Class 43 HST cascade fate

[SpacePhoenix]

All XC services to Bournemouth are worked by Voyagers.

How busy are they generally?

 

[The Planner]

A 5+2 HST should be able to keep to 22x timings (or at least close enough).

They will match a Voyager SRT, 2+7 and upwards will not and cannot slot into a Voyager path without using engineering allowance to help out.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Would they ever need to run over third rail though? You wouldn't want to run a short service into Waterloo for diversions, or are they expected to work to Weymouth at points?

GWR have done football special HSTs to Portsmouth before now. I would expect them not to want to put an IEP on one of those (they may not be able to use one on third rail anyway).

 

[D365]

I would expect them not to want to put an IEP on one of those (they may not be able to use one on third rail anyway).

Why would there be a problem?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Why would there be a problem?

It's an IEP TTS requirement that they're safe to use on 750V DC third rail and 1500V DC OLE. The third rail Reading to Bournemouth is specifically mentioned in TS1470.

 

[route:oxford]

A 5+2 HST would have about 310 standard class seats plus 24 first class seats which would be a 30% increase over a 221.

Even with just 10 sets, that would allow:
- 10 services run by 221's to be run by 5+2 HST's
- 10 services run by 221's to be run by a pair of 220's
- 20 services run by 220's to be run by 221's

I'd go for a minimum of 13 sets...

2+5 HSTs replace 4-Car Voyagers
4-Car Voyagers Replace 3-Car 170s
3-Car 170s replace 2-car 170s

Then all 13 of XC's 2-Car 170s head off to replace Pacer units somewhere in the North...

 

[devonexpress]

Bare in mind that GWR are only doing this short term until the electrification process is complete, I do think that some people are obsessed with HST's and don't want them to retire, As much as I love the old girls, there 40 years old its about time they where put into retirement and allow for the railway to modernise!

 

[43074]

Bare in mind that GWR are only doing this short term until the electrification process is complete, I do think that some people are obsessed with HST's and don't want them to retire, As much as I love the old girls, there 40 years old its about time they where put into retirement and allow for the railway to modernise!

My sentiments exactly; they owe the railway nothing. Having said that, Transport Scotland seem more than happy to use them for at least another 10, if not 15 before the whole Scottish InterCity network is electrified.

 

[47802]

Bare in mind that GWR are only doing this short term until the electrification process is complete, I do think that some people are obsessed with HST's and don't want them to retire, As much as I love the old girls, there 40 years old its about time they where put into retirement and allow for the railway to modernise!

I agree although I guess using them in short formations on secondary routes for the next 5 to 10 years is not unreasonable.

It would seem to me that they should certainly be replaced on XC.

 

[The Ham]

Bare in mind that GWR are only doing this short term until the electrification process is complete, I do think that some people are obsessed with HST's and don't want them to retire, As much as I love the old girls, there 40 years old its about time they where put into retirement and allow for the railway to modernise!

The problem is that XC probably will struggle to get 80x's prior to 2020, yet wouldn't be able to use many EMU's to release Voyagers to be used elsewhere. That either means ICWC's 221's or HST's to provide much extra capacity.

 

[broadgage]

Bare in mind that GWR are only doing this short term until the electrification process is complete, I do think that some people are obsessed with HST's and don't want them to retire, As much as I love the old girls, there 40 years old its about time they where put into retirement and allow for the railway to modernise!

I do not entirely agree. Passenger numbers are growing and I for one have slight doubts about the sufficiency of the IEP fleet to cope with present passenger numbers, and very considerable doubts as to the IEPs coping with growth.
It would be very shortsighted to rush the scrapping of the HSTs while passengers are still having to stand in overcrowded conditions.

Electrification is proceeding rather slowly, and I suspect that a significant diesel fleet will be needed for decades yet.

For many years it has been a railway industry mantra that "no spare stock is available" The industry will look rather silly if they say that a few years after scrapping a fleet of old but still serviceable and liked trains.

 

[47802]

The problem is that XC probably will struggle to get 80x's prior to 2020, yet wouldn't be able to use many EMU's to release Voyagers to be used elsewhere. That either means ICWC's 221's or HST's to provide much extra capacity.

But if MML HST's end up with a derogation then presumably XC HST's could as well and then get some 802's in 2020/21

 

[43096]

FGW bought the Cotswold set

No they didn't. It was an ex-Rio set that was leased by Porterbrook to Cotswold. It was subsequently LEASED to FGW.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

But if MML HST's end up with a derogation then presumably XC HST's could as well and then get some 802's in 2020/21

Hitachi have plenty of manufacturing capacity if XC are to have AT300 sets prior to 2020, the problem is the franchise renewal date is October 2019, so whatever is to be done will need a DfT plan of some sort to remedy this, and if it's to be power-door HST conversion or new AT300 stock, that will need Arriva XC's co-operation regardless to get staff trained up in time for October 2019.

 

[43096]

Hitachi have plenty of manufacturing capacity if XC are to have AT300 sets prior to 2020, the problem is the franchise renewal date is October 2019, so whatever is to be done will need a DfT plan of some sort to remedy this, and if it's to be power-door HST conversion or new AT300 stock, that will need Arriva XC's co-operation regardless to get staff trained up in time for October 2019.

It might be better to decide on T&RS policy for the MML post electrification and if it's decided to go IEP build a few sets early to displace the 7-car 222s to XC. XC is the logical place for the 222s given that they are more similar to 220/221 than anything. However, that would involve DfT planning and we know they don't do that...

 

[devonexpress]

I do not entirely agree. Passenger numbers are growing and I for one have slight doubts about the sufficiency of the IEP fleet to cope with present passenger numbers, and very considerable doubts as to the IEPs coping with growth.
It would be very shortsighted to rush the scrapping of the HSTs while passengers are still having to stand in overcrowded conditions.

Electrification is proceeding rather slowly, and I suspect that a significant diesel fleet will be needed for decades yet.

For many years it has been a railway industry mantra that "no spare stock is available" The industry will look rather silly if they say that a few years after scrapping a fleet of old but still serviceable and liked trains.

Doesn't matter if you agree or not, it's pretty much the blunt truth, passenger numbers might be growing, but that's what the IEP is designed around, although I think 6 car units instead of 5 would have made more sense. However, I think it is likely that come 3 or 4 years down the line, the IEPs will probably have extra cars fitted anyway and with some mixing around we may go back to standard 8 car sets?

It depends really on what the rail company want and what the government want to invest. GWR want more services, much more regularly with more capacity. The government want this to but are just thinking about era's which are nearly ending I.E 2014 to 2016 passenger levels, when they should be thinking about the future and how to cope with it, in many ways I think more IEP should have been order than have been!

 

[JamesT]

Doesn't matter if you agree or not, it's pretty much the blunt truth, passenger numbers might be growing, but that's what the IEP is designed around, although I think 6 car units instead of 5 would have made more sense. However, I think it is likely that come 3 or 4 years down the line, the IEPs will probably have extra cars fitted anyway and with some mixing around we may go back to standard 8 car sets?

It depends really on what the rail company want and what the government want to invest. GWR want more services, much more regularly with more capacity. The government want this to but are just thinking about era's which are nearly ending I.E 2014 to 2016 passenger levels, when they should be thinking about the future and how to cope with it, in many ways I think more IEP should have been order than have been!

Are larger than 5 car units going to cause problems when running coupled together? Thinking mostly platform lengths here.
I assume coupling and splitting is still going to be a thing for a while with all the various branches.

 

[David Goddard]

My opinion only:
1. Transfer full length HSTs from GWR to Cross Country, to work all services on the NE-SW axis, and others as available. So what if the journey times need to be lengthened a bit? I wouldn't mind an extra ten minutes between Birmingham and Newcastle if it meant we could all get a seat!
2. Displaced Voyagers can then move to Scotland for regional "seven cities" services there. This will allow better use of the platforms, particularly in places like Glasgow Queen Street which is already being lengthened, and multi set or combined services will be possible.
3. Remaining 221s can then be returned to Virgin to strengthen services they presently use them on.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

It might be better to decide on T&RS policy for the MML post electrification and if it's decided to go IEP build a few sets early to displace the 7-car 222s to XC. XC is the logical place for the 222s given that they are more similar to 220/221 than anything. However, that would involve DfT planning and we know they don't do that...

There's a possibility of doing that in some form, and DfT are looking at it.

T&RS is set out as follows (from ORR paperwork)

The project is modeled on the following rolling stock and configurations; IEP 10 or 5 car, Generic EMU 10 or 5 car, EMU cl 377 12 car, cl 700 12-car and Loco hauled 9 cars + DVT

One thought was that some or all of the Great Western order which was converted from all electric to bi-mode might be released for MML use at the end of 2019 or early 2020 and backfilled by a new build electric order.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Are larger than 5 car units going to cause problems when running coupled together? Thinking mostly platform lengths here.
I assume coupling and splitting is still going to be a thing for a while with all the various branches.

5 car sets have been chosen because 2 of those coupled provide the same capacity (give or take a couple of seats) as a 9 car set. That means if 2 5 car sets have to be sent out to cover a failed 9 car set, capacity, seat reservations etc, can all be accommodated.

8 car was drawn up and then dropped from the planning.

 

[43096]

My opinion only:
1. Transfer full length HSTs from GWR to Cross Country, to work all services on the NE-SW axis, and others as available. So what if the journey times need to be lengthened a bit? I wouldn't mind an extra ten minutes between Birmingham and Newcastle if it meant we could all get a seat!
2. Displaced Voyagers can then move to Scotland for regional "seven cities" services there. This will allow better use of the platforms, particularly in places like Glasgow Queen Street which is already being lengthened, and multi set or combined services will be possible.
3. Remaining 221s can then be returned to Virgin to strengthen services they presently use them on.

Why do people come up with more stupid schemes, when the long-term plan is already signed up and contracted for? We know what ScotRail are doing already and it doesn't involve Voyagers.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

My opinion only:
1. Transfer full length HSTs from GWR to Cross Country, to work all services on the NE-SW axis, and others as available. So what if the journey times need to be lengthened a bit? I wouldn't mind an extra ten minutes between Birmingham and Newcastle if it meant we could all get a seat!
2. Displaced Voyagers can then move to Scotland for regional "seven cities" services there. This will allow better use of the platforms, particularly in places like Glasgow Queen Street which is already being lengthened, and multi set or combined services will be possible.
3. Remaining 221s can then be returned to Virgin to strengthen services they presently use them on.

Not much of this is viable.

ScotRail need more capacity than 4 car Class 220s provide, 8 car sets too long for some locations and would need SDO, and maintenance planning would need completely reworked - as it is, Craigentinny converts from EC HST to SR HST (under contract with Hitachi).

Pathing the existing HST sets on XC services is difficult currently without actually swapping everything to HST. We've just planned HST removal on the ECML and GWML, adding them back onto both is just going to hoover up paths and ultimately cut available capacity.

Class 221 units to Virgin is OK.

The best option for XC is to receive Class 222 units and possibly some Hitachi AT300 stock.

 

[43096]

Craigentinny converts from EC HST to SR HST (under contract with Hitachi).

I thought that had changed? Latest I heard was Craigentinny as a Hitachi depot for VTEC IEP and ScotRail AT200, with the ScotRail HST fleet split with power cars done at Haymarket and trailers at Inverness. Though I admit I haven't seen confirmation.

I don't see how Craigentinny has capacity to maintain 27 HST sets / 54 power cars and IEP work: it's maxed out now with 20 sets / 45 power cars and overnight Mark 4 work. Adding AT200 to that mix doesn't look do-able.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I thought that had changed? Latest I heard was Craigentinny as a Hitachi depot for VTEC IEP and ScotRail AT200, with the ScotRail HST fleet split with power cars done at Haymarket and trailers at Inverness. Though I admit I haven't seen confirmation.

I don't see how Craigentinny has capacity to maintain 27 HST sets / 54 power cars and IEP work: it's maxed out now with 20 sets / 45 power cars and overnight Mark 4 work. Adding AT200 to that mix doesn't look do-able.

Hitachi take over Craigentinny from VTEC and maintain the HST sets under contract to ScotRail.

HST work is then split between Craigentinny and Inverness. AT200 is to be based at a new Millerhill depot but heavy work will be undertaken at Craigentinny. IEP also maintained at Craigentinny but it's main depot is Doncaster Carr so work at Craigentinny will be relatively limited.

Haymarket looked like being wound down, but ScotRail are keeping more DMU stock than originally planned so it'll be not much quieter than it is today.

 

[Harbornite]

Hitachi take over Craigentinny from VTEC and maintain the HST sets under contract to ScotRail.

HST work is then split between Craigentinny and Inverness. AT200 is to be based at a new Millerhill depot but heavy work will be undertaken at Craigentinny. IEP also maintained at Craigentinny but it's main depot is Doncaster Carr so work at Craigentinny will be relatively limited.

Haymarket looked like being wound down, but ScotRail are keeping more DMU stock than originally planned so it'll be not much quieter than it is today.

Interesting, thanks for sharing. Will DB be vacating or reducing the size of their operation at Millerhill? Was the last stored stock there those RES parcel vans which were shifted last year?

 

[Mordac]

My opinion only:
1. Transfer full length HSTs from GWR to Cross Country, to work all services on the NE-SW axis, and others as available. So what if the journey times need to be lengthened a bit? I wouldn't mind an extra ten minutes between Birmingham and Newcastle if it meant we could all get a seat!
2. Displaced Voyagers can then move to Scotland for regional "seven cities" services there. This will allow better use of the platforms, particularly in places like Glasgow Queen Street which is already being lengthened, and multi set or combined services will be possible.
3. Remaining 221s can then be returned to Virgin to strengthen services they presently use them on.

The ScotRail ITT didn't allow for Voyagers to be used (more specifically, it didn't allow for any trains where toilet smells might disturb passengers, but we all know what that means).

 

[antharro]

A 5+2 HST should be able to keep to 22x timings (or at least close enough).

Being flippant, XC services seem to get delayed regularly enough that even the recovery time at Reading isn't enough to get them back on track when going South. So if the HST timings were slower than 22x, it probably wouldn't be a big deal.

 

[416GSi]

..............
That leaves 15 of GWRs' HST sets unallocated, as well as a large number of trailer vehicles displaced from the shortened Scotrail and GWR sets.

Possible opportunity for an open access operator to acquire some (low cost?) trains.

 

[The Planner]

My opinion only:
1. Transfer full length HSTs from GWR to Cross Country, to work all services on the NE-SW axis, and others as available. So what if the journey times need to be lengthened a bit? I wouldn't mind an extra ten minutes between Birmingham and Newcastle if it meant we could all get a seat!

But DfT and XC would, it reduces the value of the franchise. Let alone the pathing implications it causes as mentioned.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

My opinion only:
1. Transfer full length HSTs from GWR to Cross Country, to work all services on the NE-SW axis, and others as available. So what if the journey times need to be lengthened a bit? I wouldn't mind an extra ten minutes between Birmingham and Newcastle if it meant we could all get a seat!
2. Displaced Voyagers can then move to Scotland for regional "seven cities" services there. This will allow better use of the platforms, particularly in places like Glasgow Queen Street which is already being lengthened, and multi set or combined services will be possible.
3. Remaining 221s can then be returned to Virgin to strengthen services they presently use them on.

Other than the issues already pointed out, that's quite a sensible idea...

Go and sit in the corner and think about what you've done!

 

[DarloRich]

Hitachi take over Craigentinny from VTEC and maintain the HST sets under contract to ScotRail.

HST work is then split between Craigentinny and Inverness. AT200 is to be based at a new Millerhill depot but heavy work will be undertaken at Craigentinny. IEP also maintained at Craigentinny but it's main depot is Doncaster Carr so work at Craigentinny will be relatively limited.

Haymarket looked like being wound down, but ScotRail are keeping more DMU stock than originally planned so it'll be not much quieter than it is today.

There was an interesting article on this in one of the trade journals recently - perhaps Rail Engineer.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My opinion only:
1. Transfer full length HSTs from GWR to Cross Country, to work all services on the NE-SW axis, and others as available. So what if the journey times need to be lengthened a bit? I wouldn't mind an extra ten minutes between Birmingham and Newcastle if it meant we could all get a seat!

but can the timetable take that extra time? XC doesn't run in isolation and the future timetables on the ECML are not set up for the HST but for the IEP .