GWR operating short 'HSTGTi' sets (see diagrams section for workings)

co-tr-paul · 29 Aug 2017

I can say that unless something has gone very seriously wrong in the week and a half I've been on holiday, its going ahead (engineering staff) !!

RailUK Forums

43096 · 29 Aug 2017

Darandio said:
I'm not saying that at all. But when someone posts something so confidently and apparently works for the company, you have to question whether the information is internal.

You need to apply a strong BS filter to anything that comes out of "sources",?especially on a web forum. Anything from a mess room, in particular, needs to be treated so.

pdeaves · 29 Aug 2017

co-tr-paul said:
I can say that unless something has gone very seriously wrong in the week and a half I've been on holiday, its going ahead (engineering staff) !!

The timetable planners and depot requirements people still expect it to happen, too!

richw · 29 Aug 2017

Drivers are saying it's cancelled on the coffee shop forum, but unable to back up with source.

Harbornite · 29 Aug 2017

I think it's worth waiting for a verified, official source. Don't take everything you hear as fact until you can be certain that it is.

bnm · 29 Aug 2017

richw said:
Drivers are saying it's cancelled on the coffee shop forum, but unable to back up with source.

A driver. Singular.

43096 · 29 Aug 2017

richw said:
Drivers are saying it's cancelled on the coffee shop forum, but unable to back up with source.

So it's a load of @*%# then.

47802 · 29 Aug 2017

Well if there is a problem with from an engineering perspective then presumably it will affect XC and Scotrail conversions.

The alternate possibility is the if the solution is looking more expensive and difficult than expected that maybe DFT/GWR are looking at an alternate solution to the HSTGTI's

MatthewRead · 29 Aug 2017

47802 said:
Well if there is a problem with from an engineering perspective then presumably it will affect XC and Scotrail conversions.

The alternate possibility is the if the solution is looking more expensive and difficult than expected that maybe DFT/GWR are looking at an alternate solution to the HSTGTI's

Maybe Class 230's or 769's

XCTurbostar · 29 Aug 2017

Rail Magazine has confirmed that GWR will be keeping - 43002/005/041/042/185/187/188 for shorter sets.

Thanks,
Ross

The Ham · 30 Aug 2017

randyrippley said:
Why wasn't the obvious done and part of the GW HST fleet swapped for the SW class 158/159 fleet?
Even with the problems of long/short swing link bogies it must have been possible to do this and increase capacity on both sets of routes
Waterloo-Exeter by HST would be an improvement over the DMUs, while GW would get the DMUs it requires without any need for mods. And all the coaches rendered surplus by the current plan stay in use, increasing available seats

Probably because it would lead to a splitting of the two fleets. Probably not a problem for GWR who already have 158's, but would have left the SWR (proposed) HST's not near a depot that services them.

The other thing is cost, you may have to convert more coaches to have a reasonable number in service.

Finally, although not a problem for off peak services if a HST was needed in the peaks (to cover for a failed unit) then capacity into Waterloo could be a problem.

Bletchleyite · 30 Aug 2017

Would it actually increase capacity? With 158s the whole platform is passenger accommodation. With HSTs you have power cars to platform.

Clarence Yard · 30 Aug 2017

47802 said:
Well if there is a problem with from an engineering perspective then presumably it will affect XC and Scotrail conversions.

The alternate possibility is the if the solution is looking more expensive and difficult than expected that maybe DFT/GWR are looking at an alternate solution to the HSTGTI's

They aren't because it would be me doing it. It's wibble.

CosherB · 30 Aug 2017

VP185 said:
Have you seen the progress made with the 1st short formed HST?

All I will say is that you're trying to make huge structural changes to a vehicle that is 40+ years old. There's the problem and the reason why it isn't happening.

So this 'story' is basically hogwash?

50031 · 30 Aug 2017

VP185 said:
Have you seen the progress made with the 1st short formed HST?

All I will say is that you're trying to make huge structural changes to a vehicle that is 40+ years old. There's the problem and the reason why it isn't happening.

The Chiltern Mk3s ALREADY HAVE power doors, and they are seen as a more expensive and complicated solution, are they not? The first set is simply delayed until November. Its hardly a surprise as its a new design. Latest Modern Railways has an article on the project

158722 · 30 Aug 2017

XCTurbostar said:
Rail Magazine has confirmed that GWR will be keeping - 43002/005/041/042/185/187/188 for shorter sets.

Thanks,
Ross

These being in addition to the 12 First Group owned PCs (43092-094/097/098/122/153-155/158/194/198) plus presumably 43016 is missing off Rail's list as it has already been fitted with the door control mods and repainted GWR colours. That gives a total of 20, whereas I thought the plan was for 24 PCs for 11 sets?

randyrippley · 30 Aug 2017

The Ham said:
Probably because it would lead to a splitting of the two fleets. Probably not a problem for GWR who already have 158's, but would have left the SWR (proposed) HST's not near a depot that services them.

The other thing is cost, you may have to convert more coaches to have a reasonable number in service.

Finally, although not a problem for off peak services if a HST was needed in the peaks (to cover for a failed unit) then capacity into Waterloo could be a problem.

Keep them at Laira for servicing. It wouldn't be the first time stock on Waterloo-Exeter was maintained there.
As for modification....they wouldn't need any

jimm · 30 Aug 2017

Darandio said:
I thought it was (roughly) the same as what now exists on Chiltern Mk3 sets, a proven design?

No, it's not the same set-up at all.

The door design for GWR, XC and ScotRail is a sliding pocket door, which does not require anything like as much work on the bodyshell as the Chiltern system, which uses a plug door and was time-consuming to fit, due to slight variations in the bodyshells of each coach.

The Modern Railways article referred to above goes into a fair bit of detail about all this.

43096 · 30 Aug 2017

158722 said:
These being in addition to the 12 First Group owned PCs (43092-094/097/098/122/153-155/158/194/198) plus presumably 43016 is missing off Rail's list as it has already been fitted with the door control mods and repainted GWR colours. That gives a total of 20, whereas I thought the plan was for 24 PCs for 11 sets?

Yes there are to be 24 power cars.

dmncf · 6 Sep 2017

I understand that the main driver of these HST upgrades is to meet the Persons of Reduced Mobility Technical Specification for Interoperability (PRM-TSI) deadline of 1 January 2020. I guess this drives the power door upgrade and any accessible toilet upgrade.

Will there be any other upgrades due to PRM-TSI, such as an audio-visual announcement system? I guess that's a different aspect of accessibilility. Are any of the HST train operators adding this anyway?

I assume that the controlled emission toilets upgrade isn't due to PRM-TSI. Is there different legislation, or perhaps commitments to rail worker unions, driving this?

(I did try asking this last week but the thread got sidetracked)

MCR247 · 6 Sep 2017

Cross Country has PIS screens, but I'm think the guard announces but I'm not certain

Domh245 · 6 Sep 2017

dmncf said:
Will there be any other upgrades due to PRM-TSI, such as an audio-visual announcement system? I guess that's a different aspect of accessibilility. Are any of the HST train operators adding this anyway?

PRM TSI includes "telematics" ie Audio and Visual **** (which include the obvious scrolling displays in the carriages, but also things such as door sounders) and other things as detailed in the TSI itself. You would expect the HST operators to be fitting this, otherwise they'll find themselves needing derogations from the DfT.

CETs aren't part of the PRM-TSI but seemingly is a franchise requirement with a view to it being used by all passenger stock by December 2019 (RAIL article)

The comments have come in response to an NR consultation on ending the use of rolling stock that drops toilet waste on the track, which the infrastructure company wants to see phased out by December 2019. Franchised services are already due to end the practice over a similar timeframe, and NR has suggested that commitments to making the changes should be incorporated into renewed charter Track Access Contracts from this summer.

The Ham · 7 Sep 2017

randyrippley said:
Keep them at Laira for servicing. It wouldn't be the first time stock on Waterloo-Exeter was maintained there.
As for modification....they wouldn't need any

See the posts between yours and this, they do need modifications.

If a HST failed at Waterloo getting a fitter from Laura wouldn't be quick, so there would have to be done staff stationed somewhere else (either a permanent member of staff or one, or more, that cover the day by betting, at least, on the first train out and last train back).

scruffer04 · 7 Sep 2017

158722 said:
These being in addition to the 12 First Group owned PCs (43092-094/097/098/122/153-155/158/194/198) plus presumably 43016 is missing off Rail's list as it has already been fitted with the door control mods and repainted GWR colours. That gives a total of 20, whereas I thought the plan was for 24 PCs for 11 sets?

Would not 43093 also be one of those having just been "painted" green?

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

158722 · 7 Sep 2017

scruffer04 said:
Would not 43093 also be one of those having just been "painted" green?

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

That's what I wrote, 43092-094...

scruffer04 · 7 Sep 2017

158722 said:
That's what I wrote, 43092-094...

Soz should have gone to Spec Savers!!!

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

broadgage · 7 Sep 2017

TractiveEffort said:
The MTU's are set to 1500RPM max because any faster increases the frequency and hence the voltage of the auxiliary alternator output, nothing to do with main alternator or traction motors.

Not just 1,500 RPM maximum, but 1,500 RPM at all times, and yes that is to produce 50 cycles AC for train supply.
Even when stopped at a station, an HST engine has to run at 1,500 RPM to produce 50 cycles.
The engine is capable of greater power output and I have previously suggested a very slightly increased engine speed of 1,560 RPM. That would produce 52 cycles AC which should be fine for nominal 50 cycles equipment.
4% more power is worth having.

455driver · 7 Sep 2017

broadgage said:
Not just 1,500 RPM maximum, but 1,500 RPM at all times, and yes that is to produce 50 cycles AC for train supply.
Even when stopped at a station, an HST engine has to run at 1,500 RPM to produce 50 cycles.
The engine is capable of greater power output and I have previously suggested a very slightly increased engine speed of 1,560 RPM. That would produce 52 cycles AC which should be fine for nominal 50 cycles equipment.
4% more power is worth having.

What an absolute load of rubbish.
The only bit which is correct is that the engines are capable of producing more power, but then, so is basically every engine used in a rail application.

Why is it that when I put the train supply on the engine revs increase?
Why is it that when I increase the power the engine revs increase?
Why is the power set at 1500rpm/2250hp?
What do you think would happen if you increase the power by 60rpm/4% (still trying to work out the maths on that one?).

Signed a HST driver.

43096 · 7 Sep 2017

broadgage said:
Not just 1,500 RPM maximum, but 1,500 RPM at all times, and yes that is to produce 50 cycles AC for train supply.
Even when stopped at a station, an HST engine has to run at 1,500 RPM to produce 50 cycles.
The engine is capable of greater power output and I have previously suggested a very slightly increased engine speed of 1,560 RPM. That would produce 52 cycles AC which should be fine for nominal 50 cycles equipment.
4% more power is worth having.

What a load of complete and utter technically illiterate nonsense.

An HST power car engine runs in notch 2 when providing ETS (assuming the train is not under power). For both a Valenta and MTU, in N2 they run at 1000rpm.

broadgage · 18 Sep 2017

My understanding is that HST engines HAVE to run at 1,500RPM or very close thereto, in order to produce 50 cycles for auxiliary purposes. The alternator for ETS being directly driven by the engine.
For a four pole alternator to produce 50 cycles it has to run at 1,500RPM.

This not the case for locomotives that produce DC for ETS.

On more modern traction, 50 cycle AC can be produced at any reasonable engine speed by means of an inverter, HSTs however predate the ready availability of large inverters.

Or am I mistaken in this.

GWR operating short 'HSTGTi' sets (see diagrams section for workings)

Member

RailUK Forums

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Member