Class 43 HST cascade fate

[ATPVV]

Perhaps there is scope for their sale to international operators? Or perhaps conversion in to mixed freight locomotives? It would be such a shame to cut them up when locos are in such short supply.

 

[D365]

Or perhaps conversion in to mixed freight locomotives?

For goodness sake...

After Class 442, this has to be the most frequently discussed conversion on RailUK.

 

[Harbornite]

Or perhaps conversion in to mixed freight locomotives? It would be such a shame to cut them up when locos are in such short supply.

Why bother converting 43's for mixed traffic use when there are new build and pre-owned locomotives available that are far more suitable. Your plan sounds like wibble I'm afraid, they are only machines and they were built for passenger work, not freight or mixed traffic use.

 

[Haydn1971]

Save the ones in best condition for an ever decreasing role in passenger haulage, scrap the worst, invest only in the ones in the very best condition for use into the 2020s

 

[cjmillsnun]

Perhaps there is scope for their sale to international operators? Or perhaps conversion in to mixed freight locomotives? It would be such a shame to cut them up when locos are in such short supply.

Locos in short supply? ummm whatever gave you that idea?

 

[devonexpress]

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.

Possibly, but my idea wasn't for them to be coupled together but have enough capacity to run as one whole unit, rather than two coupled together!


As for the XC talk of using HST's its a good idea, and it probably would help, but really the only way we're going to see benefits on the XC route is either more Voyagers with full interior refurbishment for the rest, possibly reducing the amount of room the side panels take up or replacement of them with IEP's which could allow the voyagers to replace other operator stock, such as 159 on SWT services with 4 car 220's?

 

[yorksrob]

or replacement of them with IEP's which could allow the voyagers to replace other operator stock, such as 159 on SWT services with 4 car 220's?

I wouldn't see that as an improvement !

 

[Class 170101]

Why bother converting 43's for mixed traffic use when there are new build and pre-owned locomotives available that are far more suitable. Your plan sounds like wibble I'm afraid, they are only machines and they were built for passenger work, not freight or mixed traffic use.

A suggestion has been made about high speed fright use previously.

Note that salmon (I think) is convyed by a HST from Panzance to London. What about parcels / letters for collection at stations? Isn't there a similar scheme at Waterloo I think. Also did anything come of that Euston freight service?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

A suggestion has been made about high speed fright use previously.

Note that salmon (I think) is convyed by a HST from Panzance to London. What about parcels / letters for collection at stations? Isn't there a similar scheme at Waterloo I think. Also did anything come of that Euston freight service?

It's fish of some sort, yes.

High speed freight frequently comes up, but there's no high speed freight wagons so it goes back to modifying the trailers which then runs into the usual Mark 3 structural issues.

I'm sure more departmental use awaits them, perhaps a second NMT formation, as a dedicated OLE monitoring 'Super-MENTOR' formation or in other roles (ERTMS related etc).

I occassionally wonder if a higher speed RHTT formation would be helpful on a pathing basis, and whether HST power cars and BT10 bogies could fit into that role.

 

[Harbornite]

A suggestion has been made about high speed fright use previously.

Note that salmon (I think) Also did anything come of that Euston freight service?

Sadly not.

 

[ATPVV]

Locos in short supply? ummm whatever gave you that idea?

These sources,

https://next.ft.com/content/8ef8990e-3b68-11e5-8613-07d16aad2152

http://www.raildeliverygroup.com/fi...m_passenger_rolling_stock_strategy_4th_ed.pdf

 

[ATPVV]

For goodness sake...

After Class 442, this has to be the most frequently discussed conversion on RailUK.

Do you have a link to previous discussions on the topic? Would be curious to see others thoughts in more detail.

 

[Harbornite]

These sources,

https://next.ft.com/content/8ef8990e-3b68-11e5-8613-07d16aad2152

http://www.raildeliverygroup.com/fi...m_passenger_rolling_stock_strategy_4th_ed.pdf

There's some demand for locos for multiple unit moves and intermodal etc, but 43s aren't suitable for these.

 

[broadgage]

Save the ones in best condition for an ever decreasing role in passenger haulage, scrap the worst, invest only in the ones in the very best condition for use into the 2020s

Agree, I see only a limited long term main line future for HSTs, but I can not support a rush to scrap them whilst passengers are routinely standing on long distance services.
A few should also be kept as a reserve for bank holidays, sporting events, pop concerts, Christmas, Easter, Summer Saturdays, school holidays, And all the other events for which we are continually told that "no spare stock is available"

 

[Haydn1971]

Agree, I see only a limited long term main line future for HSTs, but I can not support a rush to scrap them whilst passengers are routinely standing on long distance services.

Absolutely, scrapping shouldn't start until we have adequate replacements in operation.

A few should also be kept as a reserve for bank holidays, sporting events, pop concerts, Christmas, Easter, Summer Saturdays, school holidays, And all the other events for which we are continually told that "no spare stock is available"

I'd argue that we should have a flexible enough system of unit cross leasing to cover for predictable peaks, but that would take some degree of dictate from the DfT which isn't going to happen

 

[delt1c]

Convert the plastic pigs to be hauled by the Flying Bananas and it should keep some happy. Cant see where they could be used but if no use can be found, berth some in disused sidings fill them with the Plastic pig fans and Flying Banana fans .

 

[JohnElliott]

Convert the plastic pigs to be hauled by the Flying Bananas and it should keep some happy. Cant see where they could be used but if no use can be found, berth some in disused sidings fill them with the Plastic pig fans and Flying Banana fans .

No, leave the 442s alone and put bagpipes on the 43s. That way they can run with the 5Bel as well

 

[delt1c]

No, leave the 442s alone and put bagpipes on the 43s. That way they can run with the 5Bel as well

A Banana with a Wes blowing the pipes .;

 

[The Ham]

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 .

Which is why 5+2 HST's could be a good solution, getting on for double the capacity of a 220 and about 40% more capacity than a 221. That in partnership with more double running if the 22x fleet (if not total double running) and XC would have significantly more capacity than at present (with the opportunity for new long trains in 13 years time when the 22x fleet would be hitting nearly 30 years old). However, the 5-2's would still be quite nimble enabling them to interwork with newer units.

A full length HST would create too much capacity (535 seats) for most services, yet doubled up 221's (500 seats) would be able to nearly match it for those services which did need it.

The 5+2's (335 ish seats) could replace some 220's (200 seats) and some single 221's could replace 220's (250 vs 200 seats) on quieter routes, pairs of 220's (400 seats) 220+221 pairings (450 seats) and pairs if 221's (500 seats) would enable XC to provide a lot more seats on most of their services.

 

[47802]

Which is why 5+2 HST's could be a good solution, getting on for double the capacity of a 220 and about 40% more capacity than a 221. That in partnership with more double running if the 22x fleet (if not total double running) and XC would have significantly more capacity than at present (with the opportunity for new long trains in 13 years time when the 22x fleet would be hitting nearly 30 years old). However, the 5-2's would still be quite nimble enabling them to interwork with newer units.

A full length HST would create too much capacity (535 seats) for most services, yet doubled up 221's (500 seats) would be able to nearly match it for those services which did need it.

The 5+2's (335 ish seats) could replace some 220's (200 seats) and some single 221's could replace 220's (250 vs 200 seats) on quieter routes, pairs of 220's (400 seats) 220+221 pairings (450 seats) and pairs if 221's (500 seats) would enable XC to provide a lot more seats on most of their services.

I would disagree we should be looking to get rid of HST's off the major routes. According the Network Rail own Blurb, IEP on electric is substancially cheaper to operate than an HST, therefore a fleet of AT300's to replace the existing HST's and add some capacity ought to have a fairly good case, within a reasonable period you should be able to do Derby - Edinburgh on Electric all be it with a gap between Sheffield and Moorthorpe or Doncaster, perhaps stick on the juice to get up the Lickey and will be well placed to take advantage of further electrification as it progresses.

Alternately DFT might see as an eventual home for the Meridians, either way putting more HST's back on XC seems like a backward step to me, is not the whole point of IEP to eliminate HST's from at least Intercity Services.

 

[RobShipway]

I would disagree we should be looking to get rid of HST's off the major routes. According the Network Rail own Blurb, IEP on electric is substancially cheaper to operate than an HST, therefore a fleet of AT300's to replace the existing HST's and add some capacity ought to have a fairly good case, within a reasonable period you should be able to do Derby - Edinburgh on Electric all be it with a gap between Sheffield and Moorthorpe or Doncaster, perhaps stick on the juice to get up the Lickey and will be well placed to take advantage of further electrification as it progresses.

Alternately DFT might see as an eventual home for the Meridians, either way putting more HST's back on XC seems like a backward step to me, is not the whole point of IEP to eliminate HST's from at least Intercity Services.

Putting the HST's would I believe if done be only short term until more IEP/AT300 type trains could be provided for XC.

I believe that there is a few stations on the XC network that can only just take 5 car class 220/221 or HST, so if this is the case then a 5 car IEP/AT300 would be too long.

Personally, I think XC would be better if possible on having a hybrid version with six coaches of class 395 to replace Voyagers and HST sets.

 

[najaB]

Personally, I think XC would be better if possible on having a hybrid version with six coaches of class 395 to replace Voyagers and HST sets.

Isn't a hybrid Class 395 essentially a six-car Class 800?

 

[RobShipway]

Isn't a hybrid Class 395 essentially a six-car Class 800?

No, the class 395 is a different train certainly in bodystyle to the class 800 and I believe mechanics as well.

 

[Domh245]

Isn't a hybrid Class 395 essentially a six-car Class 800?

Lengthwise, it'd be more of a 5 car 800 equivalent. As Robbies says, there are bodyshell differences, particularly with regards to length and the positioning of doors, but whether the more advantageous door positioning makes the expense of developing this train better value than just getting more 800s I'm not so sure about. Another thing to think about would be that with a shorter body, it'd be more of a challenge to fit all of the exhaust scrubbing equipment underneath.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Lengthwise, it'd be more of a 5 car 800 equivalent. As Robbies says, there are bodyshell differences, particularly with regards to length and the positioning of doors, but whether the more advantageous door positioning makes the expense of developing this train better value than just getting more 800s I'm not so sure about. Another thing to think about would be that with a shorter body, it'd be more of a challenge to fit all of the exhaust scrubbing equipment underneath.

IEP's diesel fitted vehicles are something of a packaging miracle, to try and fit the same amount of equipment into a 20m bodyshell would be impossible.

The MTU engines fitted under the IEP vehicles are a significant step up from the Cummins QSK19R engines that Voyagers use, and they're pretty tightly packaged under a 23m bodyshell.

The last 20m DMU we built was the Class 150 and it's not exactly spacious below the solebar, it's pretty tightly packaged when you add in a retention toilet, and it only has a tiddly little 14 litre 6 cylinder engine with no emissions control equipment. The MTU 12V1600 is a 12 cylinder 21 litre engine with exhaust gas recirculation and a diesel particulate filter.

I also don't get why you would do this - the 26m bi-mode IEP units are only a couple of tonnes heavier per vehicle than a Class 395 vehicle, to get comparable capacity you'll have more bogies on the track and the track access costs will be appreciably higher, as would maintenance costs as you've got another pair of bogies and maybe another engine to maintain.

What's more, given a high percentage of the XC route mileage will be cleared for IEP operation long before XC could potentially get their hands on such stock, additional route clearance would be relatively inexpensive and there should be no physical limitation on IEP being used by XC.

 

[RobShipway]

IEP's diesel fitted vehicles are something of a packaging miracle, to try and fit the same amount of equipment into a 20m bodyshell would be impossible.

The MTU engines fitted under the IEP vehicles are a significant step up from the Cummins QSK19R engines that Voyagers use, and they're pretty tightly packaged under a 23m bodyshell.

The last 20m DMU we built was the Class 150 and it's not exactly spacious below the solebar, it's pretty tightly packaged when you add in a retention toilet, and it only has a tiddly little 14 litre 6 cylinder engine with no emissions control equipment. The MTU 12V1600 is a 12 cylinder 21 litre engine with exhaust gas recirculation and a diesel particulate filter.

I also don't get why you would do this - the 26m bi-mode IEP units are only a couple of tonnes heavier per vehicle than a Class 395 vehicle, to get comparable capacity you'll have more bogies on the track and the track access costs will be appreciably higher, as would maintenance costs as you've got another pair of bogies and maybe another engine to maintain.

What's more, given a high percentage of the XC route mileage will be cleared for IEP operation long before XC could potentially get their hands on such stock, additional route clearance would be relatively inexpensive and there should be no physical limitation on IEP being used by XC.

But to use IEP on XC routes where 5 car class 221 fill the platform, the IEP would need to have SDO, which I do not believe they are designed to have are they?

For example, I am not sure if they still do but the XC trains used to stop at Solihull. Now my remember of Solihull station is that the one 5 car XC 221 filled most of the platform length of the station?

 

[Domh245]

But to use IEP on XC routes where 5 car class 221 fill the platform, the IEP would need to have SDO, which I do not believe they are designed to have are they?

They do have SDO, it was one of the key points of the technical specification of the IEP.

 

[RobShipway]

They do have SDO, it was one of the key points of the technical specification of the IEP.

Okay, thanks.

 

[Harbornite]

For example, I am not sure if they still do but the XC trains used to stop at Solihull. Now my remember of Solihull station is that the one 5 car XC 221 filled most of the platform length of the station?

They don't stop, although Chiltern managed to fit their loco hauled sets at the station. I don't see the need for the hybrid 395s you wanted earlier, when there are AT300s that could be ordered.

 

[Domh245]

I don't see the need for the hybrid 395s you wanted earlier, when there are AT300s that could be ordered.

Pedant: The class 395 (and thus any presumed derivatives) would be an AT300 as well. AT300 is the name of the family of Hitachi A train units for high speed rail, even though it has become synonymous with the 26m design used for IEP