EMR (ie EMT) HSTs to be replaced by class 180s...?

[Robinson102]

In the latest issue of Railway Magazine, there is an article discussing East Midland Railway (the East Midlands Trains replacement), and their 'ideas' to 'upgrade' things.

One of them appears to be to withdraw all HSTs by the end of 2020, and replace them with ex-Hull Trains class 180s.

To me, that seems pretty strange. Obviously I know the HSTs either need to be substantially altered to remain in service - that's a given.

What I can't quite understand is why they are wanting to replace them with the class 180s, which has proved themselves to be quite unreliable in recent times with Hull Trains.

If anyone has any thoughts on this, I'd very much like to hear them

 

[Metal_gee_man]

Whilst I agree about the reliability and I can't see them being realistically a valid replacement, what other choices will there be?
Thirsty class 185s, more turbostars (170/171/172) from where?
Maybe new build 800/802s, new build 755s!
There aren't any many turn key solutions but the 180s might fill the hole short term until something new can be ordered

 

[yorksrob]

One wonders what class of mind bending drugs EMR have been taking if they think that three or four clapped out old bangers are going to replace the HST fleet.

What's happenned to the programme of alterations to HST's that has been taking place ?

 

[sprinterguy]

There aren't any many turn key solutions but the 180s might fill the hole short term until something new can be ordered

That's precisely the case; the 180s are a stop gap measure for a couple of years until the new bi-mode trains begin to enter service in April 2022. Could be class 802s, might be something else.

One wonders what class of mind bending drugs EMR have been taking if they think that three or four clapped out old bangers are going to replace the HST fleet.

There may be an element of Chinese whispers going on within this forum: I haven't seen the Rail article, but to date I haven't seen anything to say that four 180s will replace the entire HST fleet: The actual wording from the DfT is "from May 2020, modern diesel trains will replace some aging HSTs." Popular conjecture is that the four ex-Hull Trains 180s will replace the three ex-Grand Central HSTs.

What's happenned to the programme of alterations to HST's that has been taking place ?

It's massively delayed and Wabtec have their work cut out attempting to deliver what they've promised to their three existing customers. There was talk of "PRM lite" modifications as a quick fix to the East Midlands HST fleet to see them past 2020 but that seems to have gone very quiet.

 

[yorksrob]

That's precisely the case; the 180s are a stop gap measure for a couple of years until the new bi-mode trains begin to enter service in April 2022. Could be class 802s, might be something else.

There may be an element of Chinese whispers going on within this forum: I haven't seen the Rail article, but to date I haven't seen anything to say that four 180s will replace the entire HST fleet: The actual wording from the DfT is "from May 2020, modern diesel trains will replace some aging HSTs." Popular conjecture is that the four ex-Hull Trains 180s will replace the three ex-Grand Central HSTs.

It's a rumour that does seem to keep resurfacing from various quarters though. One can only hope that if EMR are pondering this idea, they think again soon.

 

[sprinterguy]

It's a rumour that does seem to keep resurfacing from various quarters though. One can only hope that if EMR are pondering this idea, they think again soon.

Yeah, even with a couple of 222s freed up from Corby services the idea that this would be sufficient to replace all EMR's HSTs is a bit of a stretch, to say the least.

 

[43096]

I think people are forgetting that there will be a major timetable revision when the Corby electrification is completed for (hopefully) December 2020. The current "all day" service requires just six HSTs (one 2+6, five 2+8), which could be replaced by the four 180s (three in service) and three 222s freed from Corby services. That just leaves the three peak 2+8 diagrams to replace, which might just be do-able considering that Corby will have a 30min interval 12-car 360 service which will pick up most of the Luton/Bedford/Wellingborough/Kettering traffic, and allow services to Leicester and beyond to be at a minimum first call Kettering. That might allow some current paired 222 workings to be single sets, which could replace the HSTs. There is (I think) also a "hot spare" 222 at Derby which might well be sacrificed in the plan.

If that is the plan, it is certainly very, very tight and with little margin for error.

 

[cactustwirly]

I think people are forgetting that there will be a major timetable revision when the Corby electrification is completed for (hopefully) December 2020. The current "all day" service requires just six HSTs (one 2+6, five 2+8), which could be replaced by the four 180s (three in service) and three 222s freed from Corby services. That just leaves the three peak 2+8 diagrams to replace, which might just be do-able considering that Corby will have a 30min interval 12-car 360 service which will pick up most of the Luton/Bedford/Wellingborough/Kettering traffic, and allow services to Leicester and beyond to be at a minimum first call Kettering. That might allow some current paired 222 workings to be single sets, which could replace the HSTs. There is (I think) also a "hot spare" 222 at Derby which might well be sacrificed in the plan.

If that is the plan, it is certainly very, very tight and with little margin for error.

Don't like the sound of that tbh, that plan also results in a huge reduction in seating capacity.

 

[yorksrob]

I think people are forgetting that there will be a major timetable revision when the Corby electrification is completed for (hopefully) December 2020. The current "all day" service requires just six HSTs (one 2+6, five 2+8), which could be replaced by the four 180s (three in service) and three 222s freed from Corby services. That just leaves the three peak 2+8 diagrams to replace, which might just be do-able considering that Corby will have a 30min interval 12-car 360 service which will pick up most of the Luton/Bedford/Wellingborough/Kettering traffic, and allow services to Leicester and beyond to be at a minimum first call Kettering. That might allow some current paired 222 workings to be single sets, which could replace the HSTs. There is (I think) also a "hot spare" 222 at Derby which might well be sacrificed in the plan.

If that is the plan, it is certainly very, very tight and with little margin for error.

Don't like the sound of that tbh, that plan also results in a huge reduction in seating capacity.

Yes, it sounds like a complete fiasco in the making if that's the "plan". Pity us passengers.

Do Abellio really want to go down in history as the company that ruined the Midland main line ?

 

[43096]

Don't like the sound of that tbh, that plan also results in a huge reduction in seating capacity.

It depends where the main passenger flows are: if it is Kettering and south thereof, it isn't an issue as a 12-car 360 every half hour compensates. Assuming the 360s are refurbished to something close to the TPE Class 350 spec, you're looking at around 60 first class and 540 standard class seats on a 12-car set. That's 1,200 seats per hour, which is a fair bit more than two 10-car 222s can carry.

 

[cactustwirly]

It depends where the main passenger flows are: if it is Kettering and south thereof, it isn't an issue as a 12-car 360 every half hour compensates. Assuming the 360s are refurbished to something close to the TPE Class 350 spec, you're looking at around 60 first class and 540 standard class seats on a 12-car set. That's 1,200 seats per hour, which is a fair bit more than two 10-car 222s can carry.

But that doesn't help you if you're traveling on an ex HST service from Leicester, and you're crammed in a 4 car 222

 

[talltim]

Yeah, but the fewer seats will be nice and warm...

 

[43096]

But that doesn't help you if you're traveling on an ex HST service from Leicester and you're crammed in a 4 car 222

Hence why I said "it depends where the main passenger flows are" and I never said I agreed it was a good idea! I was merely working through what logic Abellio may have used in their bid, and we know what sort of grasp on reality Abellio's bid team have from some of the decisions on Greater Anglia.

It has all the makings of another timetable fiasco.

 

[bramling]

It's a rumour that does seem to keep resurfacing from various quarters though. One can only hope that if EMR are pondering this idea, they think again soon.

It does seem ridiculous given the reliability issues experienced elsewhere with 180s. Surely Abellio are aware of that?!

 

[yorksrob]

It does seem ridiculous given the reliability issues experienced elsewhere with 180s. Surely Abellio are aware of that?!

One would have thought so !

 

[Andy Pacer]

But that doesn't help you if you're traveling on an ex HST service from Leicester, and you're crammed in a 4 car 222

I agree, and a lot of the peak HST journeys I use regularly for work are up to capacity.

 

[tbtc]

Looks like a PR thing - being seen to introduce "modern" high speed trains to replace some 1970s ones - looks good for marketing purposes (rather than the "wait a couple of years for new trains to be introduced" approach that other franchises have had (given that Arriva "won" the Northern Rail franchise in 2015 and have only introduced brand new trains in the past few days - First were granted the TPE franchise in 2015 and haven't got their new trains in serve yet).

Whilst I know some nostalgists will find it hard to let go of the EMT HSTs, given that they retain some period features (unlike the refurbished ones on some other TOCs), the ex-GC ones are pretty lightly used, and could be replaced by some tweaks to the scheduling (e.g. at the moment some London - Sheffield - London services are in Sheffield for around eighty minutes - so have to be shunted off to Nunnery Square to free up a platform at Midland - but a twenty minute turnaround time at Sheffield wouldn't be quite long enough to maintain a reliable service). I think there are similar examples at Nottingham where slightly sped up timetables could allow an afternoon arrival to form the next departure, rather than dropping an ex-GC set into the mix?

So it's not impossible to see a scenario where a doubled up (i.e. ten coach) 180 runs a dedicated daily peak diagram to free up a full length HST which in turn replaces a six coach ex-GC set.

EMR get some good publicity (whilst they wait a few years for their new trains to be built), just as long as the 180s are well maintained. But, if the plan were to be to use the 180s like the loco hauled sets in Fife or wales (i.e. a daily diagram with plenty of time off-peak to be maintained) then they may be more reliable than the Hull Trains sets (that have been hammered up and down the ECML all day every day).

 

[yorksrob]

Looks like a PR thing - being seen to introduce "modern" high speed trains to replace some 1970s ones - looks good for marketing purposes (rather than the "wait a couple of years for new trains to be introduced" approach that other franchises have had (given that Arriva "won" the Northern Rail franchise in 2015 and have only introduced brand new trains in the past few days - First were granted the TPE franchise in 2015 and haven't got their new trains in serve yet).

Whilst I know some nostalgists will find it hard to let go of the EMT HSTs, given that they retain some period features (unlike the refurbished ones on some other TOCs), the ex-GC ones are pretty lightly used, and could be replaced by some tweaks to the scheduling (e.g. at the moment some London - Sheffield - London services are in Sheffield for around eighty minutes - so have to be shunted off to Nunnery Square to free up a platform at Midland - but a twenty minute turnaround time at Sheffield wouldn't be quite long enough to maintain a reliable service). I think there are similar examples at Nottingham where slightly sped up timetables could allow an afternoon arrival to form the next departure, rather than dropping an ex-GC set into the mix?

So it's not impossible to see a scenario where a doubled up (i.e. ten coach) 180 runs a dedicated daily peak diagram to free up a full length HST which in turn replaces a six coach ex-GC set.

EMR get some good publicity (whilst they wait a few years for their new trains to be built), just as long as the 180s are well maintained. But, if the plan were to be to use the 180s like the loco hauled sets in Fife or wales (i.e. a daily diagram with plenty of time off-peak to be maintained) then they may be more reliable than the Hull Trains sets (that have been hammered up and down the ECML all day every day).

That's fine - so long as they just stick with the ex-GC sets.

The problem is that the rumour keeps cropping up of replacing all HST's before the new stock becomes available.

 

[Robinson102]

I have found the original article that seemed to start all this, which was in Rail magazine, in April.

I've taken a screenshot and attached it to this post. I've also attached a screenshot of the article from this months Railway Magazine.

In the Rail article is states that "The East Midlands will have a fully accessible fleet by the end of 2020. The bidder has, as part of its bid, included the use of Vlass 180s from the May 2020 timetable change. The base plan has a fully compliant fleet from December 2020."

In the Railway Magazine article, it says "Withdrawing HST sets from frontline service will begin from May 2020 and be complete by the December..." etc.

Whilst it appears Abellio haven't said 100% that they will be using the 180s to replace the HSTs, it's not hard to extrapolate from the things they have confirmed - if they're planning to withdraw all HSTs by December, something has to replace them, and it's unlikely that the 222s alone will be able to do that, even with the displaced units from the Corby services etc.

 

[XCTurbostar]

Seems to me that we have half a story. How can 17 HST sets be replaced with four 180s? Not to mention that they wont have the same capacity.. A Derogation to PRM is the only answer unit the new 2022 fleet comes in.

 

[cactustwirly]

Seems to me that we have half a story. How can 17 HST sets be replaced with four 180s? Not to mention that they wont have the same capacity.. A Derogation to PRM is the only answer unit the new 2022 fleet comes in.

It's actually 9+3 HSTs, for 8+1.5 diagrams

 

[Robinson102]

I agree, it certainly seems like something doesn't quite 'add up' here. However it also seems like no one in the capacity to explain the plan, is doing so.

With repeated articles like the ones I quoted, and noone filling in the gaps, it's not surprising that there is a lot of suspicion and questions.

Seems to me that we have half a story. How can 17 HST sets be replaced with four 180s? Not to mention that they wont have the same capacity.. A Derogation to PRM is the only answer unit the new 2022 fleet comes in.

 

[Kingsbury Jn.]

Seems to me that we have half a story. How can 17 HST sets be replaced with four 180s? Not to mention that they wont have the same capacity.. A Derogation to PRM is the only answer unit the new 2022 fleet comes in.

Read post #4 from Sprinterguy. They would replace some of the EMT HSTs.

 

[InTheEastMids]

What I really like from the Rail article is the idea that Abellio have been awarded the franchise but are still exploring options about what to do. I'd have thought they'd have been required to have a robust plan...

OK the way I'm thinking about it is the 4 180s get you 3 standalone 5 car diagrams. This frees up 3 5-car 222s, which combined with a similar number of 222 diagrams freed up by Corby electrics. Join them up and it gets you 3 10 car trains that replace 3 HSTs

The 3 ex-GC HSTs are barely used and needed because of the 2018 TL timetable and maybe some jiggery-pokery allows them to be withdrawn.

This leaves a bare minimum of PRM interventions on about 5-6 HSTs and it may just be easier to swap them with LNER sets. That's how you tick the "fully compliant" box... ie that the full fleet is at least minimally compliant. Weasel words but that's DfT for you.

It may be possible to slightly reduce capacity on some diesel services because of reduced commuter numbers from Kettering and Wellingborough.

That being said, I'm looking forward to the delay attribution costs when a 180 self immolates at maybe West Hampstead in the peak. Abellio would be very brave to diagram them too intensively, unless they can pass all the performance risk onto the leaseco.

 

[ohgoditsjames]

What I really like from the Rail article is the idea that Abellio have been awarded the franchise but are still exploring options about what to do. I'd have thought they'd have been required to have a robust plan...

OK the way I'm thinking about it is the 4 180s get you 3 standalone 5 car diagrams. This frees up 3 5-car 222s, which combined with a similar number of 222 diagrams freed up by Corby electrics. Join them up and it gets you 3 10 car trains that replace 3 HSTs

The 3 ex-GC HSTs are barely used and needed because of the 2018 TL timetable and maybe some jiggery-pokery allows them to be withdrawn.

This leaves a bare minimum of PRM interventions on about 5-6 HSTs and it may just be easier to swap them with LNER sets. That's how you tick the "fully compliant" box... ie that the full fleet is at least minimally compliant. Weasel words but that's DfT for you.

It may be possible to slightly reduce capacity on some diesel services because of reduced commuter numbers from Kettering and Wellingborough.

That being said, I'm looking forward to the delay attribution costs when a 180 self immolates at maybe West Hampstead in the peak. Abellio would be very brave to diagram them too intensively, unless they can pass all the performance risk onto the leaseco.

The LNER HST’s aren’t more compliant are they?

 

[Railperf]

Nobody in their right mind would take on the 180s without a plan B. Hull currently hire in 2 HSTs as a backup. And EMR would be wise to keep on some Hsts to cover them too. Unless an engineering solution can be found to remedy the continual unreliability of these trains.

 

[yorksrob]

Read post #4 from Sprinterguy. They would replace some of the EMT HSTs.

How can they only replace some HST's, yet have a "fully compliant" fleet by 2020 ?

 

[43096]

Read post #4 from Sprinterguy. They would replace some of the EMT HSTs.

How about reading my post above about how they might go about it? Corby electrification and timetable change as a result makes a huge difference.

 

[yorksrob]

How about reading my post above about how they might go about it? Corby electrification and timetable change as a result makes a huge difference.

Not huge enough to prevent it being a complete balls up, unfortunately.

Too few resources which are too unreliable and too thinly spread.

 

[43096]

I agree, and a lot of the peak HST journeys I use regularly for work are up to capacity.

And where do they call south of Kettering? Looking at the evening peak out of London and current EMT timetable it shows these as HSTs:
1634 Nottingham - fast to Market Harborough
1719 Derby via Notts - calls Luton Airport, Wellingborough, Kettering
1734 Nottingham - fast to Market Harborough
1819 Sheffield - calls Luton Airport, then fast to Market Harborough
1834 Leeds via Notts - calls Wellingborough and Kettering
1904 Leeds via Notts - calls Luton Airport, Bedford, Wellingborough
1935 Derby - calls Kettering

I would expect the equivalent services post December 2020 to omit most if not all of their calls south of Kettering. The half-hourly Corby service is designed to pick up that traffic.