ScotRail HST replacement tender issued - ideas thread

[Clansman]

A good number of the current HST fleet are only 4-cars, so 5-car Meridians would be an improvement on them.

In what way?

 

[kkong]

Would simply leasing extra available(?) 158 or 159s not meet the criteria of this document?

Pretty unlikely, for many reasons in the specification, not least:

25.2 ... The minimum standard for the comfort, facilities and ambience of the passenger saloon is that of the refurbished inter7city HST trailer vehicles.

 

[Indigo Soup]

A lot of the time they aren't users of the services either, so are basing it off illusion if nothing else without understanding the details.

I'm a regular on I7C routes and can forsee the 222s being troublesome without heavy interior modifications. Anything less than 6 cars a set with significant seating layout and luggage modifications, is going to be hugely problematic for a huge chuck of services.

Yep, it's very obvious that those comments come from.... south of the Central Belt... and don't understand that the I7C routes are used a lot more heavily, and in a more intercity-like way, than just looking at a map suggests.

I was a weekly user of the Glasgow-Inverness route when Arriva won the contract and the HSTs were announced. Ironically, I found out about it at Perth on a 170 that was full and standing as far as Pitlochry. There was a lot of excitement about finally getting trains that were both appropriate for the route, and had enough capacity.

I wouldn't have thought it would be too difficult to install additional bike storage in the train, although it may need removal of a toilet or some seating to allow it.

Certainly possible, though just removing a toilet won't do it - they need to spaces that can accommodate a horizontal bike.

 

[Russel]

The condition of the 222s is a concern. Cosmetically, they are be OKish, the worn standard seats are being re-covered at present (mostly seem done to me but maybe I'm missing the services where they have not been). But they seem to have more serious problems like constant failures of the reservation systems and accessible toilets.

This is probably, mostly down to EMR not wanting to spend any more than they need to on them, knowing that they are getting rid of them soon.

Take a look at the 360's when GA handed them over to EMR.

 

[hexagon789]

This is probably, mostly down to EMR not wanting to spend any more than they need to on them, knowing that they are getting rid of them soon.

Take a look at the 360's when GA handed them over to EMR.

EMR have begun a refurbishment of the 222s though, it was started in January and I believe is worth £3m.

I understand it was partly because they anticipated needing the 222s longer than expected a second time with the further updated 810 entry timescale.

 

[43055]

The condition of the 222s is a concern. Cosmetically, they are be OKish, the worn standard seats are being re-covered at present (mostly seem done to me but maybe I'm missing the services where they have not been). But they seem to have more serious problems like constant failures of the reservation systems and accessible toilets.

I suppose they could be put into service with Scotrail in their current condition but it's not going to look great when they turn up with "No reservations available, accessible toilet out of order" in their first week. If they want them to be fully working, I'd wager that the current reservation systems may be virtually unfixable since they are bound to use outdated, unsupported computer hardware with no new spares available; complete replacement would not be a quick job.

This is probably, mostly down to EMR not wanting to spend any more than they need to on them, knowing that they are getting rid of them soon.

Take a look at the 360's when GA handed them over to EMR.

Part of the problem is they have very little down time now the HST's and 180's have gone. For example 222022 arrived on Etches Park at 0050 this morning and left just 2 hours 40 mins later at 0330 which is probably only enough time to be fueled and cleaned.

 

[duffield]

This is probably, mostly down to EMR not wanting to spend any more than they need to on them, knowing that they are getting rid of them soon.

Take a look at the 360's when GA handed them over to EMR.

I certainly wouldn't blame EMR for having not wanted to undertake what would have been potentially a disruptive, lengthy, and expensive total replacement of the reservations system any time in the last five years or so. The 222s should have been long gone by now if the class 810s had been delivered on time. Although in the case of the toilets I don't know if they've skimped on maintenance or not recently.

Anyhow, although the current condition of the 222s is relevant to the Scotrail tender, I guess the question of how they got in that condition is a historical note which is wandering offtopic so I'll leave it there.

 

[D365]

EMR have begun a refurbishment of the 222s though, it was started in January and I believe is worth £3m.

All I’ve seen so far is… new seat covers.

 

[hexagon789]

All I’ve seen so far is… new seat covers.

Fair enough

 

[computerSaysNo]

What is the cause of the seating capacity issues on the Meridians (i.e. fewer seats per carriage)? I think I remember it being said they the Voyagers have an accessible toilet in every carriage (in addition to a standard one per carriage?), do the Meridians have this too? You could probably reduce the number of toilets.
A 170 per 3 car set has 2 toilets (of which 1 accessible). That's a ratio of 2/3 or 0.6 toilets per carriage and a radio of 1/2 or 0.5 accessible toilets out of total toilets.
In a 5-car Meridian you could probably get away with 2 accessible toilets (1x first class and 1x standard class) and 1 space saver toilet, which would give a ratio of 3/5 or 0.6 toilets per carriage, as an absolute minimum.
Do Meridians have a gap or cupboard between the driver cab and the passenger accomodation? Could bikes be stored there? I would think this would be easier than in the HSTs as the cupboard is in the same carriage as the passenger accomodation.
Regarding luggage, in the specification quoted in an earlier post the ability to store luggage under and in between seats was given, so hopefully that would avoid the need to add too many luggage stacks.

 

[hexagon789]

What is the cause of the seating capacity issues on the Meridians (i.e. fewer seats per carriage)?

Yes, 68 maximum in Std.

I think I remember it being said they the Voyagers have an accessible toilet in every carriage (in addition to a standard one per carriage?), do the Meridians have this too?

Voyagers have only accessible toilets, no standard ones. They have no more than one toilet per car - so 3 in 4-car and 4 in 5-car sets.

Meridians incorporate a number of design differences and this is one. They have one accessible toilet per class, the rest are all 'Space Saver' toilets - I.e normal non-accessible compact ones.

This is what gives the increase from 62 to 68 seats in intermediate Std Class vehicles compared to the Voyager.

Again there is no more than one toilet per car.

You could probably reduce the number of toilets.
A 170 per 3 car set has 2 toilets (of which 1 accessible). That's a ratio of 2/3 or 0.6 toilets per carriage and a radio of 1/2 or 0.5 accessible toilets out of total toilets.
In a 5-car Meridian you could probably get away with 2 accessible toilets (1x first class and 1x standard class) and 1 space saver toilet, which would give a ratio of 3/5 or 0.6 toilets per carriage, as an absolute minimum.

You could but it would be fairly pointless, you'd gain about 2 seats and a smidge of luggage space at best.

 

[380101]

What is the cause of the seating capacity issues on the Meridians (i.e. fewer seats per carriage)? I think I remember it being said they the Voyagers have an accessible toilet in every carriage (in addition to a standard one per carriage?), do the Meridians have this too? You could probably reduce the number of toilets.
A 170 per 3 car set has 2 toilets (of which 1 accessible). That's a ratio of 2/3 or 0.6 toilets per carriage and a radio of 1/2 or 0.5 accessible toilets out of total toilets.
In a 5-car Meridian you could probably get away with 2 accessible toilets (1x first class and 1x standard class) and 1 space saver toilet, which would give a ratio of 3/5 or 0.6 toilets per carriage, as an absolute minimum.
Do Meridians have a gap or cupboard between the driver cab and the passenger accomodation? Could bikes be stored there? I would think this would be easier than in the HSTs as the cupboard is in the same carriage as the passenger accomodation.
Regarding luggage, in the specification quoted in an earlier post the ability to store luggage under and in between seats was given, so hopefully that would avoid the need to add too many luggage stacks.

Part of the tender specification is that cycle storage must be accessible even if either end of the train is off the platform - something that happens at several stations on the I7C routes due to short platforms, so utilising any space behind the driving cabs for cycle storage wouldn't meet the requirements of ScotRail.

 

[Scotrail84]

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

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

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

Seemingly they could be too heavy to work on the HML. No idea if thats true or not.

 

[hexagon789]

Seemingly they could be too heavy to work on the HML. No idea if thats true or not.

67s or 222s?

 

[Scotrail84]

67s or 222s?

Sorry, 222s

 

[hexagon789]

Sorry, 222s

Lower RA than HST power cars...

But will be unable to use the SP speeds that 158/170 can use, just like the HSTs can't.

 

[Scotrail84]

Lower RA than HST power cars...

But will be unable to use the SP speeds that 158/170 can use, just like the HSTs can't.

I dunno what that means. All I got told was they're steel bodied with heavy under frame equipment, engines etc?

 

[hexagon789]

I dunno what that means. All I got told was they're steel bodied with heavy under frame equipment, engines etc?

Route Availability - every route is allocated an RA rating from 0 to 10, it's calculated from a combination of axle loading and spacing.

In simplified terms - the higher the RA number, the heavier the axle load a route can take.

158s and 170s are RA 2.

222s are RA 2 for four-cars and RA 4 for five and seven-cars.

Class 43s are RA 5.

Class 67s are RA8.

I doubt 222s will pose any problem in that respect.

 

[PG]

Part of the tender specification is that cycle storage must be accessible even if either end of the train is off the platform - something that happens at several stations on the I7C routes due to short platforms, so utilising any space behind the driving cabs for cycle storage wouldn't meet the requirements of ScotRail.

I think something has got to give otherwise Transport Scotland will end up with units with a vastly reduced seating capacity barely any better than running a single 170. Either the bikes have to go in the areas adjacent to the cabs, which AIUI isn't permitted to have passengers in, or the number of bikes should be reduced. They need to decide if these trains are for passengers or push-bikes.

 

[Clarence Yard]

With a tender requirement for 20 first and 210 standard seats, 2-4 WC and 6-10 bike spaces, minor mods to a 5 car 222 and you are there.

Whoever compiled the tender already has a plan for the interior.

 

[sprinterguy]

With a tender requirement for 20 first and 210 standard seats, 2-4 WC and 6-10 bike spaces, minor mods to a 5 car 222 and you are there.

Whoever compiled the tender already has a plan for the interior.

Yeah, that tallies with my thinking of converting the Motor Composite or First to Standard class. Even just declassifi-ing the first class seats in those vehicle types in the interim would bring the standard class tally up to around that figure, though it sounds like a refurb would also introduce additional bike storage space.

Voyagers have only accessible toilets, no standard ones. They have no more than one toilet per car - so 2 in 4-car and 3 in 5-car sets.

Meridians incorporate a number of design differences and this is one. They have one accessible toilet per class, the rest are all 'Space Saver' toilets - I.e normal non-accessible compact ones.

This is what gives the increase from 62 to 68 seats in intermediate Std Class vehicles compared to the Voyager.

Voyagers also seat up to 68 in intermediate vehicles (Avanti 221 sets, coaches B and C - both vehicles with accessible toilets). And it's 3 toilets in a 4-car set and 4 in a 5-car set.

 

[Indigo Soup]

They need to decide if these trains are for passengers or push-bikes

They're for both. One of the few criticisms of the HSTs from a passenger experience perspective is that they don't have enough cycle spaces, which is largely because the power cars aren't used.

 

[whitrope]

Route Availability - every route is allocated an RA rating from 0 to 10, it's calculated from a combination of axle loading and spacing.

In simplified terms - the higher the RA number, the heavier the axle load a route can take.

158s and 170s are RA 2.

222s are RA 2 for four-cars and RA 4 for five and seven-cars.

Class 43s are RA 5.

Class 67s are RA8.

I doubt 222s will pose any problem in that respect.

Axle loading and gauging

 

[sprinterguy]

I dunno what that means. All I got told was they're steel bodied with heavy under frame equipment, engines etc?

The 222s are lighter per vehicle and per axle than the HST power cars, and roughly equivalent to the class 800s, that currently serve the route.

As hexagon789 notes, you may have gotten confused with their inability to take advantage of Sprinter differential (SP) speed limits, which is the same for the two traction types I have named.

 

[Class83]

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.

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?'

There shouldn't be any length restrictions which matter for a 6 or 7 car 222 on Edinburgh-Aberdeen, LNER are operating 9 car Azumas.

It appears the First Class Driving Car seats 32 so assuming that remains as first but everything else is standard you then get the following options for standard:

5 car, 4 standard; driving standard 40, shop standard 60, 2 full standards 66*2 so a total of 232
6 car, 5 standard; driving standard 40, shop standard 60, 3 full standards 66*3 so a total of 298
7 car, 6 standard; driving standard 40, shop standard 60, 4 full standards 66*4 so a total of 364

May be worth sacrificing 2 seats per carriage for an extra luggage rack.

 

[David M]

Any suggestion that reduces toilet provision is unacceptable, sorry.
Better a toilet than a bike.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

Converting the buffet would probably achieve that, creating a van area similar to the 156s. 3 either side under a luggage shelf. The XC buffet conversion would certainly fit 3 but it's only on one side.

All I’ve seen so far is… new seat covers.

I think they were meant to also be new foams, or was that dropped?

 

[Indigo Soup]

There shouldn't be any length restrictions which matter for a 6 or 7 car 222 on Edinburgh-Aberdeen, LNER are operating 9 car Azumas.

LNER can get away with it because they run a limited number of services a day, which don't stop at all stations. There are eight stations on the routes concerned - six of them on Aberdeen-Edinburgh - where the HSTs have to use single door operation. Even 128m units might actually increase that number if end doors are available for passenger use.

Admittedly, one of those is Springfield, which has a grand total of five trains a day, six days a week - none of which are HSTs. But Broughty Ferry and Carnoustie are pretty well used.

For comparison of capacity:
170/4: 18 First, 172 Standard, 4 bikes, 1 wheelchair, 6 luggage stacks, 2 toilets
2+4 HST: 32 First, 208 Standard, 2 bikes, 2 wheelchairs, 8 luggage stacks, 3 toilets
2+5 HST: 32 First, 276 Standard, 2 bikes, 2 wheelchairs, 10 luggage stacks, 4 toilets
5-car 222: 50 First, 190 Standard, 2 bikes, 2 wheelchairs, 6 luggage stacks, 4 toilets

Converting the buffet would probably achieve that, creating a van area similar to the 156s. 3 either side under a luggage shelf.

Probably what they have in mind, then - perhaps with vehicle end space in mind to provide the stretch goal of ten spaces.

Interestingly enough, the old HiTrans Turbo Boost study proposed 4-car Class 170 layouts that would almost comply with the requirement, in capacity terms at least.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Probably what they have in mind, then - perhaps with vehicle end space in mind to provide the stretch goal of ten spaces.

The existing behind-the-cab location (which takes 4) could still be used as well, but only for stations where it's platformed. That gives you your 10 (or a load of luggage space, realistically).

 

[JohnMcL7]

The Scotrail HSTs currently have space for six bikes, two vertically in the original section and four horizontally in the newer bike section they added:

Spoiler