs for front line parcels delivery, or British Airways announced that they have decided to use DC10s to cross the Atlantic! Their management would have been shown the door.

That is a pretty good statement of fact. A mate of mine who worked on class 56s for 12 years then transferred to another depot then transferred to a depot in London using HSTs described HSTs as high speed class 56s. Similar electrical switchgear, pneumatics and technology levels. Pretty good train in their day but the industry's idea of a HST2 is actually nothing like a HST with truck engines under the floor, instead of peace and tranquility. Your cabs are to a degree inevitably going to be dirtier than multiple unit cabs simply because HSTS are locomotives with coaches in the middle.

 

[XAM2175]

I do think setting parameters would help with a replacement. Its must be able to go at least 100mph, it has to be able to handle stop start if required, it must be cheap, it preferably has to be bi mode or easily changed out for a bi mode (power pack like FLIRTs, or loco hauled to changed loco), it must be at least 5 coaches long, and it must feel 'intercity', and not anything lesser.

The parameters that generated the HST bid were basically "doors at the ends" and "no underfloor engines". It's rumoured/suggested/claimed/etc that those were specified following a passenger survey that found everybody thought that LNER's HSTs were nicer than ScotRail's 170s, but I don't have the time to go back and check how accurate that is.

Either way, I'm not entirely sure that either requirement will make it into the new procurement. Some form of "intercity feel", yes, but underfloor engines are less of problem now that Hitachi have shown that they can be reasonably inoffensive in Britain (confirming what manufacturers in Denmark, Germany, and even Australia worked out decades ago), and a blanket criterion against end-doors could rule out a number of viable offerings not just from Stadler but now also Alstom (for example, the Coradia Stream units for both NS and DSB).

Bi-mode capability, or at least the possibility of diesel-to-electric conversion, is looking likely at this point. Theoretically, the wires are meant to have made it all the way to both Inverness and Aberdeen uninterrupted by 2035, which could allow the new fleet to be pure EMU if the HSTs last that long, but I don't think anybody seriously expects either of those things to happen as scheduled.

5 coaches minimum, yes, again likely.

A mate of mine who worked on class 56s for 12 years then transferred to another depot then transferred to a depot in London using HSTs described HSTs as high speed class 56s. Similar electrical switchgear, pneumatics and technology levels.

Yeah, this is fair enough, and really it shouldn't really surprise anybody in enthusiast circles. HST was primarily meant to be a stepping stone for BR's high-speed strategy in the 1970s; if I remember correctly one of the engineers involved at the time described it as "an extrapolation of existing technology". Everybody expected that they'd be relegated to secondary lines by continuing electrification and the introduction of APT-S. Had anybody been able to see how the future would actually work out there are a lot of things that would obviously have been done differently.

 

[Trainbike46]

As I understand it, Scotgove has guaranteed the lease on the HSTs untill 2030, so I don't think it's likely they will go significantly before that. But similarly, I really don't expect them to last much beyond 2030 either.

I don't think Scotrail will get diesels to replace them, either straight electric, or if replacing before electrification is ready BEMUs or maybe bimodes

 

[Meerkat]

Any idea if there are any availability conditions in the lease? ie any chance that they can be handed back for not reaching high enough availability, or that 'fines' could reach a level where the lessor is fairly flexible on the lease cancellation cost?

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I understand it, Scotgove has guaranteed the lease on the HSTs untill 2030, so I don't think it's likely they will go significantly before that. But similarly, I really don't expect them to last much beyond 2030 either.

I don't think Scotrail will get diesels to replace them, either straight electric, or if replacing before electrification is ready BEMUs or maybe bimodes

5 car 80x would be a perfect replacement.

 

[Meerkat]

5 car 80x would be a perfect replacement.

I thought the LNER 80x struggled a bit up the Scottish hills on diesel?

 

[MattRat]

I thought the LNER 80x struggled a bit up the Scottish hills on diesel?

They have small diesel engines. 810s could work though, and are designed around 110, not 125 operation. Yes, technically they can go quicker, I'm just talking regular passenger service. The slower top end just means better acceleration most likely, perfect for this service.

 

[XAM2175]

I thought the LNER 80x struggled a bit up the Scottish hills on diesel?

Nothing stopping them using a high-spec arrangement like the 810s have, should it be required.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Nothing stopping them using a high-spec arrangement like the 810s have, should it be required.

Indeed. You could even have all five coaches motored, though you'd need slightly longer wheelchair ramps as they'd all need high floors. You could also have different gearing as 125mph would not be required, 100 would be fine.

Another option, though you would need some units as well as there aren't that many, is TPE's Mk5 sets, the loco could be swapped for an electric once the wires are up. TPE has an excess of rolling stock and could spare them.

 

[XAM2175]

Indeed. You could even have all five coaches motored, though you'd need slightly longer wheelchair ramps.

I don't necessarily think they'd need the extra engine; remember that the four-engine config is already judged enough to keep time with Meridians at 125 mph. There might be value however in giving a third vehicle traction motors, as that would help with acceleration and adhesion.

Some of the length-reduction changes made to the 810s would potentially also be of value to SR, noting that platform lengths at Glasgow Queen Street and Inverness are both constrained, so it might even be possible to get some or all as six-car units. Plus, giving them a 100 mph limit would reduce the space needed for crumple zones.

Thinking on it further, an 810-derived fleet is something I could see being a very practical contender for the order, especially given that the design is already in production and on the way to being proven. It's also what I would back if it became necessary to replace the HSTs early, as it's the second-lowest-risk path to getting a new fleet in service this side of 2030 (with the lowest being to simply buy carbon-copy 802s). If the need became sufficiently pressing, ScotRail might even be able to place a direct order with Hitachi, assuming the "urgent need" exemption to EU public tendering rules was copied into UK law following Brexit.

That said, I would absolutely still want to see what other bidders - particularly Stadler and Siemens - could come up with.

Another option, though you would need some units as well as there aren't that many, is TPE's Mk5 sets, the loco could be swapped for an electric once the wires are up. TPE has an excess of rolling stock and could spare them.

Also workable, though as you note there are only 13 Mk 5A sets so it seems like a lot of bother for little return if you still need to source other trains to provide the total number necessary.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Also workable, though as you note there are only 13 Mk 5A sets so it seems like a lot of bother for little return if you still need to source other trains to provide the total number necessary.

How many daily HST diagrams are there (and how many were there pre COVID)? I believe utilisation is poor due to poor reliability?

If you did need more DMUs short term (on the basis that cascades will result from electrification and orders for new EMUs in time), TfW's 158s are due to be available soon and I don't think have takers.

 

[XAM2175]

How many daily HST diagrams are there (and how many were there pre COVID)? I believe utilisation is poor due to poor reliability?

15 currently, though it's been suggested that that might be increased slightly come the May timetable change. I don't recall the pre-COVID arrangements.

Yes, utilisation is poor due to reliability problems, although the precise degree of poorness depends on whether you count as part of the fleet the three sets that went back to Wabtec for yet more work.

 

[Meerkat]

The Scottish government has mentioned plans to speed up services - is that just bringing Glasgow-Aberdeen up to 100 as much as possible?
ie no plans to go over that (considering that many EMUs regularly go 110 in England)?

 

[Wyrleybart]

I don't necessarily think they'd need the extra engine; remember that the four-engine config is already judged enough to keep time with Meridians at 125 mph. There might be value however in giving a third vehicle traction motors, as that would help with acceleration and adhesion.

Some of the length-reduction changes made to the 810s would potentially also be of value to SR, noting that platform lengths at Glasgow Queen Street and Inverness are both constrained, so it might even be possible to get some or all as six-car units. Plus, giving them a 100 mph limit would reduce the space needed for crumple zones.

Thinking on it further, an 810-derived fleet is something I could see being a very practical contender for the order, especially given that the design is already in production and on the way to being proven. It's also what I would back if it became necessary to replace the HSTs early, as it's the second-lowest-risk path to getting a new fleet in service this side of 2030 (with the lowest being to simply buy carbon-copy 802s). If the need became sufficiently pressing, ScotRail might even be able to place a direct order with Hitachi, assuming the "urgent need" exemption to EU public tendering rules was copied into UK law following Brexit.

That said, I would absolutely still want to see what other bidders - particularly Stadler and Siemens - could come up with.


Also workable, though as you note there are only 13 Mk 5A sets so it seems like a lot of bother for little return if you still need to source other trains to provide the total number necessary.

But if you were Scotrail, you really wouldn't be looking for 125mph IETs with the reduced capacity end cars to replace the "seven capitals" sets. Don't forget that 118 mph is or at least was the magic speed where collision zones needed to be built in. 110mph multiple units such as 380s and 385s would be easily used if required. So Hitachi's AT200 platform such as the 385 EMU could be used.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But if you were Scotrail, you really wouldn't be looking for 125mph IETs with the reduced capacity end cars to replace the "seven capitals" sets. Don't forget that 118 mph is or at least was the magic speed where collision zones needed to be built in. 110mph multiple units such as 380s and 385s would be easily used if required. So Hitachi's AT200 platform such as the 385 EMU could be used.

The mandatorily reduced capacity in the end vehicle of 80x, particularly 810s, is very small, similar to a Voyager, and things can be done with it e.g. bike space. FLIRTs lose more capacity to the above floor electrical gear. Sure, some 80x have only half a coach of accommodation on the end, but that's because of giving three window bays over to a kitchen.

 

[Brubulus]

Scotrail could form some 4 car 170s for Inverness and them use mark 5a sets for the Aberdeen trains. Given that the 170s will be getting cascaded from Fife in the medium term, 2 car units are reasonable on some routes as 156/158 replacements.

 

[XAM2175]

The Scottish government has mentioned plans to speed up services - is that just bringing Glasgow-Aberdeen up to 100 as much as possible?
ie no plans to go over that (considering that many EMUs regularly go 110 in England)?

I don't recall any specific details, but line speed and intended service pattern will be significant determinants, as ever. I'm not sure what EMUs doing 110 in England has to do with this.

But if you were Scotrail, you really wouldn't be looking for 125mph IETs with the reduced capacity end cars to replace the "seven capitals" sets. Don't forget that 118 mph is or at least was the magic speed where collision zones needed to be built in. 110mph multiple units such as 380s and 385s would be easily used if required. So Hitachi's AT200 platform such as the 385 EMU could be used.

Yes, as @Bletchleyite notes, the amount of space lost to collision regs is smaller now than it was in the Pendolino days, and it's probably a safe bet that any hypothetical ScotRail order won't be fitted with a kitchen for first class.

I suggested using the 810 as a base for my envisaged proposal because it's already in testing and thus the shortest development path to a fleet of trains that will do the job and - somewhat importantly* - look the part. But equally yes I suppose an extrapolation of the AT200 design could be made to work.

* = I do think that the "end-door configuration" requirement will be applied to the new order, and it's not unreasonable to imagine that SR will want the trains to stand out visually.

Scotrail could form some 4 car 170s for Inverness and them use mark 5a sets for the Aberdeen trains. Given that the 170s will be getting cascaded from Fife in the medium term, 2 car units are reasonable on some routes as 156/158 replacements.

Would it not be better in this scenario to use the Mk 5s for Inverness and the lengthened 170s for Aberdeen? That would be more in keeping with my understanding of traffic patterns and passenger expectations.