Scotrail HST alternatives?

[Bletchleyite]

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

The Greater Anglia IC units, but shorter and with a power module, are basically exactly that.

 

[jagardner1984]

Mk5 would seem the most logical like for like replacement (though also different). Also allows for Traction to change through the lifespan of the cars more straightforwardly.

As a genuine question - there has been much talk of the smaller Stadler “Power Pack” cars in the FLIRT series. Has there ever been a small DVT, that would effectively be “just a cab” but coupled to a set of hauled carriages ? In the interests of weight, fuel etc reduction, this would seem preferable to a double loco setup ? Then it could be a diesel / Bimode / electric on the other end to suit electrification status.

Perhaps our friends at Cheap-As-F*** can rustle something up on the back of their tapas packet.

 

[NIT100]

Mk5 would seem the most logical like for like replacement (though also different). Also allows for Traction to change through the lifespan of the cars more straightforwardly.

As a genuine question - there has been much talk of the smaller Stadler “Power Pack” cars in the FLIRT series. Has there ever been a small DVT, that would effectively be “just a cab” but coupled to a set of hauled carriages ? In the interests of weight, fuel etc reduction, this would seem preferable to a double loco setup ? Then it could be a diesel / Bimode / electric on the other end to suit electrification status.

Perhaps our friends at Cheap-As-F*** can rustle something up on the back of their tapas packet.

Not sure what you are referring to here, do you just mean a driving trailer i.e. an unpowered coach with a cab?

 

[43096]

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?

Ah, those magical 93s, that have powers (literally) above what they are capable of when off wires. You do realise that in diesel+battery mode they're a Type 3 and when the batteries run out, a Type 2? And it's not like the days of 26s and 27s where there was a steam heat boiler: that Type 2 rating would also have to power the coach auxiliaries.

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

It's been Alstom since the late 1990s...

 

[Speed43125]

Mk5 would seem the most logical like for like replacement (though also different). Also allows for Traction to change through the lifespan of the cars more straightforwardly.

As a genuine question - there has been much talk of the smaller Stadler “Power Pack” cars in the FLIRT series. Has there ever been a small DVT, that would effectively be “just a cab” but coupled to a set of hauled carriages ? In the interests of weight, fuel etc reduction, this would seem preferable to a double loco setup ? Then it could be a diesel / Bimode / electric on the other end to suit electrification status.

Perhaps our friends at Cheap-As-F*** can rustle something up on the back of their tapas packet.

Is it platform lengths you're thinking of, where the power pod area could be unplatformed like various (ECML bound) HST stopping points used to be across Scotland?

I think what we've seen thus far is just Stadler's design, and no one has asked otherwise yet. The benefit of being able to remove a PU by just taking out the bod and one bogie also has certain advantages over a power unit imbedded into a cab end like you seem to be proposing?

 

[jagardner1984]

Is it platform lengths you're thinking of, where the power pod area could be unplatformed like various (ECML bound) HST stopping points used to be across Scotland?

I think what we've seen thus far is just Stadler's design, and no one has asked otherwise yet. The benefit of being able to remove a PU by just taking out the bod and one bogie also has certain advantages over a power unit imbedded into a cab end like you seem to be proposing?

I was more meaning rather than a specific end car with a driving cab - could there (I accept there is currently not) be a standard Mk5 at the end of the formation with a “mini” Car of say a 3rd length (similar to the flirt PU) which could be effectively the DVT - with a hired loco at the other end (of varying type depending on electrification stage) - this would allow the full 5 cars of passenger accommodation with driving zones seperate (a La HST). Just strikes me in terms of usage, fuel, weight - a full length vehicle is perhaps not required for the task in hand, whilst putting it into the end of a hauled passenger car eats substantially into that space.

 

[RailWonderer]

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.

I actually suggested that here.

Future of TPE

Does anyone know of the transport secretary’s response to louise haigh’s question re tpe? Also wouldnt it be common sense not to just renationalise the company but also to split the company up altogether?

www.railforums.co.uk

Which isn't as crackpot as it sounds, given they would be far more modern and far cheaper to run and when electrification comes (whether that be in a decade's time or two) they can replace the 68 with an electric locomotive.

 

[Brubulus]

I actually suggested that here.

Future of TPE

Does anyone know of the transport secretary’s response to louise haigh’s question re tpe? Also wouldnt it be common sense not to just renationalise the company but also to split the company up altogether?

www.railforums.co.uk

Which isn't as crackpot as it sounds, given they would be far more modern and far cheaper to run and when electrification comes (whether that be in a decade's time or two) they can replace the 68 with an electric locomotive.

There aren't enough sets for Inverness and Aberdeen so more would need to be ordered, or TS/ScotRail would have to make do with a half size intercity fleet as they effectively have done for the last 4 years.

 

[RailWonderer]

There aren't enough sets for Inverness and Aberdeen so more would need to be ordered, or TS/ScotRail would have to make do with a half size intercity fleet as they effectively have done for the last 4 years.

Availability of HST sets is so poor as it is, binning the HSTs tomorrow for the 68s and mk5s would see more services running IC than now - even with fewer of them, their improved reliability would mean more IC diagrams.

There aren't enough HST sets out in a single day and 170s having been running several diagrams for ages now. The 08:42, 09:42 and 10:50 ex-Inverness today (Glasgow bound) were 170, 170 and 158+170 respectively.

 

[XAM2175]

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.

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.

Were 80x in full service when Scotland made the ‘no underfloors’ decision?

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.

Yeah, for the avoidance of doubt, the "no underfloor engines" requirement is what created the HST proposal, allegedly because punters were comparing LNER's HSTs to SR's 170s. There's nothing at all to suggest that the same criterion applies now, and I'd be prepared to bet money that it doesn't.

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.

I think the 810-style unit is the better choice over the "standard" IEP because the 24-metre vehicles are more flexible, even if they're ordered as pure electrics. Any new-build fleet ordered as a replacement for the HSTs wouldn't be interim, it would be the new intercity fleet full-stop.

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.

No, Craigentinny was suggested as source of existing Hitachi staffing and knowledge if an urgent need for HST replacement became necessary. There's no reason to think that the permanent depots will be any different to those SR current use for the HSTs.

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?

The 93s aren't at all suitable for the kind of duty these trains will do in the near term, because they're far too weak on diesel, and if they're going to run as electric-only then it'll be easily more than ten years before they're actually usable. I really don't see it happening. Credit to @43096 for putting it more colourfully

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.

I'm not sure what flexibility ScotRail can stand to gain from LHCS, though. With platform length limitations it's not like they can just add coaches when they feel like it. And describing it as microfleet is a bit of a stretch - any order would have to be circa 18-odd units simply to replace the HSTs as currently diagrammed, and probably nearer to 30* to cover for withdrawal of all 158s and 170s too (but with wriggle room for services that might be covered by new interurban units instead).

* = this is a very loose estimate, as I don't recall the exact number that would be needed to meet SR's aspirations.

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.

Remember that TPE only ordered the Mk 5As - and arguably also the 397s - because they wanted stock fast and Hitachi didn't have the production slots for them. As far as TPE were concerned they were basically just quick-and-dirty diesel-only 802s, and I don't think that they really had much of a vision or plan beyond that.

Availability of HST sets is so poor as it is, binning the HSTs tomorrow for the 68s and mk5s would see more services running IC than now - even with fewer of them, their improved reliability would mean more IC diagrams.

Uhhh, not really. As already mentioned, there are only 13 Mk 5A sets. Figure that one will be out for scheduled maintenance at any given time and you're down to 12... and I'm not entirely sure that they're actually that reliable at them moment. Probably better to assume that you'd only have 11 max, and that would be roughly equal to HST availability at the moment. Thus, while you might get a more consistent coverage of IC diagrams with them, you wouldn't actually get any more coverage.

 

[gingertom]

I was more meaning rather than a specific end car with a driving cab - could there (I accept there is currently not) be a standard Mk5 at the end of the formation with a “mini” Car of say a 3rd length (similar to the flirt PU) which could be effectively the DVT - with a hired loco at the other end (of varying type depending on electrification stage) - this would allow the full 5 cars of passenger accommodation with driving zones seperate (a La HST). Just strikes me in terms of usage, fuel, weight - a full length vehicle is perhaps not required for the task in hand, whilst putting it into the end of a hauled passenger car eats substantially into that space.

I suppose such a vehicle could be built. Perhaps an genset for emergency hotel power, bicycle storage, or large luggage?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suppose such a vehicle could be built. Perhaps an genset for emergency hotel power, bicycle storage, or large luggage?

HST power cars are a lot shorter than a Mk3 so it basically already exists.

 

[RailWonderer]

Uhhh, not really. As already mentioned, there are only 13 Mk 5A sets. Figure that one will be out for scheduled maintenance at any given time and you're down to 12... and I'm not entirely sure that they're actually that reliable at them moment. Probably better to assume that you'd only have 11 max, and that would be roughly equal to HST availability at the moment. Thus, while you might get a more consistent coverage of IC diagrams with them, you wouldn't actually get any more coverage.

Even so, maintenance will be far cheaper. Those who work on them daily are saying they are becoming a hassle with parts wearing out/breaking down all the time. Plus who says daily availability of HST sets won't fall further from now until 2030? On Anglia with mk3 coaches just before the 745s arrived we saw that 9 car units quickly became 8 car, then 7 etc, so at some point it could start falling apart very quickly.
Still a lease on them was signed to 2030(?) so they aren't leaving and any fall in reliability will be patched up with more 158s and 170s. The former may even come from TfW.

 

[Trainbike46]

I suppose such a vehicle could be built. Perhaps an genset for emergency hotel power, bicycle storage, or large luggage?

But why though? Why not just have a regular length DVT with seats (possibly first plus wheelchair as @Bletchleyite proposed)

If more Mk 5 were to be ordered, then hopefully some extras would also be ordered for the sleeper, to increase capacity as was hinted at earlier.

Personally I would love to see something like the pods on the nightjet too.

Though all will depend on cost, and I don't think it is at all likely that the HSTs will go before the guaranteed lease period ends, simply because ScotGov (rightly) won't want to be paying for two fleets at the same time

Ah, those magical 93s, that have powers (literally) above what they are capable of when off wires. You do realise that in diesel+battery mode they're a Type 3 and when the batteries run out, a Type 2? And it's not like the days of 26s and 27s where there was a steam heat boiler: that Type 2 rating would also have to power the coach auxiliaries.

Would a class 99 be more suitable, as it is higher powered?

 

[43096]

Would a class 99 be more suitable, as it is higher powered?

It would depend if Stadler offer a 100mph version: those for GBRf are quoted as being 75mph.

 

[GLC]

The original invitation to tender is published here https://www.transport.gov.scot/media/33332/scotrail-franchise-itt-4855286-45.pdf

There is no mention (that I can see) that trains with underfloor engines are excluded. On the contrary, on page 120, the document explicitly states that Class 170 trains could be acceptable with a sufficient refurbishment.

Is there an alternative document that shows Transport Scotland would not accept bids that involved underfloor stock?

 

[XAM2175]

Even so, maintenance will be far cheaper. Those who work on them daily are saying they are becoming a hassle with parts wearing out/breaking down all the time. Plus who says daily availability of HST sets won't fall further from now until 2030?

Yeah, this is potentially true. It'll be interesting to see what happens with HST reliability in the next few years after the power cars have all been put through their G exams.

If more Mk 5 were to be ordered, then hopefully some extras would also be ordered for the sleeper, to increase capacity as was hinted at earlier.

Sorry, where was this hinted at? IIRC they're already at (or are close to reaching) the maximum consist length that can be accommodated at Euston.

Would a class 99 be more suitable, as it is higher powered?

In terms of power at the wheels, a 99 on diesel is slightly more powerful than one HST power car. Effectively they should be thought of as bi-mode 66s, right down to the 75 mph speed limit. Fast and light passenger trains really aren't the application for which they've been designed.

 

[Trainbike46]

Yeah, this is potentially true. It'll be interesting to see what happens with HST reliability in the next few years after the power cars have all been put through their G exams.


Sorry, where was this hinted at? IIRC they're already at (or are close to reaching) the maximum consist length that can be accommodated at Euston.

This post from the caledonian sleeper thread:

From the Rail User Express Monthly eNewsletter - Nov 2022

Sorry - unable to post a link, but here's a quote relevant to this thread

you're right that they can't extend beyond 16 coaches, which is the current length most of the time (at least in peak season)

In terms of power at the wheels, a 99 on diesel is slightly more powerful than one HST power car. Effectively they should be thought of as bi-mode 66s, right down to the 75 mph speed limit. Fast and light passenger trains really aren't the application for which they've been designed.

Not particularly suitable then!

 

[PG]

Still a lease on them was signed to 2030(?) so they aren't leaving and any fall in reliability will be patched up with more 158s and 170s. The former may even come from TfW.

Last months Modern Railways suggested that GWR were eyeing up those 158 (due to ditching 769s) when they eventually become available, so Scotrail may not get first dibs.

 

[adamedwards]

If Scotrail go for Stadler, they get level boarding for wheelchairs which saves time at rural stations getting out ramps. Given the need for accurate time keeping on single track lines, that could be a real advantage. I would hope they could also then use the same design for the scenic routes traikns, maybe shorter length, but with all the trains designed to have big windows for the views, as most ScotRail lines are scenic, at least in part. The Mk5s may become spare, but they are not designed for this purpose (steps to get in and ordinary windows and would be better cascaded to Chiltern as a Mk3 replacement, assuming they can be made to run reliably.

 

[Wynd]

The HST was brought in due to passengers being found to be skipping SR services for GNER/EC services, which were HST. This was particularly true in Aberdeen.

The 170 is widely reviled by passengers. It is beyond loud when it kicks in to high gear. They are also slow.

It always struck me as odd that OOC seemed to be able to run the HST's full tilt day in day out, yet when Haymarket got them, the whole thing fell flat.
Not once in the last 4 years have we seen anything resembling a fully functioning HST SR fleet. In fact, id be surprised if its ever passed 50%. It was rumoured at the time that Craigentinny should have been tasked with the upkeep of them.

The irony in all this is because the HST introduction has been so shambolic, the skipping SR services for LNER issue in Aberdeen is now easily as bad as it ever was. I can count myself in that, along with almost everyone I know who uses the train in Aberdeen.
The service quality is now night and day between the two.

In terms of a stop gap, loco haul the MK3's. AIUI drivers will be refusing to drive the power cars pretty soon.

 

[LOL The Irony]

The problem with Stadler is the wasted space from the power packs. A bi-modal MU with underfloor engines would be better in that regard. The engines can also be replaced in future with battery packs, hydrogen tanks, or whatever. If crews do start blacklisting the HSTs, sub-leasing the Nova 3s from TPE wouldn't be that bad of an idea as they can be covered by 185s (although this wouldn't be particularly ideal with TPE's passengers, as this would result in a drop in capacity).

 

[sprinterguy]

In terms of a stop gap, loco haul the MK3's. AIUI drivers will be refusing to drive the power cars pretty soon.

Not viable as a stop gap as HST mark 3s can't be conventionally loco-hauled (no buffers), require a three-phase train supply different to that provided by regular locos, and a second loco would be required at locations with no run-round facilities like Glasgow Queen Street, or where utilisation of neighbouring platforms might restrict such practices.

Plus there's the issue of sourcing at least 15-16 appropriate locos (Probably more like 20 if it was desired to cover the current 15 diagrams) capable of matching timings, and training drivers and maintenance staff on those.

 

[Wynd]

Is there genuinely nothing that could haul Mk3s out there? What happens if drivers refuse to drive the power cars?

Going back to 170s and nothing else is surely not a realistic option, is it?

 

[sprinterguy]

Is there genuinely nothing that could haul Mk3s out there? What happens if drivers refuse to drive the power cars?

Going back to 170s and nothing else is surely not a realistic option, is it?

HST trailers are only compatible with HST power cars, without major re-engineering or more creative 'grass roots' ideas like BR's 1970s generator van.

If ASLEF declared that their members would no longer be driving the HSTs from the start of next month, or Scotrail declared it could no longer support their operating costs from the May timetable change, then we'd be looking at a situation comparable to TfW's recent withdrawal of most of the class 175s, their primary long distance passenger fleet, just with more time to plan for the inevitable, and on an ongoing and indefinite basis: Utilising whatever stock is available to fill the gaps where possible, so single 158s and 170s. A challenge when many of the latter have found new homes with Northern or EMR - You can envisage the shortforms, overcrowding and cancellations that would likely result.

 

[XAM2175]

This post from the caledonian sleeper thread:
...
you're right that they can't extend beyond 16 coaches, which is the current length most of the time (at least in peak season)

Oh I see, yes. I think the general consensus there is that the only short-term way of achieving it is to pilfer coaches from the Aberdeen section.

Not particularly suitable then!

Hah, not really. Truth is that a bi-mode loco for fast and light passenger services just doesn't exist yet. I'm sure that Stadler or Siemens could be persuaded to produce one, as it wouldn't be hugely difficult (although Siemens haven't yet delivered locos for the UK), but at that point you're out of stop-gap territory and back to considering the new permanent fleet.

If Scotrail go for Stadler, they get level boarding for wheelchairs which saves time at rural stations getting out ramps.

To be precise, level boarding doesn't automatically get you unassisted boarding for wheelchairs. It can, if the platform is built precisely to match the train, but it's not a given.

I would hope they could also then use the same design for the scenic routes traikns, maybe shorter length, but with all the trains designed to have big windows for the views, as most ScotRail lines are scenic, at least in part.

At this point in time the "scenic routes" trains are being proposed as a subset of the "novel traction solution" fleet for lines that aren't being electrified and that are too much for battery operation. These will be procured as part of a separate order and, in my mind at least, will quite probably a very different design to the intercity fleet.

In terms of a stop gap, loco haul the MK3's. AIUI drivers will be refusing to drive the power cars pretty soon.

Is there genuinely nothing that could haul Mk3s out there? What happens if drivers refuse to drive the power cars?

The last public statement (from December last year) on the matter of safety concerns was that a working group had been convened between SR, ASLEF, and Angel Trains and that talks had been "constructive". Nevertheless, as @sprinterguy suggests, any situation that sees the power cars deemed no longer acceptable will almost certainly see the trailers abandoned with them. It's not that it would be impossible to find some way of hauling them, because they can be converted (and have been for other operators in the past), but rather the case that doing so would 1) involve capital expenditure and 2) arguably be pointless because there's no fleet of locos available to haul them.

The problem with Stadler is the wasted space from the power packs. A bi-modal MU with underfloor engines would be better in that regard. The engines can also be replaced in future with battery packs, hydrogen tanks, or whatever.

Yes, this is true - but by the same measure, one power pack wastes a lot less space than two power cars, so a FLIRT-based proposal would still be some degree of improvement.

 

[MarkyT]

To be precise, level boarding doesn't automatically get you unassisted boarding for wheelchairs. It can, if the platform is built precisely to match the train, but it's not a given.

It's going to get it at a very much larger number of stations than other traditional floor height stock, and provides a pathway to achieve it at most platforms. Stadler gap fillers can, I believe, also reach out over variable horizontal gaps, which should be able to cover difficult cases with tight curvature.

At this point in time the "scenic routes" trains are being proposed as a subset of the "novel traction solution" fleet for lines that aren't being electrified and that are too much for battery operation. These will be procured as part of a separate order and, in my mind at least, will quite probably a very different design to the intercity fleet.

A standard FLIRT 'platform' could potentially have alternative power and storage modules installed in different subfleets for different duties, and these might change over the life of the trains as tech develops and the extent of wiring increases.

Yes, this is true - but by the same measure, one power pack wastes a lot less space than two power cars, so a FLIRT-based proposal would still be some degree of improvement.

Quite! The lack of underfloor diesels dramatically improves the passenger environment of the FLIRTs.

 

[Brubulus]

Yeah, for the avoidance of doubt, the "no underfloor engines" requirement is what created the HST proposal, allegedly because punters were comparing LNER's HSTs to SR's 170s. There's nothing at all to suggest that the same criterion applies now, and I'd be prepared to bet money that it doesn't.


I think the 810-style unit is the better choice over the "standard" IEP because the 24-metre vehicles are more flexible, even if they're ordered as pure electrics. Any new-build fleet ordered as a replacement for the HSTs wouldn't be interim, it would be the new intercity fleet full-stop.


No, Craigentinny was suggested as source of existing Hitachi staffing and knowledge if an urgent need for HST replacement became necessary. There's no reason to think that the permanent depots will be any different to those SR current use for the HSTs.


The 93s aren't at all suitable for the kind of duty these trains will do in the near term, because they're far too weak on diesel, and if they're going to run as electric-only then it'll be easily more than ten years before they're actually usable. I really don't see it happening. Credit to @43096 for putting it more colourfully


I'm not sure what flexibility ScotRail can stand to gain from LHCS, though. With platform length limitations it's not like they can just add coaches when they feel like it. And describing it as microfleet is a bit of a stretch - any order would have to be circa 18-odd units simply to replace the HSTs as currently diagrammed, and probably nearer to 30* to cover for withdrawal of all 158s and 170s too (but with wriggle room for services that might be covered by new interurban units instead).

* = this is a very loose estimate, as I don't recall the exact number that would be needed to meet SR's aspirations.


Remember that TPE only ordered the Mk 5As - and arguably also the 397s - because they wanted stock fast and Hitachi didn't have the production slots for them. As far as TPE were concerned they were basically just quick-and-dirty diesel-only 802s, and I don't think that they really had much of a vision or plan beyond that.


Uhhh, not really. As already mentioned, there are only 13 Mk 5A sets. Figure that one will be out for scheduled maintenance at any given time and you're down to 12... and I'm not entirely sure that they're actually that reliable at them moment. Probably better to assume that you'd only have 11 max, and that would be roughly equal to HST availability at the moment. Thus, while you might get a more consistent coverage of IC diagrams with them, you wouldn't actually get any more coverage.

Yes, it would be the same but given TS would allow a 170 rennovation, 4 coach 170s are a reasonable solution for some services. Parts of this forum seem to forget that these routes were what the 170s were designed for and while they do have flaws, a proper rennovation and lengthening could bring them up to scratch. Inverness and some Aberdeen, or just Aberdeen could be run with MK5a units, and 170s could run on the other services.

 

[XAM2175]

It's going to get it at a very much larger number of stations than other traditional floor height stock, and provides a pathway to achieve it at most platforms. Stadler gap fillers can, I believe, also reach out over variable horizontal gaps, which should be able to cover difficult cases with tight curvature.

Yes. The low-floor arrangement and gap fillers are unquestionably of huge value, but my comment was aimed at heading off expectations that level boarding automatically means full wheelchair accessibility in and of itself - as some members here were apparently surprised to discover when the 777s entered service.

A standard FLIRT 'platform' could potentially have alternative power and storage modules installed in different subfleets for different duties, and these might change over the life of the trains as tech develops and the extent of wiring increases.

Indeed.

Yes, it would be the same but given TS would allow a 170 rennovation, 4 coach 170s are a reasonable solution for some services. Parts of this forum seem to forget that these routes were what the 170s were designed for and while they do have flaws, a proper rennovation and lengthening could bring them up to scratch. Inverness and some Aberdeen, or just Aberdeen could be run with MK5a units, and 170s could run on the other services.

I don't disagree that a Mk 5a + lengthened 170 arrangement could be a feasible stop-gap, though I really do feel that the nature of the traffic means that the Mk 5s should work Inverness primarily.

You would also need to make sure that nothing done to the 170s unreasonably interferes with their capability to work on non-intercity routes, until such time as the new fleets for those routes have entered service.

 

[NIT100]

Truth is that a bi-mode loco for fast and light passenger services just doesn't exist yet

There are a number of bi-mode locos in use in the US for fast passenger services, including ones from GM EMD, Bombardier/Alstom & Siemens chargers. Obviously nowhere near UK loading gauge but not some untested technology for passenger trains

Also Talgo 250 Dual sets have been in service for over a decade. Talgo are even a possibility as it might tick the box of built in Scotland, although I would say that is a long shot now.