HST's for Scotrails New Franchise

[Bletchleyite]

Most of the gain of doing so could be achieved by simply running with only 1 power car running, and the other shutdown. That retains the benefit of self-rescuing in the event of engine trouble.

True. I guess you could alternate them, using the front one in the direction of travel as is traditional, but if it fails switching to the rear.

Neil

 

[route:oxford]

There will be outrage if Scotrail passengers on long distance services are forced to switch from predominantly 6 car services to 4 car services.

 

[Rhydgaled]

2+4 is absurd, unless they're planning a through service up the cairngorm funicular. The carriages would be for scrap otherwise so surely can't be that expensive, Queen Street is being extended to take 8 car so it's not a limit there.

Unfortunately, it seems some will be 2+4. Form Modern Railways Informed Sources E-Preview:

Naturally I was attracted by the use of short formation IC125s to link Scotland’s seven cities. With four or five coaches and two power cars these are going to be pocket rockets. Which brought a double benefit in scoring - once on the service quality upgrade and again on the benefits from reduced journey times.

2+5 might not be too much of a problem if it is only the buffet car that is 1st class (like Chiltern's silver sets and ATW's Gerald service), but 2+4 sounds a bit silly to me. Hope spare mark3s are stored to enable future lengthening if required.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There will be outrage if Scotrail passengers on long distance services are forced to switch from predominantly 6 car services to 4 car services.

Oh, I was assuming it was mainly 3-car 170s or 4-car 158s, or perhaps two units from those classes making a 5-car train.

 

[455driver]

What's the rules on running HSTs as 2+4 with reference to lack of brake force again?

 

[route:oxford]

Unfortunately, it seems some will be 2+4. Form Modern Railways Informed Sources E-Preview:2+5 might not be too much of a problem if it is only the buffet car that is 1st class (like Chiltern's silver sets and ATW's Gerald service), but 2+4 sounds a bit silly to me. Hope spare mark3s are stored to enable future lengthening if required.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Oh, I was assuming it was mainly 3-car 170s or 4-car 158s, or perhaps two units from those classes making a 5-car train.

The Glasgow - Aberdeen/Inverness services tend to be two 3-car 170s.

They are often full to standing at the moment.

 

[jopsuk]

Given that the bid victory guff was trumpeting that they would be providing more seats I really doubt that even the good Captain Deltic is right on this one.

 

[Class83]

Unfortunately, it seems some will be 2+4. Form Modern Railways Informed Sources E-Preview:2+5 might not be too much of a problem if it is only the buffet car that is 1st class (like Chiltern's silver sets and ATW's Gerald service), but 2+4 sounds a bit silly to me. Hope spare mark3s are stored to enable future lengthening if required.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Oh, I was assuming it was mainly 3-car 170s or 4-car 158s, or perhaps two units from those classes making a 5-car train.

You get all sorts of combinations, single 158s are pretty rare but 1*170, 2*158, 158+170 and 2*170 all turn up depending on time of day. The issue I see is that the HSTs won't be able to double up so maximum capacity will be needed all the time, presumably to be filled off peak with the Advance tickets.

 

[Altnabreac]

The Glasgow - Aberdeen/Inverness services tend to be two 3-car 170s.

They are often full to standing at the moment.

Worth remembering that on the Inverness route there will be a significant increase in frequency as well with an hourly service due to be introduced not long after the HSTs start running in Dec 2018.

I don't think that there is actually a very high percentage of Aberdeen and Inverness diagrams that are currently 6 car. Would be interesting to know exact numbers. Certainly most of the busier services I've been on recently have been 3 car only Glasgow - Aberdeens.

 

[Liam]

Edinburgh-Aberdeen is mostly 3 car, actually I can't remember the last time I saw a 6 car rushing through Kirkcaldy. Would quite often get 2x170 or 170+158 from Edinburgh with one of the units only going to Dundee, this stopped after the Aberdeen services stopped calling at stations between Haymarket and Leuchars.

Edinburgh-Inverness is usually a 3 car 170 or 4 car 158, occasionally a 170+158, but one of those units might be dropped at Perth.

 

[Altnabreac]

Are there any stations that wouldn't have grandfather rights for over length HST calls that would be shorter than the 5-6 car lengths required?

If so would SDO or possibly Platform extensions be needed?

I know all Highland Main Line stations have had HST calls on Sundays so should be fine. Thinking possibly of Portlethen, Broughty Ferry or Monifieth.

Barry Links and Golf Street are definitely too short but I believe will only be served by an extended Edinburgh - Dundee DMU so shouldn't be an issue.

 

[455driver]

As they are (supposedly) getting exFGW HSTs which have SDO already I cant see any issues!

 

[Altnabreac]

As they are (supposedly) getting exFGW HSTs which have SDO already I cant see any issues!

Well that's not an issue then. Think 90% of the stations they'll serve are at least 6 car anyway.

 

[jopsuk]

As they are (supposedly) getting exFGW HSTs which have SDO already I cant see any issues!

As they'll be getting "Chilterns" style power doors I'd have thought they'll get a new SDO system with that.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Unless the 4 car restriction is due to platform lengths at terminals (e.g. needing to be able to fit into any platform at Queen Street) it wouldn't surprise me if the 4 car sets were lengthened once passenger numbers fill up once again. The extra cost of refurbishing and running that extra Mk3 carriage cannot be that high and it would not do Abellio any favours if their fantastic new services were all mobbed within months.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I don't think brake force would be an issue, as on rare occasions FGW have used a 2+2 HST to substitute for an unavailable sprinter (on the Golden Valley IIRC)...

Then again, maybe there's a reason it hasn't happened since!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

And the source for this is ???

I see others have already answered it, but two or three railway press sources have quoted this as coming from the published documents containg the details of the winning bid.

 

[455driver]

I don't think brake force would be an issue, as on rare occasions FGW have used a 2+2 HST to substitute for an unavailable sprinter (on the Golden Valley IIRC)...

Then again, maybe there's a reason it hasn't happened since!

So you don't know then!

 

[sprinterguy]

Oh, I was assuming it was mainly 3-car 170s or 4-car 158s, or perhaps two units from those classes making a 5-car train.

As Liam and Class 83 have since said, it is mainly 3-car 170s on the Aberdeen and Inverness services (Not much, if any, call for pairs of 158s on those services these days, the 158s are used to strengthen the odd 170 operated service). I'm not sure where route: oxford has got the idea from that they're mostly running around in pairs, because they really aren't.

I am however quite astonished to see plans for 2+4 formations: I would have thought that Abellio would have gone for a standard fleet of 2+5 sets. This seems like attempting to minimise operating costs in the extreme - Surely the marginal cost of operating an extra mark 3 vehicle in 14 sets isn't that great?

 

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

I agree that 2+4 seems a bit silly, but presumably it is still (a little bit) better than a 4-car DMU, on the grounds that the 4 HST coaches don't have to sacrifice space for cabs?

 

[irish_rail]

I don't think brake force would be an issue, as on rare occasions FGW have used a 2+2 HST to substitute for an unavailable sprinter (on the Golden Valley IIRC)...

Then again, maybe there's a reason it hasn't happened since!

2+2 set operated a Reading - Padd stopper, on a Saturday a few weeks back, so can still happen.

 

[BestWestern]

Indeed, and you dont have the gains in passenger space that a DBSO would give..


Perhaps its time to suggest this as a use for 442 cabs

Had to happen!

In all seriousness is it a worthwhile suggestion though? If it was desireable to combine a cab with maximum seating capacity and a single power car was preferable...

Of course the cost of adaptation and doing something about the doors would be significant. Easier to rewire the power car and use all 442 trailers I suppose. Oh dear, how quickly we descend into the usual piffle! :-/

 

[PG]

As others have said it does seem to be taking the economics of the bid to the extreme by having 14 trainsets with one less coach as the two fleets 14 x 2+4 / 13 x 2+5 will then have to be pretty closely managed to ensure a lower capacity set isn't deputising for a higher one - surely the operational flexibility of having one uniform fleet outweighs the marginal cost of running 14 extra MK3's?
We can only hope that at least 14 extra Mk3's are safely stored to allow for future needs.

That said from what I can see (using Chiltern Mk3 seating capacities + post #166 earlier in the thread) there will be a welcome increase in seating capacity where a 2+4 HST replaces a 170/4 3 car express spec Turbostar :

HST 2 x 72 standard class + 1 x 69 standard class accessible toilet + 1 x composite 10 standard class/micro-buffet/30 first class
​

= 223:30 total capacity 253, standard:first ratio = 7.43:1
​

170/4 3 car express spec
​

=179:18 total capacity 197, standard:first ratio = 9.94:1
​

I've never been on the Chiltern Mk3's so not quite sure where the Guard bides? Maybe ditch the 10 standard class seats in the composite coach which then skews my figures a bit ??

 

[Altnabreac]

Had to happen!

In all seriousness is it a worthwhile suggestion though? If it was desireable to combine a cab with maximum seating capacity and a single power car was preferable...

Of course the cost of adaptation and doing something about the doors would be significant. Easier to rewire the power car and use all 442 trailers I suppose. Oh dear, how quickly we descend into the usual piffle! :-/

Given the ITT placed a considerable premium on faster services I doubt any DVT solution would be possible as to run Voyager timings over Drumochter and Slochd 1 Power Car, 4 Coaches and a DVT is just not going to work.

The tender was basically written by Transport Scotland to allow bidders to absorb the extra costs of operating Voyagers by running faster trains and getting a financial credit for that in the assessment. Where Abellio were clever was in realising they could lease short HST sets for less than Voyagers while still meeting the accelerated timetables bonus.

Using DVTs would remove that speed bonus from the bid for a relatively small capacity increase.

 

[sprinterguy]

Given the ITT placed a considerable premium on faster services I doubt any DVT solution would be possible as to run Voyager timings over Drumochter and Slochd 1 Power Car, 4 Coaches and a DVT is just not going to work.

Using DVTs would remove that speed bonus from the bid for a relatively small capacity increase.

The suggestion wasn't to use a DVT though, it was to utilise one power car with four trailers, one of which is fitted with a driving cab, i.e. a DTSO or DBSO.

Granted that you would still have a similar power to weight ratio as with a 2+8 HST formation, so with improved journey times being a critical requirement then it is probably moot anyway.

 

[Altnabreac]

The suggestion wasn't to use a DVT though, it was to utilise one power car with four trailers, one of which is fitted with a driving cab, i.e. a DTSO or DBSO.

Granted that you would still have a similar power to weight ratio as with a 2+8 HST formation, so with improved journey times being a critical requirement then it is probably moot anyway.

Sorry was forgetting it was a DBSO we were discussing rather than the DVTs mentioned earlier in the thread.

As you say it still isn't a big enough PWR as I understand the EC 2+8 HST runs at pretty much 170 timings so I suspect 2+5 is at the upper limits of what can keep to the proposed faster times.

Not sure if 2+6 might just be OK but at the limit

 

[Yew]

Had to happen!

In all seriousness is it a worthwhile suggestion though? If it was desireable to combine a cab with maximum seating capacity and a single power car was preferable...

Of course the cost of adaptation and doing something about the doors would be significant. Easier to rewire the power car and use all 442 trailers I suppose. Oh dear, how quickly we descend into the usual piffle! :-/

It would have happened at some point, although if you where using 442's I would have thought it would be easier to wire a Class 68 to work with htem thana HST.

I would guess what 2+4 would be used if there was an eventual plan to have more trailers on the rake, whereas 1+3+dbso would be used if it was planned to keep the rakes at 4 coaches long. I would guess a 2+6 HST could probably keep turbostar timings too, remember, a 2+5 HST can keep voyager timings, and those are pretty much the fastest accelerating DMU's around.

I wonder if we'll see power doors? or some other door modifications (interior handles and autoclosers?)

 

[455driver]

I see every one missed my point about brake force when operating as a 2+4 completely! :roll:

Single power cars run, back to back power cars run, HSTs with 1,2,3,4 etc coaches run, big deal, the point is they don't run at full linespeed due to lack of brakeforce because there are limits on maximum speed the shorter the train gets which was the point I was trying to make but please feel free to ignore the facts of the situation!

 

[jopsuk]

I believe in the porterbrook brochure for hsts, though may have been another rosco report. Existing dvt cabs need to be remodelled so may as well start from scratch and can now include seating.

Nothing on the porterbrook website suggesting 2+4HSTs nor using DVTs/DBSOs for HSTs. There is, in the LHCS brochure, a half a page on "DVT options"- this was essentially prepared for the Great Eastern 90+Mark3 operation, and consists of: DVT as is, DVT with some seating, Convert a Mark 3a to a DBSO or complete new built.


There seems to be a lot of crossed wires and so far no one has been able to provide a primary source for the 2+4/2+5 fleet details. If it is a "published document" it should be possible to provide this. Please can we separate the "what I think should happen", "what I heard third hand is going to happen via a mate of a driver's son" and "this is what the TOC/ROSCO/DFT/TS have said is going to happen (with link)"?

 

[PG]

I see every one missed my point about brake force when operating as a 2+4 completely! :roll:

Single power cars run, back to back power cars run, HSTs with 1,2,3,4 etc coaches run, big deal, the point is they don't run at full linespeed due to lack of brakeforce because there are limits on maximum speed the shorter the train gets which was the point I was trying to make but please feel free to ignore the facts of the situation!

err yep some of us, esp those not at the sharp end i.e. me , do need it spelt out - I now understand the point you're getting at, thanks

 

[ainsworth74]

I see every one missed my point about brake force when operating as a 2+4 completely!

We can't all be experts like you

Single power cars run, back to back power cars run, HSTs with 1,2,3,4 etc coaches run, big deal, the point is they don't run at full linespeed due to lack of brakeforce because there are limits on maximum speed the shorter the train gets which was the point I was trying to make but please feel free to ignore the facts of the situation!

What kind of speed reduction do you suffer? They're only going to need to be able to 90-100mph up in Scotland. Or is the reduction going to potentially mean that not even that is possible?