ScotRail HST Introduction - Updates & Discussion

Northhighland · 6 Aug 2018

mde said:
Actually, my post detailed my interpretation of who the stakeholders are at stages. The fare paying passenger (as in end user) is a stakeholder in the finished product, e.g. what runs on the service at a given time. It seems to be somewhat folly to argue that the fare paying passenger is a stakeholder in an engineering works project at Wabtec. They have a vested interest in the works being completed, but, are they a stakeholder on the provision of the HST engineering works? That's debatable.

The stakeholders in such a project would (likely) be the ROSCO (Angel), the lessee (Abellio ScotRail), and, the authority granting the Franchise (e.g. Transport Scotland and the Scottish Ministers). I've added the ROSCO as I neglected to do so previously, but, their relevance is significant given they own the assets. ORR and NR would also have interests, e.g. in any certifications and track access.

The passenger interests are represented by their representatives in Parliament, the public servants at the Authority, and, of course, by bodies such as Transport Focus. Those bodies could certainly ask for detailed progress reports, and, might very well do so if they have interests (e.g. TS in upholding any commitments under the Franchise Agreement.

You might find that document to be of use - Schedule 6.2 on page 338 relates to the 'Inter-city' stock, parts that might be of interest could be section 3 para 3.2 and 3.3 (page 340), 9 (page 344), 10 (page 345). There's also a delivery schedule on page 346 outlining 'proposed' dates, however, clearly there is slippage. Appendix 2 (page 348) might also be of general interest as it covers the actual technical works.

You could ask Transport Scotland, via FOI, to disclose any relevant information they hold - equally, you could also ask your MSP to contact Abellio or TS (perhaps via the Transport minister) for a substantive update.

Until there's useful information to share however, I doubt there will be a all-encompassing release from Abellio or TS indicating the state of the project - other than the usual 'more to follow' type releases. It makes sense to share useful information at the earliest opportunity, but, what purpose would an update serve if there isn't useful information available, other than being slightly specious?

Useful information could be details of when they expect the first completed unit to go into service, but, given the coaching stock has only just arrived, there is perhaps still too many moving parts to know that just yet (e.g. have enough staff been trained, is Haymarket ready to do maintenance, are the trades union reps happy and so on).

Can you cite a source for that 'considerable disquiet', other than anecdotal evidence on these forums (and the echo chamber of social media)?

Even a publicly owned TOC (see ref LNER) is a commercial entity - there are limits to what will be made generally available when it could harm commercial interests. Likewise, it might not be in the 'public interest' either, as, the Authority could then have difficulty pursuing suitable redress.

Nationalisation wouldn't change the scenario being faced here - you'd just be transferring control to Transport Scotland or a new Executive Agency. It'd be the same people, doing the same job, with a different name on the door. And, it'd still be ran commercially, just like other state owned transport operators.

I'd stress that I have no stake in this other than as a customer, but, some of the comments on this thread appear to amount to hyperbole, or, are hankering back to the nostalgic days of the past.

Think you are missing the main point. Scottish Government, Transport Scotland and Abiello at the time of the franchise award made some promises to the travelling public. They have not delivered those promises. You say the programme has slipped a bit? Understatement, it has slipped a lot and as far as anyone can see is "at large". At this moment it appears there is no credible programme.

My point is very simple, there may well be very good reasons for the slippage and there may well be people working very hard to sort out what is happening, but the public were promised the best ever rail service in Scotland this year and now they are getting more of the same, in a similar vein to Northern, Govia and others.

Surely common sense would say, come out and say there is a delay, we estimate the delay to be in the region of X months, it is due to X events, we now expect the programme to complete on y date. Passengers pay the thick end of £70 for a return from Inverness or Aberdeen to the central belt, often in a very poor environment. They have to endure ore of the same despite being promised something better by now. Why would anyone think they were not stakeholders in this project? That attitude beggars belief.

The commercial interests line is risible, Abiello have a contract to provide an improved service, they haven't met that contract. Updating the customer on when they will will not breach any commercial interest.

I agree there is unlikely to be an announcement from Abiello, but my point is if they actually understood that the fare paying public are important in running Scotrail, then there would be an update. I have on here and on many other threads argued Nationalisation would just swap one set of problems for another without thinking the issues through. Rail needs a different model of service provision, the last 6 months show the current model doesn't deliver for passengers or taxpayers. What that model is requires a lot of work, serious thought before making a decision.

RailUK Forums

Highland37 · 6 Aug 2018

I agree to a point with you. The information management from Abellio is very poor.

We are of course presuming that they are being kept fully up to speed by Wabtec and Transport Scotland have all the facts also. I don't think that is a safe presumption though.

I reject the idea that sharing information to the wider public is not valuable despite what that info might be. Making a declaration of X months delay is not a good idea though as it sets a timetable and expectation and Wabtec have already been shown to be a long way behind.

The context of the information management is important too. People go all over the world these days. They will have been on trains elsewhere and can draw comparisons. Why would they not, for example, look at the quality on NSB or OBB and draw a comparison. I was recently on a train from Bergen to Voss and surprised that the train was so basic. On the way back, the unit was new and modern.

We need holding information to allay concerns.

jingsmonty · 6 Aug 2018

najaB said:
The drivers are already trained and I believe that the guards have been trained on a static unit. So any training period should be very brief.

Not all the drivers have been trained yet! I can't speak for Aberdeen & Edinburgh, but most Inverness drivers haven't been trained yet! This may not impact too much, as I believe the east coast Inter7city route is going to be the 1st nyway

najaB · 6 Aug 2018

jingsmonty said:
Not all the drivers have been trained yet! I can't speak for Aberdeen & Edinburgh, but most Inverness drivers haven't been trained yet! This may not impact too much, as I believe the east coast Inter7city route is going to be the 1st nyway

Sorry, yes. I meant to say that the initial tranche of drivers have been trained.

jopsuk · 6 Aug 2018

How long will be needed for guard training? They presumably can't start until Scotrail has a working set in their control.

jingsmonty · 6 Aug 2018

Stopper said:
I don’t think Kirkcaldy should be a stop on the 17:41 to be honest. It has plenty of Fife Circle & Dundee services that hour, the same hour as the Loco services as well.

They have options, while Perth/Inverness passengers don’t.

I'd disagree - one stop in Fife is needed for Inverness services, any through passengers from Fife to the Highlands would have to change at Perth otherwise. I think a Kircaldy stop is appropriate for Inverness to Edinburgh trains (as much as Stirling is appropriate for Inverness - Glasgow QS trains). ONLY Kircaldy, thoufg I know the Aberdeen - Edinburgh trains tend to only stop at Leuchars then Haymarket, but there ARE some through passengers from Fife to Inverness! My Wife & I have done this journey more that once.....

jingsmonty · 6 Aug 2018

jopsuk said:
How long will be needed for guard training? They presumably can't start until Scotrail has a working set in their control.

I would guess that the set which is soon to be released will be used. However, the rumour persists that slam door Mk3s will be used temporarily, which will have implications for Guard training (apart from the crews - Waverly, I believe?) who currently work the loco-hauled commuter train around Fife. I believe the door controls to be fitted are very similar to what's on a Class 170, so this should help with the training...

TheMuttley · 6 Aug 2018

Edit: Found it:

najaB said:
The drivers are already trained and I believe that the guards have been trained on a static unit. So any training period should be very brief.

I think someone mentioned that guards were being trained on static sets (presumably a basic mock-up?), although I'm not sure if that implies that training on the refurbished sets is no longer required? Or perhaps they were referencing the training required to run the slam-door sets (as a form of contingency plan), rather than the refurbished sets?

najaB · 6 Aug 2018

TheMuttley said:
I think someone mentioned that guards were being trained on static sets (presumably a basic mock-up?), although I'm not sure if that implies that training on the refurbished sets is no longer required?

My (quite possibly incorrect) understanding is that, apart from the doors, guards were doing the training on the static sets for systems as were the maintenance teams.

TheMuttley · 6 Aug 2018

Ah, so more a question of doing as much as they can on the original sets, before the refurbished ones arrive.

scotraildriver · 6 Aug 2018

najaB said:
My (quite possibly incorrect) understanding is that, apart from the doors, guards were doing the training on the static sets for systems as were the maintenance teams.

The guards are not being trained on any systems apart from doors. Everything below solebar level is the drivers responsibility.

najaB · 6 Aug 2018

scotraildriver said:
The guards are not being trained on any systems apart from doors. Everything below solebar level is the drivers responsibility.

I more meant lights, AC, etc.

GrimShady · 6 Aug 2018

I don't know why ScotRail aren't look at WHL versions of these given that Wabtec are already engaged in overhauling them. Only standard class required, already comes with catering and generous luggage space in the power cars.

gsnedders · 6 Aug 2018

GrimShady said:
I don't know why ScotRail aren't look at WHL versions of these given that Wabtec are already engaged in overhauling them. Only standard class required, already comes with catering and generous luggage space in the power cars.

Because, as has been said before, it precludes splitting Oban/Fort William portions.

GrimShady · 7 Aug 2018

gsnedders said:
Because, as has been said before, it precludes splitting Oban/Fort William portions.

I'm told ScotRail are looking at splitting these services again in the future. They will have to if ihe 153s are to be used.

Altnabreac · 7 Aug 2018

GrimShady said:
I'm told ScotRail are looking at splitting these services again in the future. They will have to if ihe 153s are to be used.

With 153s of course they can split 3/3 at Crianlarich instead of 2/2/2 at Crianlarich and Fort William.

Means Mallaig and Oban get slightly more capacity at the expense of Crianlarich - Fort William.

Mingulay · 7 Aug 2018

mde said:
Actually, my post detailed my interpretation of who the stakeholders are at stages. The fare paying passenger (as in end user) is a stakeholder in the finished product, e.g. what runs on the service at a given time. It seems to be somewhat folly to argue that the fare paying passenger is a stakeholder in an engineering works project at Wabtec. They have a vested interest in the works being completed, but, are they a stakeholder on the provision of the HST engineering works? That's debatable.

The stakeholders in such a project would (likely) be the ROSCO (Angel), the lessee (Abellio ScotRail), and, the authority granting the Franchise (e.g. Transport Scotland and the Scottish Ministers). I've added the ROSCO as I neglected to do so previously, but, their relevance is significant given they own the assets. ORR and NR would also have interests, e.g. in any certifications and track access.

The passenger interests are represented by their representatives in Parliament, the public servants at the Authority, and, of course, by bodies such as Transport Focus. Those bodies could certainly ask for detailed progress reports, and, might very well do so if they have interests (e.g. TS in upholding any commitments under the Franchise Agreement.

You might find that document to be of use - Schedule 6.2 on page 338 relates to the 'Inter-city' stock, parts that might be of interest could be section 3 para 3.2 and 3.3 (page 340), 9 (page 344), 10 (page 345). There's also a delivery schedule on page 346 outlining 'proposed' dates, however, clearly there is slippage. Appendix 2 (page 348) might also be of general interest as it covers the actual technical works.

You could ask Transport Scotland, via FOI, to disclose any relevant information they hold - equally, you could also ask your MSP to contact Abellio or TS (perhaps via the Transport minister) for a substantive update.

Until there's useful information to share however, I doubt there will be a all-encompassing release from Abellio or TS indicating the state of the project - other than the usual 'more to follow' type releases. It makes sense to share useful information at the earliest opportunity, but, what purpose would an update serve if there isn't useful information available, other than being slightly specious?

Useful information could be details of when they expect the first completed unit to go into service, but, given the coaching stock has only just arrived, there is perhaps still too many moving parts to know that just yet (e.g. have enough staff been trained, is Haymarket ready to do maintenance, are the trades union reps happy and so on).

Can you cite a source for that 'considerable disquiet', other than anecdotal evidence on these forums (and the echo chamber of social media)?

Even a publicly owned TOC (see ref LNER) is a commercial entity - there are limits to what will be made generally available when it could harm commercial interests. Likewise, it might not be in the 'public interest' either, as, the Authority could then have difficulty pursuing suitable redress.

Nationalisation wouldn't change the scenario being faced here - you'd just be transferring control to Transport Scotland or a new Executive Agency. It'd be the same people, doing the same job, with a different name on the door. And, it'd still be ran commercially, just like other state owned transport operators.

I'd stress that I have no stake in this other than as a customer, but, some of the comments on this thread appear to amount to hyperbole, or, are hankering back to the nostalgic days of the past.

Northhighland said:
Think you are missing the main point. Scottish Government, Transport Scotland and Abiello at the time of the franchise award made some promises to the travelling public. They have not delivered those promises. You say the programme has slipped a bit? Understatement, it has slipped a lot and as far as anyone can see is "at large". At this moment it appears there is no credible programme.

My point is very simple, there may well be very good reasons for the slippage and there may well be people working very hard to sort out what is happening, but the public were promised the best ever rail service in Scotland this year and now they are getting more of the same, in a similar vein to Northern, Govia and others.

Surely common sense would say, come out and say there is a delay, we estimate the delay to be in the region of X months, it is due to X events, we now expect the programme to complete on y date. Passengers pay the thick end of £70 for a return from Inverness or Aberdeen to the central belt, often in a very poor environment. They have to endure ore of the same despite being promised something better by now. Why would anyone think they were not stakeholders in this project? That attitude beggars belief.

The commercial interests line is risible, Abiello have a contract to provide an improved service, they haven't met that contract. Updating the customer on when they will will not breach any commercial interest.

I agree there is unlikely to be an announcement from Abiello, but my point is if they actually understood that the fare paying public are important in running Scotrail, then there would be an update. I have on here and on many other threads argued Nationalisation would just swap one set of problems for another without thinking the issues through. Rail needs a different model of service provision, the last 6 months show the current model doesn't deliver for passengers or taxpayers. What that model is requires a lot of work, serious thought before making a decision.

I tend to agree with you. But corporate and governmental default position is always to pedal good news and bury or blur or dilute bad news. I guess they are waiting for a good day to bury bad news. I don’t expect a blow by blow update on technical matters. Just a clear and reliable statement that it’s going to be delayed and should be in service by a given date. I with an apology naturally.

They just don’t get the keeping passengers informed mantra. Same as airlines when things go wrong. Management heads duck . Scotrail still have banners in stations declaring a time frame for all these rail improvements which patently have been missed. So advertising failure and misleading. Take them down or change them ?

Northhighland · 7 Aug 2018

Rail industry needs to understand that it must communicate better to its customers. I don't want nor expect a blow by blow account of what is happening at Wabtec, but I do expect an explanation as to why several dates have come and gone with no explanation. That is unacceptable.

I agree an apology and a revised programme, if it is till subject to change then say so.

InOban · 7 Aug 2018

Altnabreac said:
With 153s of course they can split 3/3 at Crianlarich instead of 2/2/2 at Crianlarich and Fort William.

Means Mallaig and Oban get slightly more capacity at the expense of Crianlarich - Fort William.

And Oban certainly needs it. The 12.11 from Oban on Sunday again left full and standing. Hate to think how full it would have been by Dalmally.

sprinterguy · 7 Aug 2018

Altnabreac said:
Means Mallaig and Oban get slightly more capacity at the expense of Crianlarich - Fort William.

Except on those services that currently run through to Mallaig as 4 cars already.

jingsmonty · 7 Aug 2018

InOban said:
And Oban certainly needs it. The 12.11 from Oban on Sunday again left full and standing. Hate to think how full it would have been by Dalmally.

The Class 153s are for luggage & bikes only - not for passengers.
Hoping to see the 1st rake of refurbished HST mk3s in Scotland soon - have seen some interior shots.

OmniCity999 · 7 Aug 2018

jingsmonty said:
The Class 153s are for luggage & bikes only - not for passengers.
Hoping to see the 1st rake of refurbished HST mk3s in Scotland soon - have seen some interior shots.

Interior shots? Care to share?

GrimShady · 7 Aug 2018

InOban said:
And Oban certainly needs it. The 12.11 from Oban on Sunday again left full and standing. Hate to think how full it would have been by Dalmally.

I was on it! Standing all the way to Cairnlarich!

InOban · 7 Aug 2018

I take it you got a seat on the FW portion?

route101 · 7 Aug 2018

GrimShady said:
I was on it! Standing all the way to Cairnlarich!

Was it a 2 car set ?

GrimShady · 7 Aug 2018

Altnabreac said:
With 153s of course they can split 3/3 at Crianlarich instead of 2/2/2 at Crianlarich and Fort William.

Means Mallaig and Oban get slightly more capacity at the expense of Crianlarich - Fort William.

If the 153 is fully non pax then it's not really capacity expansion plus the other services loose out which won't make the Ft William people happy or solve the problem. Ft William especially in the summer is just as rammed as Oban.

najaB · 7 Aug 2018

GrimShady said:
If the 153 is fully non pax then it's not really capacity expansion...

It is if it means that there's more room for people (even if no more seats).

InOban · 7 Aug 2018

route101 said:
Was it a 2 car set ?

Of course. All the splitting trains are 2cars to Oban.

I've not heard before that the 153s should be for bikes and luggage only. That would be bonkers. No more than a quarter should be for storage.

PHILIPE · 7 Aug 2018

InOban said:
Of course. All the splitting trains are 2cars to Oban.

I've not heard before that the 153s should be for bikes and luggage only. That would be bonkers. No more than a quarter should be for storage.

Should find the info here:-

www.railforums.co.uk/threads/5x-class-153-conversion-to-bike-and-baggage-vans-for-scotrail.159376

Graham H · 8 Aug 2018

In response to those claiming these are old stock thats being dumped north of the border I agree with the many that this age thing is irrelevant and akin to 'Trgiggers broom'. I always seek out the East Coast HST when travelling from Edinburgh to Aberdeen, much nicer than those newer things ! To take it to ridiculous lengths I suppose someone would moan if Belmond took over with their Pullmans and would claim they have been dumped with 80 year old rolling stock...………..Its quality and style that matters, not age....or at least that's what I tell the missus.
Oh and to quell the 'English cast off' comments we southerners are looking forward to the reintroduction of the 442 EMU originally built 30 years ago and coincidentally based on the Mk3 body. These are also being refurbished (2nd time) and replacing a lot of awful 3+2 seat so called modern units imposed on the Portsmouth route as part of a franchise seat availability requirement.
To follow up the short distant commuter point then Scotland isn't unique. Reading (from Paddington) and Woking (from Waterloo) are examples from my experience where passengers simply hop on the next service regardless of ultimate destination and frankly I wouldn't care either where the train was destined for, they just want to get home. Making the stop PU only might work but canny commuters will soon work out which services still stop at their chosen station even if its not shown on the departure boards at Edinburgh or Glasgow

ScotRail HST Introduction - Updates & Discussion

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member