ScotRail HST replacement tender issued - ideas thread

[PG]

Wonder what the plan would have been without the 222's availability to dig them out of a hole.

Probably whistle dixie

 

[Geeves]

Wonder what the plan would have been without the 222's availability to dig them out of a hole.

TfW has a whole load of old stuff the Rosco would be very happy to send north

 

[Bertie the bus]

The LNER Mk4s are, in common with the 222s, owned by Eversholt. I can’t see Eversholt having any interest in re-leasing their remaining Mk4s instead of the 222s.

They definitely would. If they could get some money for 35 year old stock which has very limited potential use elsewhere and retain more modern stock that is far more attractive to other potential customers they would bite their hand off. Not that I think for a second Mk 4s will replace ScotRail HSTs.

 

[PG]

They definitely would. If they could get some money for 35 year old stock which has very limited potential use elsewhere and retain more modern stock that is far more attractive to other potential customers they would bite their hand off. Not that I think for a second Mk 4s will replace ScotRail HSTs.

You begin to wonder if the ROSCOs don't see Transport Scotland coming and start rubbing their hands in glee!

 

[Snow1964]

The Mk5a rakes are effectively unpowered multiple units. They aren’t easily adaptable - and there aren’t enough of them.

Although I suspect could build more, as a follow on order to same design within the 3 year timescale.

It might be possible to fit more class 68s for push pull working, if they are released by other locos being available. Maybe could even have a push pull 88

First Stirling have already got an agreement for some 222s, so the amount left wouldn't be enough for 19 HST diagrams and maintenance.

And rumours exist that trains for Carmarthen services have been sourced too. So probably now too few remaining 222s to cover 19 diagrams (assuming Scotrail need 22-23 units).


The Scottish intention to get new trains was announced back in September (and there is an existing thread, which would ideally have been merged). That effectively gave notice to the open access operators to sign up fleets they want, before Scotrail start trying to get them. How many 222s have been signed up already has not yet been made public.

 

[A330Alex]

There are substantial additional details and requirements within this ScotRail document.

Notably, the SR intention is to have a full fleet in service for December 2026. Given the procurement process is only due to complete in Q3 2025, that speed would certainly follow the assumption the 222 fleet is all but decided.

5.3.1 This Procurement is planned to take place between Q4 2024 and Q3 2025. This Procurement is for the delivery of an existing fleet of trains which ScotRail will introduce to passenger service in a phased manner.

5.3.2 Only trains which meet ScotRail's technical requirements can enter revenue earning passenger service. ScotRail’s aspiration is for the full fleet to be in passenger service for the December 2026 passenger change date (13 December 2026). The backstop date for the full, refurbished fleet being in passenger revenue earning service is the December 2027 passenger change date (12 December 2027). ScotRail reserves the right to exclude fleets which are not expected to be introduced into service by this date.

Explicit mention is made to allowing a small number of longer units for extra capacity, which would presumably be the seven car 222s.

The following table contains the minimum anticipated interior provision for each Unit. Larger numbers of seating, whilst maintaining inter7city levels of seat pitch, are desirable. Final numbers will be provided in the ITN.

Unit Size	First Class Seating	Standard Class seating	Wheelchair positions	Bicycle spaces
Up to 128m	20	210	2 to 4	6 to 10

25.4 A limited number of units of up to 150m would be acceptable to provide additional capacity. This would be limited to a maximum of 13 service diagrams per day. Any units exceeding 128m should have commensurately more interior seating compared to any units less than 128m.

Details on seats, power and cycle storage amongst others:

26 Passenger Interface: Passenger Seats
26.1 Seating and interior layouts shall be suitable for Intercity journeys of up to 4 hours with a mixture of airline and bay seating in standard class and bay seating in first class.
26.2 As far as practical, seats will be aligned with bodyside windows (which shall not have defects adversely affecting visibility).

28 Passenger Interface: At-Seat Power
All seats shall have a table and at seat power (as a minimum 3-pin power sockets). Fitment of USB-C is optionally being considered.
29 Passenger Interface: Cycle Areas
29.1 Loading and unloading of bicycles should be able to be undertaken by customers, without the need for staff involvement. Cycles shall not be stowed vertically and shall preferably be secured with a seatbelt style retention strap.

29.2 Where the train stops at short platforms cycle stowage should be accessible in both directions of travel.

30 Passenger Interface: Tables
Fixed full width tables shall be fitted in bay seating positions and seat-back tables shall be fitted to all passenger seats arranged in an airline configuration.

31 Passenger Interface: Luggage
31.1 The Units shall include stowage for luggage in overhead luggage racks, luggage stacks and luggage storage space between seats. The quantity and volume shall be proportionate for the number of seats and consider the high level of leisure/tourist travel experienced on these routes.
31.2 Luggage stacks shall not be across the aisle from wheelchair spaces.

32 Passenger Interface: Lighting
Interior lighting shall be LED.

33 Passenger Interface: Seat Reservation
33.1 All seats shall have an at seat display showing if the seat is available or reserved. The system must be capable of automatically downloading from the reservation system prior to departure from origin station and without the need for manual inputting of each individual reservation.
33.2 An option is being considered for the seat reservation system to be capable of live updates during the journey, to allow passengers to make reservations after the train has left the origin station.

 

[Russel]

I haven't used a 222 since EMR took over, but in MML and EMT days, I used them regular, I always found them a very nice train to travel on and with the big windows, they could be an idea stopgap solution for Scotrail.

 

[WAB]

22Xs couldn't be more unsuitable, and that they are the default option in such a scenario shows how dire the situation is at the minute.

Why do you think this? At least in the case of the 222s, they’re pretty decent trains.

So the things to watch for are that may be technically do-able, but depend on the budget are things like improvements to layouts, catering provision, luggage space, cycle provision and exhaust emissions.

Given ScotRail’s form re. catering provision, I don’t suppose we’d need to worry too much about catering provision…

is there enough Mk4 sets going about to fulfil ScotRails needs, and would they be available in that timescale?

The bigger question would be mixed-traffic locomotive availability. It’s not like the reliability of the TfW class 67s has been spectacular.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

No doubt a large part of the decision to replace before 2030 is as a result of Carmont and the subsequent engagement with unions and the Steering Group.

I imagine it's more to do with the HST's being less reliable at the moment.

 

[Indigo Soup]

There are substantial additional details and requirements within this ScotRail document.

Good find!

The requirement to maintain timings with one engine out of use (9.4) will effectively rule out HSTs, and definitely rules out loco+stock options.

The 150m length restriction (25.4) on the longer units would rule out 7-car 222s, but remarshalling to eight 6-car trains would work. Presumably the limitation to a maximum of 13 diagrams represents the number that can be confined to Aberdeen services, and seems to be aligned with the HST fleet size . The 128m/150m lengths certainly correspond to the length of 2+4 and 2+5 HSTs.

The passenger capacity requirements can be met by reconfigured 222s, but I don't know how readily they'd be able to meet the requirement (29.4) to carry six bicycles without vertical hanging. I'm not sure anything other than the WHL Highland Explorers can do that at the moment.

Given ScotRail’s form re. catering provision, I don’t suppose we’d need to worry too much about catering provision…

The requirement is for trolley storage at a minimum. Passenger surveys will apparently determine provision, and any existing equipment may be used. But I fully expect the passenger survey to take the form of 'do you want a trolley or not?'

 

[Rick1984]

I know the layout of the class 222 is better than the
Voyager family. But how does the capacity compare with a 5 car HST?

 

[sprinterguy]

I know the layout of the class 222 is better than the 0
Voyager family. But how does the capacity compare with a 5 car HST?

At present, a 5-car 222 has between 33 and 64 first class (most between 50 and 64) and between 170 and 216 standard class (most between 170 and 192). It would be possible, I would have thought, to alter that by refurbishment to 22 first and 232 standard, though I would expect them to initially enter service "as is", if 222s are selected.

A 5-car Scotrail HST has 32 first and 280 standard.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Given ScotRail’s form re. catering provision, I don’t suppose we’d need to worry too much about catering provision…

I was more thinking that it gets ripped out. The requirement to have cycle space available for customers to self-load bikes regardless of platform length suggests that storage needs to be towards the centre of the train, so this is the obvious location. There is still the galley at the

The 150m length restriction (25.4) on the longer units would rule out 7-car 222s, but remarshalling to eight 6-car trains would work.

Agree something like 8 x 6-car 222s and 19 x 5-cars (still potential for a small number of 5-car trains to head elsewhere)
Alternatively, something like 16 x 6-car (to meet potential 13x150m diagrams) and 7 x 5-car, and leave 8 redundant driving cars.

There is no way a Mk 4 solution can work as you only have 128m to work with, and you're basically wasting about 40m of that on a loco and DVT.
I do not think a loco + 4 x Mk5a can meet the seating requirement for the 128m train, especially not with the requirements cycle storage

It would be possible, I would have thought, to alter that by refurbishment to 22 first and 232 standard.

A 5-car Scotrail HST has 32 first and 280 standard.

If 6-car 222s become part of the solution, an additional car would add 66 standard seats with current configuration, which would be 22F +298S.

I noticed a requirement for automated passenger counting, I don't think 222s currently have this.

On emissions, I am not sure how much better 222s are on the others than HST power cars that were re-engined around the same time. St Pancras P1-4 is certainly an unpleasant place to be on a still day, so wonder if this implies retrofitting of emissions control technology.

 

[brad465]

And rumours exist that trains for Carmarthen services have been sourced too. So probably now too few remaining 222s to cover 19 diagrams (assuming Scotrail need 22-23 units).

My understanding is that route will be covered by some of the new IETs that were part of the announcement keeping Newton Aycliffe going for the next few years.

 

[sprinterguy]

Agree something like 8 x 6-car 222s and 19 x 5-cars (still potential for a small number of 5-car trains to head elsewhere)

If 6-car 222s become part of the solution, an additional car would add 66 standard seats with current configuration, which would be 22F +298S.

Yeah, 8 x 6-car 222s would be beneficial to provide an equivalent/slight improvement to current 5-car HST capacity on the busiest services.

 

[aaronspence]

Yeah, 8 x 6-car 222s would be beneficial to provide an equivalent/slight improvement to current 5-car HST capacity on the busiest services.

So if the 222's need to be 6 cars to not be any worse capacity wise than the HSTs.. There aren't nearly enough seeing as theres what 23 HST sets? This doesn't seem like a good like for like replacement.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So if the 222's need to be 6 cars to not be any worse capacity wise than the HSTs.. There aren't nearly enough seeing as theres what 23 HST sets? This doesn't seem like a good like for like replacement.

Does it need to be like for like, or could a mix of lengths be appropriate? Not every service is busy.

 

[aaronspence]

Does it need to be like for like, or could a mix of lengths be appropriate? Not every service is busy.

I would have thought a consistent fleet would be easier to manage though, but yes I suppose they could have a mix.

 

[sprinterguy]

So if the 222's need to be 6 cars to not be any worse capacity wise than the HSTs.. There aren't nearly enough seeing as theres what 23 HST sets? This doesn't seem like a good like for like replacement.

Does it need to be like for like, or could a mix of lengths be appropriate? Not every service is busy.

In addition, are all the Scotrail HSTs running as 5 car sets these days? I genuinely haven't been keeping track.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would have thought a consistent fleet would be easier to manage though, but yes I suppose they could have a mix.

Avanti do quite well with their mixed 9 and 11-car fleet at diagramming them to minimise overcrowding without the faff of having to crew doubled up units (aside from the 805s/Voyagers).

 

[hexagon789]

In addition, are all the Scotrail HSTs running as 5 car sets these days? I genuinely haven't been keeping track.

13 currently

 

[sprinterguy]

13 currently

Thanks for that.

 

[aaronspence]

13 currently

And I believe I read theres 3 more Coach E's being repaired, so that would be what 16 potentially.

In an ideal world wouldnt any fleet replacement increase rail capacity.. or atleast match it.

 

[hexagon789]

And I believe I read theres 3 more Coach E's being repaired, so that would be what 16 potentially.

In an ideal world wouldnt any fleet replacement increase rail capacity.. or atleast match it.

Yes, there are the 3 TSLs ex-storage at Slateford being repaired and also a 4th TSL at Inverness, for a maximum of 17 - almost the total number of diagrams planned from May 2025 (19 diagrams) and the number required by the tender given in the Opening Post.

 

[whitrope]

ScotRail have, today, issued the tender for the HST fleet replacement.

The tender specifies the replacement is to be of an existing diesel fleet that can be introduced no later than Dec 2027, but preferably Dec 2026.

The tender is for enough units to provide 19 diagrams a day, which suggests the 222s are the preferred units given the size of the 222 fleet.

I wonder if 22x class can run at SP or HST speed differentials to avoid any journey time penalties?

 

[hexagon789]

I wonder if 22x class can run at SP or HST speed differentials to avoid any journey time penalties?

HST yes, SP no.

HST relates to braking performance mainly, while SP is axle load and braking performance.

 

[whitrope]

HST yes, SP no.

HST relates to braking performance mainly, while SP is axle load and braking performance.

Ta

 

[hexagon789]

Transport Scotland and ScotRail have some serious questions to answer about wasting public money, as they will be paying for the HSTs still through to 2030.

Indeed.

What makes you think that a deal has not been negotiated with Angel to revise the lease end date?

Contracts can, and are renegotiated in almost every industry when required. The fact the ITT has been issued indicates that some sort of deal will have been reached with Angel.

They tried that before and were threatened with legal action and quickly backed down.

The S. 54 order remains in place until 2030, so unless they can persuade the ROSCO this time, they will be paying fir both.

(The board minutes envisages paying the S. 54 up to the 2030 end date btw.)

 

[Rick1984]

At present, a 5-car 222 has between 33 and 64 first class (most between 50 and 64) and between 170 and 216 standard class (most between 170 and 192). It would be possible, I would have thought, to alter that by refurbishment to 22 first and 232 standard, though I would expect them to initially enter service "as is", if 222s are selected.

A 5-car Scotrail HST has 32 first and 280 standard.

Cheers. Bit of a reduction!

 

[chuff chuff]

Cheers. Bit of a reduction!

Not as much as having to stick a 158 in place of an hst cause they can't persuade an hst to play ball and go and do some work.