Avanti Voyagers to Scotrail?

[RailWonderer]

Scotrail have made it clear the 26 Inter7City units (or whatever they call them) are only a stop gap measure.
The 221s are now being refurbished and they seem perfect for the route - 125mph capible (although I'm not sure how much of the Scottish line speed is 125), 5 cars long, comfortable cushioned seats and big windows. There are 20 of them so Scotrail would have to retain a few HST short sets.
Surely these will be ideal for Glasgow/Edinburgh to Aberdeen/Inverness?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Scotrail have made it clear the 26 Inter7City units (or whatever they call them) are only a stop gap measure.
The 221s are now being refurbished and they seem perfect for the route - 125mph capible (although I'm not sure how much of the Scottish line speed is 125), 5 cars long, comfortable cushioned seats and big windows. There are 20 of them so Scotrail would have to retain a few HST short sets.
Surely these will be ideal for Glasgow/Edinburgh to Aberdeen/Inverness?

Tarted up with a low density interior they'd be nice enough, yes. However they are I suspect going to go to XC for now as their need is greater.

 

[Journeyman]

I can't see the HSTs lasting anywhere near as long in Scotland as originally planned, and once Abellio vacate the franchise, I suspect they'll be replaced very quickly. If XC go for bi-modes, Voyagers would be a sensible choice.

 

[Clansman]

They are far from perfect, in fact they don't even fall into the category of suitable for I7C runs - as both a stop gap and as a permanent solution. So much so, that ScotRail specified conditions for I7C stock specifically designed to rule out inadequate fleets such as the Voyagers. The franchise was more than just about replacing existing I7C stock with cascades; it was about significantly enhancing the offering on all fronts that passengers were accustomed to.

The Voyagers don't do this, but actually detriment this severley and provide a worse offering for passengers than a doubled 158. Their provisions would be an emphatic downgrade to what was proposed both with the introduction of HSTs (Abellio), and 'Hullinisation' of the 170 fleet (First) - to name a few proposed I7C pre-2035 proposals - let alone the pre HST I7C offering.

Additionally, the Scottish government have outlined plans to have all rail travel in Scotland carbon neutral by 2035, meaning any replacement rolling stock for the HSTs will most certainly not have diesel running in passenger operation.

There are a handful of routes you could put the Voyagers on where they'd be suitable. ScotRail I7C is certainly not on that list.

I feel that many don't understand the bigger picture when it comes to the Voyager fleet and I7C runs. There's much.. much.. much.. more to it than carriage numbers, ineffective tilt, maximum speed, and the provision of end doors.

There's no point in a five car fleet when there's a net decrease in standard seats than a double 158 due to severe space inefficieny. There's no point in a tilting fleet when the routes would need a multi-million pound upgrade to support it and when the benefits of tilt only produce a single digit decrease in minutes to journey time which could otherwise be achieved by acceleration. There's no point in a 125mph maximum speed for very much the same reason as the last one. And there's little point in end doors when they on their own right would be the only positive in a disasterous portfolio of downgraded facilities for passengers.

And that's even before luggage provisions, fuel emmissions, and what passengers were actually surveyed and found to want.

20 years ago, perhaps, but definitley not now.

 

[Journeyman]

I completely disagree. I think the Voyager would be perfect for ScotRail InterCity services, and would be cheaper to run and a lot less hassle than the HSTs, which have been a complete farce from start to finish.

 

[Clansman]

I completely disagree. I think the Voyager would be perfect for ScotRail InterCity services, and would be cheaper to run and a lot less hassle than the HSTs, which have been a complete farce from start to finish.

Fair enough, each to their own.

Out of curiosity, how do you think they would actually be suitable given what was wanted and needed by ScotRail?

 

[Journeyman]

Fair enough, each to their own.

Out of curiosity, how do you think they would actually be suitable given what was wanted and needed by ScotRail?

I think Transport Scotland and Abellio both got far too fixated on the HST when coming up with plans. They looked at LNER services to Aberdeen and Inverness which were HSTs at the time, and more popular with passengers, so decided "we must have the same thing". The reasons the HSTs were more popular than 158s and 170s was because they had more seats and better catering, not because they're HSTs, which LNER has replaced now anyway, and Voyagers are perfectly capable of providing more seats and better catering.

 

[221129]

Additionally, the Scottish government have outlined plans to have all rail travel in Scotland carbon neutral by 2035, meaning any replacement rolling stock for the HSTs will most certainly not have diesel running in passenger operation.

Unless a serious amount of electrification is about to start I don't see how there is any alternative right now!

 

[Clansman]

I think Transport Scotland and Abellio both got far too fixated on the HST when coming up with plans. They looked at LNER services to Aberdeen and Inverness which were HSTs at the time, and more popular with passengers, so decided "we must have the same thing". The reasons the HSTs were more popular than 158s and 170s was because they had more seats and better catering, not because they're HSTs, which LNER has replaced now anyway, and Voyagers are perfectly capable of providing more seats and better catering.

Passenger results found a preference for trains with end doors, a quieter ambience, and more capacity - and passengers provided examples which indicated HSTs based on their tendancy to gear towards East Coast services entirely on ScotRail routes. So it wasn't neccessarily ScotRail being hell bent on HSTs, but what passengers wanted based on what they had, and what they supplied ScotRail with. I guess you could argue a new built of stock to fill the void with they specifications (not neccessarily IEP restricted) - but Voyagers? Voyagers weren't available in the timescale ScotRail needed, and they certainly needed more stock to come in given all the outgoings due to the 385s, and the inability of that to off-set an additional 20 or so I7C dedicated stock.

As for the 'providing more seats' this isn't possible with the Voyagers to the extent ScotRail need. ScotRail were looking to increase capacity beyond what was being provided, but wanted to do so whilst providing IC style seating provisions (quoted as 50% airline 50% table). Again, looking at the Voyagers, you would be decreasing seating capacity than what even they currently provide now, and you would do this even further when factoring in what has to be compensated luggage provision wise given their luggage racks can't even take the largest bags, let alone large cases that often cram up a double 158's vestibules despite them having more luggage space than any 158 fleet in the UK, as well as the disibility provisions they were after requiring bi-directional disabled seating, and bike capacity for 10 bikes.

Absolutely impossible to meet those specs with a five or even six car Voyager.

Unless a serious amount of electrification is about to start I don't see how there is any alternative right now!

Not now, but by 2035. How would that have enabled the Voyagers to come in when they're not available for another couple of years yet? What would ScotRail have done for at least six year from when the first HST was meant to be in service? Wait six years with either no alternative or extended leases on 170s which were becoming ever more knackered by the day, for the sake of unsuitable Voyagers to come in for the same period you waited for them? Or get in a stop gap that will last at least a decade and be up and running by the time Voyagers could even come off-lease - and with the added bonus that said stop-gap is a proven fleet that passengers wanted and to which is the only existing rolling stock fleet in the UK that best meets the specs?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fair enough, each to their own.

Out of curiosity, how do you think they would actually be suitable given what was wanted and needed by ScotRail?

Someone in ScotRail has it in for underfloor engines. The thing is, other than when starting out, you don't really hear Voyager engines, it's just a background rumble a bit like track noise. It's not at all like 15x which are indeed really noisy.

It'd also rule out 80x which would be perfect.

 

[Energy]

Voyagers may be suitable, the WCML examples have a shop already which can provide the catering facilities. I would give the voyagers a bit more of a refurbishment, mainly change the layout for more seats as the amount of disabled toilets is quite large right now.

New build wouldn't be suprising though, Scotrail already have a lot of AT200s so AT300s would make a lot of sense. Alternatively, Stadler offered a bimode version of the SMILE for EMR, the low floors would be great.

 

[Bletchleyite]

New build wouldn't be suprising though, Scotrail already have a lot of AT200s so AT300s would make a lot of sense. Alternatively, Stadler offered a bimode version of the SMILE for EMR, the low floors would be great.

There's no high speed running so the FLIRT would be fine and is already available bi-mode.

 

[Energy]

There's no high speed running so the FLIRT would be fine and is already available bi-mode.

FLIRT would also be fine but end doors may be required.

 

[Bletchleyite]

FLIRT would also be fine but end doors may be required.

End doors are not possible on any of the Stadler kit, they have to go in the middle between the bogies. You can't do low floor and end doors unless you fit very small wheels which causes its own problems.

But again door prejudice is not helpful. A FLIRT vehicle split into 2 small saloons with doors in the middle offers a perfectly good InterCity ambiance - some would argue much better than a big long tube.

 

[37424]

I think the Voyagers are more likely to go to XC. 222 probably a better candidate no tilt with lighter bogies, there are 27 sets which you could reform as 19x5 car and 8x6 car reduce the over provision of 1st class seating, but would no doubt be seen as inferior to HST's personally i don't think any 22x will go to Scotrail.

 

[Clansman]

Someone in ScotRail has it in for underfloor engines. The thing is, other than when starting out, you don't really hear Voyager engines, it's just a background rumble a bit like track noise. It's not at all like 15x which are indeed really noisy.

It'd also rule out 80x which would be perfect.

It wasn't underfloor engines per se, but the pertrusion of the noise and vibration into the passenger saloon to the point where it becomes significantly disruptive. In other words, the 170 being the benchmark for this. Solutions were and still are doable on existing MU platforms, and First's bid, as I understand it, involved applying silencing pads under the floor to minimise this effect on 170s on I7C routes - pretty much similar to that on the IEPs.

Not sure if IEPs would fit the bill, but in their principle design platform (minus a few particular yet adaptable specifications), meet the I7C specs more than any fleet of MUs in the UK just now.

 

[gingertom]

I think TS is going to have to compromise somewhere. Either with the requirement for end doors or no underfloor engines. I can see a tri-mode variant of the 80x based on East Midland's 810: a 5 car set, powered by OLE, 2 underfloor engines and 2 battery rafts would tick many boxes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think TS is going to have to compromise somewhere. Either with the requirement for end doors or no underfloor engines. I can see a tri-mode variant of the 80x based on East Midland's 810: a 5 car set, powered by OLE, 2 underfloor engines and 2 battery rafts would tick many boxes.

Why based on EM's units? I don't see any benefit to going to 24m vehicles unless you have to. Battery rafts wouldn't need the high floor end vehicle.

 

[37424]

Why based on EM's units? I don't see any benefit to going to 24m vehicles unless you have to. Battery rafts wouldn't need the high floor end vehicle.

Depends on the acceleration required the 802 spec might not be able to meet it but then again it doesn't need the 125 mph performance, Hitachi might well offer a more bespoke solution based on a 100mph train, and the idea of some kind hybrid diesel/battery solution may be possible but it always amuses me that posters come up with solutions which may not be offered by that particular manufacturer.

 

[Clansman]

It doesn't have to be from an existing platform of rolling stock.

It can be any new build from any manufacturer. As long as it meets the specs required. With Talgo potentially going into Fife pending UK orders, CAF in Wales, and Alstom and Stadler's desire for UK orders in the Intercity and High Speed market, there's nothing to say that just because Hitachi have developed suitable modern IC bi-mode rolling stock in the UK, that they are the by default the exclusive manufacturer to introduce this to other TOCs which need them in future (ie ScotRail). It's a misconception that tends to be made on here that somehow existing is always the go-to for all cases.

 

[37424]

It doesn't have to be from an existing platform of rolling stock.

It can be any new build from any manufacturer. As long as it meets the specs required. With Talgo potentially going into Fife pending UK orders, CAF in Wales, and Alstom and Stadler's desire for UK orders in the Intercity and High Speed market, there's nothing to say that just because Hitachi have developed suitable modern IC bi-mode rolling stock in the UK, that they are the by default the exclusive manufacturer to introduce this to other TOCs which need them in future (ie ScotRail). It's a misconception that tends to be made on here that somehow existing is always the go-to for all cases.

Indeed it doesn't but there are potentially advantages ordering a proven platform.

 

[gingertom]

Why based on EM's units? I don't see any benefit to going to 24m vehicles unless you have to. Battery rafts wouldn't need the high floor end vehicle.

I was meaning from the traction point of view. Make them any length that suits: 26m would be ok.

I've said on another thread, referring to 318/320 replacement in particular but applies to HST replacement, that a Talgo factory at Longannet generating many jobs in Fife might prove irresistable to the Scottish government. when it comes to procuring new fleets. But Hitachi have a proven track record of reliability so they cannot be counted out.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was meaning from the traction point of view. Make them any length that suits: 26m would be ok.

I've said on another thread, referring to 318/320 replacement in particular but applies to HST replacement, that a Talgo factory at Longannet generating many jobs in Fife might prove irresistable to the Scottish government. when it comes to procuring new fleets. But Hitachi have a proven track record of reliability so they cannot be counted out.

The big advantage of ordering 80x is that you pretty much just train the staff on them and go.

 

[RailWonderer]

Now with the DfT responsible for finances we will probably see a return to the BR era mentality of a standardised product rather than the private ToC's idea of a custom product built especially for for the particular region they operate. Being a bit of an ethusiast I like seeing different types of trains and it was refreshing to see the 745s and the 68s mk5 nova 3 and the 397s instead of more 80x.

 

[DB]

The thing is, other than when starting out, you don't really hear Voyager engines, it's just a background rumble a bit like track noise. It's not at all like 15x which are indeed really noisy.

I don't agree - while certainly not as bad as 150s, the engine noise and vibration is certainly quite noticeable - if you travel in a vehicle with the engine stopped the difference is very noticeable.

Not sure why people are expecting the HSTs to be replaced in the sort of timescale which would be required if the 221s were to move there - a lot of money has been spent on the HSTs, and the ROSCO will no doubt have made sure that they are on a sufficiently-long lease to recoup that expenditure. this is likely to be well beyond when the 221s come off lease.

 

[Energy]

private ToC's idea of a custom product built especially for for the particular region they operate. Being a bit of an ethusiast I like seeing different types of trains and it was refreshing to see the 745s and the 68s mk5 nova 3 and the 397s instead of more 80x.

Your examples would have probably been 80Xs if Hitachi's delivery times weren't so long at the time. TPE needed more stock quickly which is why they got 68s and the 397s got ordered because Hitachi couldn't produce any more 80Xs than the 18 ordered for TPE in a reasonable time. 745s got ordered as Hitachi were busy at the time, it is fairly well known on this forum that Abellio originally wanted Hitachi's instead of Stadlers.

and the ROSCO will no doubt have made sure that they are on a sufficiently-long lease to recoup that expenditure.

XC has been on direct awards recently so the lease may not be that long

 

[DB]

XC has been on direct awards recently so the lease may not be that long

Possibly the DfT had to give a guarantee on minimum lease period? That's been done before (Pendolinos, as I recall).

 

[Energy]

Possibly the DfT had to give a guarantee on minimum lease period? That's been done before (Pendolinos, as I recall).

Its old HSTs though not new trains so a lot cheaper for the rosco.

 

[DB]

Its old HSTs though not new trains so a lot cheaper for the rosco.

Indeed - it depends how long they regard as a reasonable time to recoup their investment (will obviously be a much shorter period than for new trains). If the figures I've seen banded about are correct, the work on the XC HST fleet will have cost in the region of 5 to 6 million.

 

[gingertom]

Now with the DfT responsible for finances we will probably see a return to the BR era mentality of a standardised product rather than the private ToC's idea of a custom product built especially for for the particular region they operate. Being a bit of an ethusiast I like seeing different types of trains and it was refreshing to see the 745s and the 68s mk5 nova 3 and the 397s instead of more 80x.

in my previous career I had many disagreements with the establishment's fixation with "one size fits all". One size certainly did not fit all, some worked pretty well , some worked ok and some were a complete waste of space. I did eventually have some success in delivering solutions that were "fit for purpose", a phrase that I used many a time. Provided of course the end users were able to tel me what that purpose was and not move the goalposts mid-project. I can definitely see parallels here.