My ideas for TPE Nova 2 and 3 to eventually go to ScotRail

[Speed43125]

Scotrail are planning on having a fleet of 26 HST sets, and the network is being electrified gradually, with Perth via Stirling meant to be done by 2030, by that point, I would suggest TPE standardise on a fleet of 802s (and maybe some 185s) and dispose of the Nova 2 and 3 fleet.
Coincidentally there are a total of 26 nova 2 and 3 sets, 12 397s and 14 Mk5 sets. with the mk5s optionally being converted to electric hauled at some point. these could like for like replace the HSTs with similar long distance end door style stock.
Obviously, if the only main intercity route electrified is Queen Street to Perth, schedules would have to be altered, as there would be no need for that many EMUs, but if it continued further, I think this mix of electric and Diesel stock would fit nicely.
It would also consolidate all the Mk5s together and potentially they could then be maintained together.
Ideas? my main concern would be this quantity of trains may not be enough if passenger numbers and demand rise as they are envisioned to following the (now progressing quite nicely) HST rollout.
EDIT: oh and there aren't actually enough 88s to truly replace the 68s here if electric locos are required.

 

[hexagon789]

Scotrail are planning on having a fleet of 26 HST sets, and the network is being electrified gradually, with Perth via Stirling meant to be done by 2030, by that point, I would suggest TPE standardise on a fleet of 802s (and maybe some 185s) and dispose of the Nova 2 and 3 fleet.
Coincidentally there are a total of 26 nova 2 and 3 sets, 12 397s and 14 Mk5 sets. with the mk5s optionally being converted to electric hauled at some point. these could like for like replace the HSTs with similar long distance end door style stock.
Obviously, if the only main intercity route electrified is Queen Street to Perth, schedules would have to be altered, as there would be no need for that many EMUs, but if it continued further, I think this mix of electric and Diesel stock would fit nicely.
It would also consolidate all the Mk5s together and potentially they could then be maintained together.
Ideas? my main concern would be this quantity of trains may not be enough if passenger numbers and demand rise as they are envisioned to following the (now progressing quite nicely) HST rollout.
EDIT: oh and there aren't actually enough 88s to truly replace the 68s here if electric locos are required.

I think you would need a more electrification for that to work than simply extending the limit of the OLE on the Scottish Central from Dunblane to Perth.

 

[randyrippley]

Why do people constantly want to move stock around? We've only just got that stock and now you're planning to move it...…..
These reallocations are one of the causes of staff shortages due to the training / familiarisation needed.
The TPE stock was built to service the TPE routes and should stay there until its life expired. Likewise the Scots should get new stock, not cast-offs. Having said that, an independent Scotland wouldn't be able to afford new units anyway......
Only reason for moving the TPE stock on is if passenger numbers increase to the point where it can't cope

 

[Bletchleyite]

Only reason for moving the TPE stock on is if passenger numbers increase to the point where it can't cope

And even then, being LHCS (though bar coupled) it could be reformed to fewer, longer trains.

 

[tpjm]

Coincidentally there are a total of 25 Nova 2 and 3 sets, 12 397s and 13 Mk5a sets. with the mk5as optionally being converted to electric hauled at some point. these could like for like replace the HSTs with similar long distance end door style stock.

Fixed it for you

And even then, being LHCS (though bar coupled) it could be reformed to fewer, longer trains.

Or have an additional 2 coaches inserted into them!

 

[Speed43125]

Fixed it for you



Or have an additional 2 coaches inserted into them!

Ah sorry, Dunno how I ended up counting the spare DTSO as a full set.

 

[Clansman]

Scotrail are planning on having a fleet of 26 HST sets, and the network is being electrified gradually, with Perth via Stirling meant to be done by 2030, by that point, I would suggest TPE standardise on a fleet of 802s (and maybe some 185s) and dispose of the Nova 2 and 3 fleet.

So 30 miles of electrification in Scotland justifies cascading 2 fleets of trains from the routes in England that they were procured to be used on?

You make it sound like that old saying 'When the USA sneezes, the UK catches a cold'. It's strange how you think electrification from one Scottish town to a Scottish city should have that impact on an entirely different franchise at the other side of the country where such an infrastructure would not have an effect in the slightest in regards to what rolling stock TPE need.

Coincidentally there are a total of 26 nova 2 and 3 sets, 12 397s and 14 Mk5 sets. with the mk5s optionally being converted to electric hauled at some point. these could like for like replace the HSTs with similar long distance end door style stock.

No ScotRail HST service operates a service entirely under wires, and that still won't be the case when Perth is electrified. Why would ScotRail want 397s, and why would they want Mk5s? How do you propose to solve the problem of services operated by 397s that have to operate on non electrified routes - and why would ScotRail want to engage in the levels of investment needed for the sake of having these fleets?

I think you need to ask yourself why no bidder offered Mk5s for the ScotRail franchise, and why the HSTs were chosen. Then ask yourself where the logic is in enacting on your proposal to chop and change. There has to be sense and logic. Where is it?

I think this mix of electric and Diesel stock would fit nicely

It would also consolidate all the Mk5s together and potentially they could then be maintained together

I take it these are the only two lines of reasoning to justify your proposal as being worthwhile?

As a general comment, threads like these are nice to read and its somewhat nice to see the creativity and enthusiasm of many members. However I'll say it in the nicest way possible that it can sometimes look like these ideas derive from people's desires to fulfill fantasies, or are an example of a misinterperetation of how the system works at a stage where they don't fully understand. All I can say is to ask yourself why the options in the proposal weren't carried out, and what constraints lie ahead that would prevent them ever happening.

A good place to start in regards to this thread is the ScotRail franchise invitation to tender, and the ScotRail franchise agreement. Have a wee look at the rolling stock and timetabling criteria, and compare that with what you are proposing

 

[Purple Orange]

Scotrail are planning on having a fleet of 26 HST sets, and the network is being electrified gradually, with Perth via Stirling meant to be done by 2030, by that point, I would suggest TPE standardise on a fleet of 802s (and maybe some 185s) and dispose of the Nova 2 and 3 fleet.
Coincidentally there are a total of 26 nova 2 and 3 sets, 12 397s and 14 Mk5 sets. with the mk5s optionally being converted to electric hauled at some point. these could like for like replace the HSTs with similar long distance end door style stock.
Obviously, if the only main intercity route electrified is Queen Street to Perth, schedules would have to be altered, as there would be no need for that many EMUs, but if it continued further, I think this mix of electric and Diesel stock would fit nicely.
It would also consolidate all the Mk5s together and potentially they could then be maintained together.
Ideas? my main concern would be this quantity of trains may not be enough if passenger numbers and demand rise as they are envisioned to following the (now progressing quite nicely) HST rollout.
EDIT: oh and there aren't actually enough 88s to truly replace the 68s here if electric locos are required.

No reference to what units should be replacing the 397s and Mk5a at TPE? A TOC that serves a far greater population too.

 

[hexagon789]

No reference to what units should be replacing the 397s and Mk5a at TPE? A TOC that serves a far greater population too.

He suggests TPE standardise on 802s

 

[Purple Orange]

He suggests TPE standardise on 802s

I must apologise, I had completely missed that!

 

[hexagon789]

I must apologise, I had completely missed that!

I think it got rather lost among the rest of the post, understandably.

 

[Bletchleyite]

He suggests TPE standardise on 802s

I could, to be fair, see the sense in that, the flexibility it would offer is significant (e.g. diversionary ability, for instance Manchester-Scotland via the S&C), and I'm sure homes could be found for what they have already.

The Mk5s would indeed make a good substitute for knackered HSTs in Scotland (where there is basically no scope for electrification any time soon), though I personally think Liverpool to Nottingham is a more likely long term home for them. 397s I'm not sure about, though I'm sure somewhere could be found for them, possibly elsewhere on the WCML e.g. the Trent Valley semifast service.

 

[hexagon789]

I could, to be fair, see the sense in that, the flexibility it would offer is significant (e.g. diversionary ability, for instance Manchester-Scotland via the S&C), and I'm sure homes could be found for what they have already.

That part is quite a sensible suggestion, I agree, but passing the other two fleets to ScotRail just wouldn't work. They could go to other operators, but not ScotRail.

397s could go to Avanti perhaps and the 68+Mk5 to TfW.

 

[Clansman]

I could, to be fair, see the sense in that, the flexibility it would offer is significant (e.g. diversionary ability, for instance Manchester-Scotland via the S&C), and I'm sure homes could be found for what they have already.

The Mk5s would indeed make a good substitute for knackered HSTs in Scotland (where there is basically no scope for electrification any time soon), though I personally think Liverpool to Nottingham is a more likely long term home for them. 397s I'm not sure about, though I'm sure somewhere could be found for them, possibly elsewhere on the WCML e.g. the Trent Valley semifast service.

What is it about the Mk5s that make people so certain that they are the suitable alternative to HSTs? Is it simply because they're LHCS?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is it about the Mk5s that make people so certain that they are the suitable alternative to HSTs? Is it simply because they're LHCS?

They are the correct length, have end doors, have a similar ambiance and are diesel powered.

 

[Purple Orange]

I see the merits of acquiring more 802s for TPE should the Mk5a units go elsewhere, but in all frankness what is the likelihood of that happening? And if the Mk5a units go to Liv-Nottingham, would 6 car 185s be a useful addition for Scotland? Alternatively what if the Mk5a and the south trans pennine 185 units went to Scot Rail, and 802/804 variants were procured for Liv-Nottingham? The service could sit with EMR and be an extension of St. Pancras-Nottingham providing an alternative London route from the north west.

That all said, the only argument politically for more 802s as see it is that NPR is based on seeing 200m trains going across the Pennines, which an 8 car 802 would provide (7 cars may do the job). Therefore should an additional order for 802s take place, making them 7 car would tick the box for NPR capacity albeit only 4 tph rather than the aspirational 6 or 8 tph. Given there are already paths for 6 tph, should enough units be procured only a step change in journey times would be required to deliver NPR. Question is how should that be delivered...

 

[JonathanH]

The service could sit with EMR and be an extension of St. Pancras-Nottingham providing an alternative London route from the north west.

Seriously? What on earth is the point of that? It would be slower than taking the LNR service and not cheaper than travelling with Avanti.

 

[xotGD]

There should have been Mark 5s and 68s in Scotland in addition to those with TPE.

Water under the bridge now.

 

[hexagon789]

There should have been Mark 5s and 68s in Scotland in addition to those with TPE.

Water under the bridge now.

Why? Even delayed as they were the HSTs were note suitable than Mk5s, and are there even enough 68s?

They are the correct length, have end doors, have a similar ambiance and are diesel powered.

So do Voyagers and Meridians

 

[xotGD]

Why? Even delayed as they were the HSTs were note suitable than Mk5s, and are there even enough 68s?

Mark 5s would have been a long term solution rather than a stop-gap. And more 68s would have been built to provide the traction.

 

[hexagon789]

Mark 5s would have been a long term solution rather than a stop-gap. And more 68s would have been built to provide the traction.

I think they'd have been better with 80x in that case

 

[Purple Orange]

Seriously? What on earth is the point of that? It would be slower than taking the LNR service and not cheaper than travelling with Avanti.

Price would be the lever and why wouldn’t it be? Student markets, leisure travellers with time on their side, and opens up more East Midlands destinations to the north west.

 

[JonathanH]

Price would be the lever and why wouldn’t it be? Student markets, leisure travellers with time on their side, and opens up more East Midlands destinations to the north west.

It is all very well opening the East Midlands to the North West. That doesn't require trains from London to Nottingham to run through to Liverpool. There will be no price advantage for people with 'time on their side' - compare the price of Sheffield to London tickets with Liverpool to London tickets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So do Voyagers and Meridians

I refer you to the "similar ambiance" part. A unit with an underfloor engine does not have a "similar ambiance" to an HST.

 

[Clansman]

There should have been Mark 5s and 68s in Scotland in addition to those with TPE.

Water under the bridge now.

How do you propose that they meet the MU timings that short HSTs can meet, and how do you propose getting the Mk5s to a condition where ScotRail deem them fit enough for the quality IC7 service they were after?

It was never simply a case of thrashing in end doors on an LHCS rame that was going to make anything suitable for ScotRail. Additionally, Mk5s wouldn't have been any less of a stop gap than what the HSTs are, and the HSTs were actually wanted by passengers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How do you propose that they meet the MU timings that short HSTs can meet

They take off like the proverbial off a shovel. Far quicker in practice than any HST does.

and how do you propose getting the Mk5s to a condition where ScotRail deem them fit enough for the quality IC7 service they were after?

1st already is (to me it's the nicest 1st in the UK by a considerable margin). Standard, fit different seat cushions (nowt wrong with the frames) and rejig the seats to align more with the windows. Done.

The actual look is very high quality - the nicest interior on the rails, yes, including the Scottish HSTs.

 

[hexagon789]

I refer you to the "similar ambiance" part. A unit with an underfloor engine does not have a "similar ambiance" to an HST.

Each to their own, but the underfloor engine over never considered that noticeable on Voyagers but very noticeable on Turbostars and the like

 

[Bletchleyite]

Each to their own, but the underfloor engine over never considered that noticeable on Voyagers but very noticeable on Turbostars and the like

It's less noticeable on Voyagers than on 2nd generation DMUs (in which I include the 170 as it's just an evolution of the Class 158 and Thames Turbo), but I think it's still noticeable. Much less so on 80x, though (you can barely tell if you're on diesel or electricity), so I would consider those suitable.