Avanti Voyagers to Scotrail?

[37424]

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.

Depends we have yet to see the enquiry into Stonehaven, if there any hints about an old train and its crash worthiness in that it could move things along.

 

[Clansman]

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.

Agree there.

The Hitachi vs Talgo certainly is a future dillema that will come up. I think Transport Scotland would be in dream land if any future rolling stock for ScotRail had Hitachi and Talgo working hand in hand on them (similar to how the HS2 rolling stock procurement involves cooperation between manufacturers). Proven mechanical reliability record on one hand, and hundreds of jobs for a decade or so on the other hand with a manufacturer looking to break into the market.

It's certainly a thought - and it will be interesting to see what transpires in the coming years.

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.

Technically speaking, you could put a single end door right next to the bogies, and utilise the raised floor space at either side over the bogies as luggage racks - assuming the floor is flat down the centre of the train and only raised above the individual wheels themselves?

 

[DB]

Depends we have yet to see the enquiry into Stonehaven, if there any hints about an old train and its crash worthiness in that it could move things along.

Given how long these trains have been in service, their crash performance is fairly well known and RAIB have looked at it in detail before (Ufton Nervett) - if there was anything so significant that it meant they should be withdrawn it would be well idenfitied by now (as it was with Mk1 stock, and hence the push to withdraw that).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Technically speaking, you could put a single end door right next to the bogies, and utilise the raised floor space at either side over the bogies as luggage racks - assuming the floor is flat down the centre of the train and only raised above the individual wheels themselves?

No, the full width is raised (though the aisle is slightly lower). You could only do what you say with individual wheels (so Talgo).

 

[mmh]

End doors are not possible on any of the Stadler kit, they have to go in the middle between the bogies.

This would be completely correct if it weren't for the Stadler trains with end doors over the bogies.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

No, the full width is raised (though the aisle is slightly lower). You could only do what you say with individual wheels (so Talgo).

The only thing which should have individual wheels is my drinks trolley. Trains should have bogies. We've been over this extensively with Pacers.

 

[CBlue]

This whole "doors need to be at the end or it isn't a proper intercity train" is just in an enthusiast bubble. No normal passenger refuses to board a train because of where the doors are.

 

[DB]

This whole "doors need to be at the end or it isn't a proper intercity train" is just in an enthusiast bubble. No normal passenger refuses to board a train because of where the doors are.

Of course they don't 'refuse' and nobody has suggested they do. It may, however, affect their perception of the train. TPE and Scotrail both went to end doors following research as to what passengers preferred.

 

[37424]

Given how long these trains have been in service, their crash performance is fairly well known and RAIB have looked at it in detail before (Ufton Nervett) - if there was anything so significant that it meant they should be withdrawn it would be well idenfitied by now (as it was with Mk1 stock, and hence the push to withdraw that).

Well it would be very unlikely the crashworthiness would be regarded as so poor they would need to be removed from service quickly I certainly wasn't suggesting that, but if say the press were to latch on to the age of the train and perhaps a suggestion that newer stock might have performed better then that might hasten things along, on the other hand it may have made no difference we will have to see.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This would be completely correct if it weren't for the Stadler trains with end doors over the bogies.

Which Stadler FLIRT/GTW/SMILE derived units have end doors over the bogies? (The METRO units do but they are fully high floor with small wheels)

The KISS is a different type of unit, a much more conventional non-articulated double decker, though most of those seem to have doors on the lower floor.

The only thing which should have individual wheels is my drinks trolley. Trains should have bogies. We've been over this extensively with Pacers.

Talgos actually have even fewer wheels than Pacers - 1 pair per coach! The other end is held up by the next coach. They don't however ride that badly, but then I've only tried them on quality German track on which Pacers would probably be OK too.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

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?

Nah. I hate DMUs. To be fair Scotrail should get Stadler FLIRT or Hitachi IET class 800 bi-modes, if possible. (in my opinion)

 

[Neptune]

This whole "doors need to be at the end or it isn't a proper intercity train" is just in an enthusiast bubble. No normal passenger refuses to board a train because of where the doors are.

I’ve been saying this for years. Coaches with doors at thirds are far more flexible than with doors at the ends. It all depends on how well it is designed (ie not the fault of the train). When 195’s replaced 158’s on Calder Valley services dwell time was drastically reduced and at peak times delays were reduced. The ambience of 170’s and 185’s is absolutely fine and with short interval auto close external doors they reduce the draughts that everybody bangs on about. You still get draughts on end door stock when the internal gangway doors are opened at stations.

 

[DB]

I’ve been saying this for years. Coaches with doors at thirds are far more flexible than with doors at the ends. It all depends on how well it is designed (ie not the fault of the train). When 195’s replaced 158’s on Calder Valley services dwell time was drastically reduced and at peak times delays were reduced. The ambience of 170’s and 185’s is absolutely fine and with short interval auto close external doors they reduce the draughts that everybody bangs on about. You still get draughts on end door stock when the internal gangway doors are opened at stations.

The Calder Valley is largely a commuter line, so 1/3 and 2/3 are indeed more suitable.

End door stock is better suited to longer journeys with fewer stops.

 

[Neptune]

The Calder Valley is largely a commuter line, so 1/3 and 2/3 are indeed more suitable.

End door stock is better suited to longer journeys with fewer stops.

Not necessarily. I’ve travelled on plenty of long distance services with 170’s, 185’s, 195’s and never once found myself thinking ”I wish these trains had end doors”. Our passengers at Northern also seem to prefer the 195’s over the 158’s on long distance routes such as York - Blackpool. There is no need for end door stock on anything but proper Intercity services (LNER, Avanti etc...) and possible non dwell critical rural routes such as the S&C and Cumbrian Coast.

 

[DB]

Not necessarily. I’ve travelled on plenty of long distance services with 170’s, 185’s, 195’s and never once found myself thinking ”I wish these trains had end doors”. Our passengers at Northern also seem to prefer the 195’s over the 158’s on long distance routes such as York - Blackpool. There is no need for end door stock on anything but proper Intercity services (LNER, Avanti etc...) and possible non dwell critical rural routes such as the S&C and Cumbrian Coast.

Well, if you like the blast of cold air whenever the doors open that's fine, but not everybody does - TPE and Scotrail looked at this specifically and that's why their replacement stock has end doors.

 

[Swanny200]

Well it would be very unlikely the crashworthiness would be regarded as so poor they would need to be removed from service quickly I certainly wasn't suggesting that, but if say the press were to latch on to the age of the train and perhaps a suggestion that newer stock might have performed better then that might hasten things along, on the other hand it may have made no difference we will have to see.

Ufton Nervet was quite a while ago in the scheme of things, have we improved train design enough that a baying for blood and someone to blame media would go "old train caused disaster, brand new train would have saved them!". Had it been a Voyager, or even an Azuma that had just been delivered and cleared for service, would there not have been people in that front carriage that went down the embankment, would the driver have been any safer?, these things may never be known, Grayrigg may be used as a comparison but even then that was over ten years ago and someone still died.

as you say, if they were to be removed from service, then that would involve all mk3 stock and HST's, and potentially if they want to carry on the bandwagon that new trains are safer, Mk4 and 91's too quoting the likes of Hatfield.

The press always have an agenda and never think about the fact that some things just cannot be prevented.

 

[DB]

Grayrigg may be used as a comparison but even then that was over ten years ago and someone still died.

And the circumstances were notably different

The press always have an agenda and never think about the fact that some things just cannot be prevented.

Indeed.

 

[Neptune]

Well, if you like the blast of cold air whenever the doors open that's fine, but not everybody does - TPE and Scotrail looked at this specifically and that's why their replacement stock has end doors.

But you could say that about any commuter train into a major city who’s doors open more regularly than a long distance express service. With decent air conditioning/heating systems it is barely noticeable. Take a 333 with historically excellent air con. I travel on them in the depths of winter regularly and don’t get a ‘blast’ of cold air every time the door opens. I don’t see everyone shuddering around me either.

Scotrail asked what their passengers wanted and it was the Virgin/LNER type train. I suspect it wasn’t because of the door layout, more the capacity as mentioned upthread. I’m sure if they had ordered decent capacity trains with doors at thirds then the passengers would be happy. Just not the enthusiasts.

 

[Energy]

I suspect it wasn’t because of the door layout, more the capacity as mentioned upthread

Well before the IC7s HSTs it was a 3 car class 170, a lot shorter than a 8/9 car Virgin/LNER HST.

 

[Neptune]

Well before the IC7s HSTs it was a 3 car class 170, a lot shorter than a 8/9 car Virgin/LNER HST.

Precisely my point. The users will go for the preferred train being the one with decent capacity every time regardless of train type or door position.

I wonder if they were expecting Scotrail to get 9 car HST’s though.

 

[Energy]

I wonder if they were expecting Scotrail to get 9 car HST’s though.

Probably not, they will be comparing it to another train they would know. They probably said the Virgin/LNER trains as those are the other trains in their area which are a good length.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’ve been saying this for years. Coaches with doors at thirds are far more flexible than with doors at the ends. It all depends on how well it is designed (ie not the fault of the train). When 195’s replaced 158’s on Calder Valley services dwell time was drastically reduced and at peak times delays were reduced. The ambience of 170’s and 185’s is absolutely fine and with short interval auto close external doors they reduce the draughts that everybody bangs on about. You still get draughts on end door stock when the internal gangway doors are opened at stations.

And those who hark back to the halcyon days of Mk1s and early Mk2s may do well to remember that while they didn't have doors at thirds they did have 3 doors on each side, one in the middle as well as at the ends, so you did have the coach broken up into smaller saloons.

If draughts are an issue, have vestibule doors! (Though Bombardier and their predecessors did seem unable to make those actually work on 170s).

 

[Stephen Lee]

Wondered if there are surplus HSTs that can be refurbished to be used by SR so maybe release Class 158/170 to XC for extra capacity

 

[Clansman]

Wondered if there are surplus HSTs that can be refurbished to be used by SR so maybe release Class 158/170 to XC for extra capacity

There are surplus HSTs available.

May I ask why on earth would ScotRail want to replace more of their DMUs with them, when XC is of none of their concern, nor the concern of Transport Scotland, or the Scottish Government?

 

[RLBH]

This whole "doors need to be at the end or it isn't a proper intercity train" is just in an enthusiast bubble. No normal passenger refuses to board a train because of where the doors are.

Plenty of Scotrail passengers complain about having the doors in the middle of the saloon. Especially when stopped at Carrbridge in February, when there's three inches of snow on the platform, still falling, with wind carrying it along the aisle and up passengers' legs. You also get plenty of passengers complaining about having a seat directly opposite the toilet door. Understandably so, since on a 170 there are only two toilets for the entire train, and especially so when fellow passengers leave it open.

East Coast HSTs and Class 158s have end doors, and don't have those two problems. Class 170s have mid-saloon doors, and do have those problems. So to a Scotrail long-distance passenger those are the two familiar options, and end doors are clearly preferable. Yes, other solutions to the door problem exist, but they're not as familiar. It depends on exactly what question is asked.

These aren't enthusiast issues - I've heard plenty of people who wouldn't know a Voyager from a Class 47 and Mark 2 LHCS complain about both issues with Scotrail Class 170s on long-distance services. Often with some comment about using commuter trains for intercity journeys,.

For my money, the XP64 arrangement of doors, toilets and saloons seems to give the best of both worlds, but there's probably a very good reason why it's not been used by anything since!

 

[Bletchleyite]

For my money, the XP64 arrangement of doors, toilets and saloons seems to give the best of both worlds, but there's probably a very good reason why it's not been used by anything since!

I think Pacers are the only place it was. But having end doors on only one side is sub-optimal because if the platform is not on the expected side and you're at the front or back of the train you have to rush through the coach to get there (and you're limited to wheelchair access in the middle for the same reason, which is sub-optimal as the gap would be very wide on a curved platform).

 

[RLBH]

But having end doors on only one side is sub-optimal because if the platform is not on the expected side and you're at the front or back of the train you have to rush through the coach to get there

This is probably less of an issue for intercity-type services than commuter services, since the number of passengers likely to be affected is small and dwell times long enough to change ends if required. Though in a fixed formation train you could just remove the problem by having doors both sides at the leading and trailing ends.

The potential gaps on curved platforms are more of an issue, and quite difficult to resolve with gap fillers.

 

[HST43257]

With Transport decarbonisation by 2035 being a thing, I’d rather see Class 90s + DVTs running with the SR Mk3s. As far as I’m aware, very little or none of the Inter7City network is capable of 125mph line speed. This means the 110mph running is fine and the much better acceleration makes it a good suggestion in my view. No need for more DMUs when the HSTs can be used for about another 10 years hopefully, creating time for electrification to happen, at least on the core routes like Glasgow/Edinburgh to Aberdeen then the other parts after.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

With Transport decarbonisation by 2035 being a thing, I’d rather see Class 90s + DVTs running with the SR Mk3s. As far as I’m aware, very little or none of the Inter7City network is capable of 125mph line speed. This means the 110mph running is fine and the much better acceleration makes it a good suggestion in my view. No need for more DMUs when the HSTs can be used for about another 10 years hopefully, creating time for electrification to happen, at least on the core routes like Glasgow/Edinburgh to Aberdeen then the other parts after.

The ScotRail HST Mark 3 carriages aren't compatible with a Class 90 or a Mark 3 DVT. The electrical supply for an HST carriage, as provided by the two power cars is three phase 415V. The electrical supply for an LHCS carriage is 1000V AC or DC. The train control system wiring (the TDM wiring) isn't fitted to the HST Mark 3 stock (although that wouldn't be particularly difficult to install).

The Scottish electrification plans (such as they are currently) will be to electrify to Perth and Dundee via both sets of routes first, which allows services to Perth, Fife Circle etc, to convert to EMU operation, with the likelihood of a slightly staggered progression to Aberdeen (reaching and commissioning electrification to Arbroath before the rest of the route north being the most likely option) and then Inverness to follow within 2-3 years of Aberdeen so deliveries of new rolling stock synchronises relatively well with delivery of the newly electrified routes.

 

[73128]

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

Their plan have Aberdeen and Inverness electrified, plus in between and indeed in due course everywhere except Stranraer, West Highland line, Kyle and far north lines. HST replacements will be emus.