Scotrail HST alternatives?

[Brubulus]

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.


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.

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.

It's more operationally convenient as it means there is better utilisation for the MK5 units and less 170s need lengthening.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's more operationally convenient as it means there is better utilisation for the MK5 units and less 170s need lengthening.

If you just want operationally convenient, just hoover up all the upcoming spare DMUs or order some Civities.

However, the basis of the HST thing is quality and providing a proper long distance service with an InterCity feel. Noisy older DMUs don't provide that. And that has more value on the much longer (twice as long I think) Inverness run.

 

[cactustwirly]

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!

The engines are relatively new so I don't understand how emissions is a problem?
They should be cleaner than Voyagers and 170s

 

[Meerkat]

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.

Not sure why you are touchy, but if there are 110 EMUs then 100mph intercity looks a bit odd, and speed increases could be used by stock running shorter distances (say Glasgow-Edinburgh), keeping them out the way.

If Scotrail ‘panicked‘ and decided on 810s right now how soon could they get a production slot, and could the drivers/techs get any meaningful training on the LNER 80x running in Scotland?

 

[XAM2175]

Not sure why you are touchy, but if there are 110 EMUs then 100mph intercity looks a bit odd, and speed increases could be used by stock running shorter distances (say Glasgow-Edinburgh), keeping them out the way.

No touchiness; I simply don't understand why 110 mph is suddenly such an important target based on operations in England when both the 380s and 385s max out at 100 mph.

If Scotrail ‘panicked‘ and decided on 810s right now how soon could they get a production slot, and could the drivers/techs get any meaningful training on the LNER 80x running in Scotland?

I haven't kept up with the state of Hitachi's order book so I can't answer the first part of that question. The second - well, that would ultimately be up to LNER, but Hitachi having a major IET depot at Craigentinny would almost certainly be a help.

 

[Meerkat]

I simply don't understand why 110 mph is suddenly such an important target based on operations in England when both the 380s and 385s max out at 100 mph

It seems a logical target if normal EMUs regularly do it these days (as in logical before considering stopping pattern and infrastructure) t
The units you quote won’t be on the faster lines forever.

 

[RailWonderer]

No touchiness; I simply don't understand why 110 mph is suddenly such an important target based on operations in England when both the 380s and 385s max out at 100 mph.


I haven't kept up with the state of Hitachi's order book so I can't answer the first part of that question. The second - well, that would ultimately be up to LNER, but Hitachi having a major IET depot at Craigentinny would almost certainly be a help.

They're building the Avanti 805s and 807s and the EMR 810s (not sure how many built so far though), and will be co-building the HS2 rolling stock. If Scotrail aren't placing any new orders until they receive more electrification then it's only cascades that will happen if reliability with the HSTs sinks further.

There is of course a chance Scotrail panicks though other manufacturers will surely bid as well. Then you have to ask will it only be the HSTs that get replaced or Sprinters as well? A diesel B train, i.e. a bi-mode 385 could be possible as a replacement. Siemens, Alstom or CAF could do a bimode as well.

 

[XAM2175]

It seems a logical target if normal EMUs regularly do it these days (as in logical before considering stopping pattern and infrastructure) t

"considering stopping pattern and infrastructure" is exactly why I think that a 10 mph bump will be of very little value for Edinburgh-Glasgow services, hence my continued puzzlement at "but EMUs can do 110 mph!" being used as a justification for doing it.

If Scotrail aren't placing any new orders until they receive more electrification then it's only cascades that will happen if reliability with the HSTs sinks further.

The current plan is to first order replacements for the 318s, 320s, and Barrhead & East Kilbride 156s all in one go, for delivery roughly between 2027 and 2029. The plan already allows for some battery-electric suburban/interurban units to be attached to that order, to replace 156s to Kilmarnock and displace 158s and 170s in Fife, so it's not impossible that that the order could be further adjusted to allow for 158s and 170s to temporarily replace HSTs while a proper replacement for them is ordered for delivery in the early 2030s.

There is of course a chance Scotrail panicks though other manufacturers will surely bid as well. Then you have to ask will it only be the HSTs that get replaced or Sprinters as well? A diesel B train, i.e. a bi-mode 385 could be possible as a replacement. Siemens, Alstom or CAF could do a bimode as well.

A "panic" order could entail an accelerated development and delivery timeframe, though, which might deter manufacturers who don't have a suitable product on the board already. I don't think though that a single type replacing both HSTs and 156s/158s is a realistic idea.

 

[Meerkat]

"considering stopping pattern and infrastructure" is exactly why I think that a 10 mph bump will be of very little value for Edinburgh-Glasgow services, hence my continued puzzlement at "but EMUs can do 110 mph!" being used as a justification for doing it.

I was thinking more in terms of the I7C being the reason for the 110 and the EMUs trying to stay out the way.

 

[Southsider]

The current plan is to first order replacements for the 318s, 320s, and Barrhead & East Kilbride 156s all in one go, for delivery roughly between 2027 and 2029. The plan already allows for some battery-electric suburban/interurban units to be attached to that order, to replace 156s to Kilmarnock and displace 158s and 170s in Fife, so it's not impossible that that the order could be further adjusted to allow for 158s and 170s to temporarily replace HSTs while a proper replacement for them is ordered for delivery in the early 2030s.

That's a bit late as Barrhead will be electrified by the end of this year and East Kilbride next year. With no order yet placed, I assume there is sufficient slack in the cvurrent EMU fleet to satisfy this for a couple of years.

 

[snowball]

That's a bit late as Barrhead will be electrified by the end of this year and East Kilbride next year. With no order yet placed, I assume there is sufficient slack in the cvurrent EMU fleet to satisfy this for a couple of years.

I've seen it stated in several places that Barrhead and EK will be initially served by EMUs from the existing fleet. Levenmouth, due to open spring 2024, will be initially served by DMUs from the existing fleet (I imagine this will be ones displaced from Barrhead?).

By the time the new fleet of EMUs and BEMUs starts arriving (supposed to be 2027) I would expect Dalmeny, Fife (including Levenmouth) and the Borders line to be sitting waiting for BEMUs. By the time these have been delivered, plus some EMUs to replace the oldest classes, I would hope there will have been further electrification towards some of Perth, Dundee, Aberdeen, Kilmarnock, so I would hope BEMUs to cover some of these will be included in the order.

 

[XAM2175]

With no order yet placed, I assume there is sufficient slack in the cvurrent EMU fleet to satisfy this for a couple of years.

Yes, and @snowball has better clarified the near-term steps. Those movements, and the need to allow time for the wires to start spooling out north of the Forth, are the reasons that the existing plan has the new intercity fleet scheduled for 2030-ish onwards.

 

[Jacob Porrett]

I've heard that maybe the EMR 222s might be going up to Scotland when the Inter7City HST's are withdrawn. Any truth in this at all?

 

[Speed43125]

Unless you have some insider source at the management level, I think this is even less likely thatn the Avanti Voyagers going to XC. A quick forum search will give you various thread on this very idea.

 

[jackot]

Nothing confirmed yet I don't think. It has been discussed lots elsewhere but it is still nothing more than speculation. There seems to be more likelihood of them ending up at Crosscountry than Scotrail, but even then there is still a good chance that they will be scrapped...

 

[hexagon789]

I've heard that maybe the EMR 222s might be going up to Scotland when the Inter7City HST's are withdrawn. Any truth in this at all?

Unlikely. Given ScotRail's abysmal returns, the desire to reduce costs by cutting back services; I sincerely doubt they will be wanting to pay TWO sets of leasing charges for the next 7-12 years.

 

[MattRat]

They're building the Avanti 805s and 807s and the EMR 810s (not sure how many built so far though), and will be co-building the HS2 rolling stock. If Scotrail aren't placing any new orders until they receive more electrification then it's only cascades that will happen if reliability with the HSTs sinks further.

There is of course a chance Scotrail panicks though other manufacturers will surely bid as well. Then you have to ask will it only be the HSTs that get replaced or Sprinters as well? A diesel B train, i.e. a bi-mode 385 could be possible as a replacement. Siemens, Alstom or CAF could do a bimode as well.

If we are talking about a panic, I think they'd more likely ask TPE if they can borrow the 68s and Mk5s, since someone else pointed out TPE actually have an excess of stock, so would be fine with the hopefully temporary loss.

 

[GusB]

I'm sure I suggested before that a hybrid AT200/300 would be useful for the ScotRail intercity routes; have an AT300 layout, but remove the pointy front and graft on something similar to the 385 so that units can be coupled together as required.

 

[Brubulus]

If you just want operationally convenient, just hoover up all the upcoming spare DMUs or order some Civities.

However, the basis of the HST thing is quality and providing a proper long distance service with an InterCity feel. Noisy older DMUs don't provide that. And that has more value on the much longer (twice as long I think) Inverness run.

To be honest, the mk5s could exclusively run Inverness with a fleet made up of a couple mk5s and the lengthened turbostar fleet for Aberdeen, however this would be more costly than putting the mk5s on Aberdeen and the turbostars on Inverness.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be honest, the mk5s could exclusively run Inverness with a fleet made up of a couple mk5s and the lengthened turbostar fleet for Aberdeen, however this would be more costly than putting the mk5s on Aberdeen and the turbostars on Inverness.

If cost is the primary driver then they should just take any and all spare 158s (e.g. those about to be released from Wales) and plan a service that can be done using those and the 170s. It's about quality*, and you want quality on your prime, longer InterCity route, which is the Inverness, not the Aberdeen. But the political situation in Scotland is a bit different from England - English HSTs are going because the DfT wants to cut costs, whereas Scottish ones are potentially going for safety and because they are unreliable.

* I know Standard in the Mk5s is a bit rubbish, all things said, but I would expect them to improve it as they have the HSTs, e.g. sort out the window alignment. 1st however is really very good indeed.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Mar 2023 ==

I'm sure I suggested before that a hybrid AT200/300 would be useful for the ScotRail intercity routes; have an AT300 layout, but remove the pointy front and graft on something similar to the 385 so that units can be coupled together as required.

I suppose you could do that for a smaller unit, but if they were 5 or 6-cars as they probably should be is there any Scottish route suitable for doubling them up at all? Scottish "IC" services are a bit more like TransPennine Express than LNER - do TPE ever double up? I don't think they do.

And a pointy nose "looks cool" which is a marketing tool.

 

[XAM2175]

I'm sure I suggested before that a hybrid AT200/300 would be useful for the ScotRail intercity routes; have an AT300 layout, but remove the pointy front and graft on something similar to the 385 so that units can be coupled together as required.

I suppose you could do that for a smaller unit, but if they were 5 or 6-cars as they probably should be is there any Scottish route suitable for doubling them up at all? Scottish "IC" services are a bit more like TransPennine Express than LNER - do TPE ever double up? I don't think they do.

And a pointy nose "looks cool" which is a marketing tool.

Yes, I don't see value in being able to double-up units in service when it's already the case that 2+5 HSTs are tight for space at Queen Street and Inverness. They'd be much better served IMO by ordering them as five- or six-car units from the get-go (or five with options for an extra car per unit later if finances dictate). And the pointy nose definitely has marketing value.

Comparing length:
2+4 HST: 128 m
2+5 HST: 151 m
5-car 810: 120 m
6-car 810: 144 m
(please note: super-rough calculations, each formation will be a bit longer in reality after allowing for couplings and the like)

 

[Trainbike46]

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.

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 similar are the Mk5 sleeper and Mk 5A (TPE) sets? If they are similar, an advantage would be the ability to share maintenance with the sleeper?

Also, would it be possible to buy a small number of extra coaches (once again shared with the sleeper if the vague rumours about sleeper expansion actually happen) to get enough Mk 5As for all the Scottish IC services?

 

[gingertom]

my tuppenceworth.

Transport Scotland wanted an IC type train for the inter city services, with no noisy underfloor engines. That knocked 158s and 170s on the head, even though they are prepared to have these stand in at a moment's notice. Once the routes are electrified an 801/AT300 would be ideal. In the interim I could see a 5x26m 810-type with 4 engines, but as 125mph operation is not required these engines and traction equipment won't need to be the upgraded versions planned for EMR's 810s. Somebody suggested upthread that Craigentinny could look after the fleet. Could it? I thought they were too busy with the LNER fleet and the 385s. Whatever option is eventually chosen maintenance of the new fleet will need to be addressed. I can see Haymarket becoming that place, as they will have time on their hands once the HSTs leave.

I could also see rakes of MK5s with class 93s- I would not be surprised if secret talks had already taken place- why else would the option for 20 additional 93s be exercised if there wasn't any work for them?

Then there's Stadler and their Flirt, or Smile? A 6-car set with a power pack, inter city door placement and interior would work well. Once the wires are fully up take the power pack out and insert another coach in its place.

I'm sure though that Siemens, Bombardier/Alsthom and others would want a slice of the cake too and come up with something suitable,

 

[Bletchleyite]

Then there's Stadler and their Flirt, or Smile? A 6-car set with a power pack, inter city door placement and interior would work well. Once the wires are fully up take the power pack out and insert another coach in its place.

Just about the nicest InterCity train I've ever used is the Polish IC FLIRT, for what it's worth. The Greater Anglia ones are good too.

 

[Brubulus]

my tuppenceworth.

Transport Scotland wanted an IC type train for the inter city services, with no noisy underfloor engines. That knocked 158s and 170s on the head, even though they are prepared to have these stand in at a moment's notice. Once the routes are electrified an 801/AT300 would be ideal. In the interim I could see a 5x26m 810-type with 4 engines, but as 125mph operation is not required these engines and traction equipment won't need to be the upgraded versions planned for EMR's 810s. Somebody suggested upthread that Craigentinny could look after the fleet. Could it? I thought they were too busy with the LNER fleet and the 385s. Whatever option is eventually chosen maintenance of the new fleet will need to be addressed. I can see Haymarket becoming that place, as they will have time on their hands once the HSTs leave.

I could also see rakes of MK5s with class 93s- I would not be surprised if secret talks had already taken place- why else would the option for 20 additional 93s be exercised if there wasn't any work for them?

Then there's Stadler and their Flirt, or Smile? A 6-car set with a power pack, inter city door placement and interior would work well. Once the wires are fully up take the power pack out and insert another coach in its place.

I'm sure though that Siemens, Bombardier/Alsthom and others would want a slice of the cake too and come up with something suitable,

If Transport Scotland wants no underfloor engines on their IC services, it is almost certain that it will be a MK5 based solution. 810s have underfloor engines so they are out of the equation and the DfT would be very happy to give the TPE MK5 fleet to ScotRail so all that is needed is another 50 coaches from CAF and the aforementioned class 93s. FLIRTs are unlikely due to their expense and lack of flexibility compared to loco-hauled fleets along with the fact that the Caledonian Sleeper is already using MK5 units. The other manufacturers aren't going to create a completely new design for a microfleet so any tender will be either CAF or Stadler.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If Transport Scotland wants no underfloor engines on their IC services, it is almost certain that it will be a MK5 based solution. 810s have underfloor engines so they are out of the equation and the DfT would be very happy to give the TPE MK5 fleet to ScotRail so all that is needed is another 50 coaches from CAF and the aforementioned class 93s. FLIRTs are unlikely due to their expense and lack of flexibility compared to loco-hauled fleets along with the fact that the Caledonian Sleeper is already using MK5 units. The other manufacturers aren't going to create a completely new design for a microfleet so any tender will be either CAF or Stadler.

The Mk5a sets aren't really LHCS, they're more like single ended unpowered MUs. They offer less flexibility than 802s because they aren't designed to be used in multiple, and are bar coupled within the set. The options are 5-car, 5-car or 5-car.

ScotRail could, I suppose, make a new order/conversion order to CAF for genuinely independent hauled coaches, though. I never quite understood why TPE didn't, presumably it was cheaper the way they did it. To me what would have made sense would be to have driving trailer first with wheelchair space, bike space and accessible bog, then a load of identical trailer standards with a small bog. Two types of vehicle, able to be used in any formation for flexibility, e.g. if you want a nine-car fast to Liverpool for the Grand National you can, just shunt one together.

 

[Meerkat]

Were 80x in full service when Scotland made the ‘no underfloors’ decision?
if they had been on them rather than just 170s etc I can’t see why they would have been so bothered.

 

[Speed43125]

Were 80x in full service when Scotland made the ‘no underfloors’ decision?
if they had been on them rather than just 170s etc I can’t see why they would have been so bothered.

Abellio Scotrail's franchise started in April 2015. I don't know when a 'no underfloors' decision might have been made internally at TS. But clearly there were no AT300s in service in early 2015, let alone earlier.

 

[gingertom]

If Transport Scotland wants no underfloor engines on their IC services, it is almost certain that it will be a MK5 based solution. 810s have underfloor engines so they are out of the equation and the DfT would be very happy to give the TPE MK5 fleet to ScotRail so all that is needed is another 50 coaches from CAF and the aforementioned class 93s. FLIRTs are unlikely due to their expense and lack of flexibility compared to loco-hauled fleets along with the fact that the Caledonian Sleeper is already using MK5 units. The other manufacturers aren't going to create a completely new design for a microfleet so any tender will be either CAF or Stadler.

the gensets could quite easily be dropped once wiring renders them obsolete. However I think MK5s is the way to go, as you say there's already experience and maintenance here.

 

[MarkyT]

The Swiss Südostbahn (SOB) 'Traverso' units might form a template for new Scottish internal expresses, reimagined using Stadler's UK profile car-bodies. The 8-car Traverso is effectively two 4-car electric FLIRT 160 units, each with a cab at one end and a gangway connection at the other, coupled together back-to-back. The 4-car variant has cabs at both ends. For independent power, a Scottish version could have a trailer car in each unit replaced by a power pod containing batteries and/or diesels as necessary to cover gaps in electrification. This would result in a 6-car train with two power pods. Length would be approx. 65m per unit, like an 3-car Anglia 755, so a 6-car one would be ~130m

https://www.stadlerrail.com/media/pdf/fsob0818e.pdf

Electric low-floor multiple unit. FLIRT – Traverso. Südostbahn (SOB), Switzerland.
Südostbahn (SOB) ordered 11 new trains from Stadler in 2016. When the timetable changes in December 2019, six 8-car and five 4-car vehicles will be ready for service to replace the existing SOB consists. The Traverso has been given the Intercity front design for intercity travel. The new Traverso trains offer all the advantages typical of the FLIRT: Stepless entrances, a generous, clear interior design, spacious multifunctional zones in the entrance areas and lightweight aluminium car bodies, which significantly reduce energy consumption and thus considerably reduce energy costs. Particular focus was placed on innovative running gear technology to ensure minimal wear as the trains travel along the winding routes of the SOB...