Options for TPE rolling stock in the future

[RobShipway]

Of course you can use the basic design for another order but thus far there haven't been any takers - however CAF still clearly found a way to do the design work for this small fleet and make the contract pay. Unless they were doing it out of charity, which seems unlikely. Hitachi uses modular design concepts, so I should think they could come up with a UK-gauge tilt bodyshell without too much grief if asked. And probably with 1/3, 2/3 door spacings if required. Their rolling stock brochure

http://www.hitachirail-eu.com/medialibrary/2012/06/01/0ef095d0/RailPartnershipMay2012.pdf

clearly states that an AT300 series train can be supplied with either what they call 'corner' doors, or 1/3, 2/3 spacings, presumably something like the 395s. So Hitachi may be able to offer TPE bidders both a non-tilt bi-mode train suited to the North TPE core with 1/3, 2/3 doors, plus an electric tilt train with end doors for Scottish services, sharing a lot of common components, which might be a more attractive idea than buying a few babylinos.



The 180s have power doors and while you can close up quicker than slam doors - though there are usually plenty of platform staff at Reading to deal with the HSTs - the actual process of getting people on and off a 180 is scarcely any better than an HST. The IEPs are not going to be any different, given the key constraints are door width and how fast people can move in and out of the coaches on aisles that are one person wide. Whereas a 1/3, 2/3 arrangement features door spaces that are two people wide and offers two directions to go in once inside the coach rather than one which you get with end doors and is clearly a far more suitable arrangement for the core section of TPE North, wherever the train's final destination may be.



Well I'm afraid all the evidence, with overcrowded trains on TPE, Northern and lots of other parts of the network, is that the beancounters are not at all generous when it comes to providing enough rolling stock for current needs, never mind allowing for growth. And the TPE bidders will have to fight these people tooth and nail to get as much rolling stock as they can, which probably will still turn out not to be enough anyway.



None of which gets us away from the fact that there was a period when quite a lot of HSTs were sat around doing nothing. Unlike your original contention that they have all been working their little socks off without a pause.

At what point do you believe HSTs are going to be sitting around? When some of the HST's get replaced they will be of to works to get the coaches rebuilt to have electric doors in place of the slam doors. The only ones that might be sitting around are going to be the ones in a few years time that get replaced by AT300's which is going to be too long for the TPE bidder to wait I believe.

It maybe be me, but I can see someone like Siemens possibly other a tri - mode train that can use AC/DC/diesel power and where as stated previously there is two type of train in the same vain that you have class 450/444 that South West Trains use but a more modern version using more modern materials to make the trains lighter.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Of course you can use the basic design for another order but thus far there haven't been any takers - however CAF still clearly found a way to do the design work for this small fleet and make the contract pay. Unless they were doing it out of charity, which seems unlikely. Hitachi uses modular design concepts, so I should think they could come up with a UK-gauge tilt bodyshell without too much grief if asked. And probably with 1/3, 2/3 door spacings if required. Their rolling stock brochure

http://www.hitachirail-eu.com/medialibrary/2012/06/01/0ef095d0/RailPartnershipMay2012.pdf

clearly states that an AT300 series train can be supplied with either what they call 'corner' doors, or 1/3, 2/3 spacings, presumably something like the 395s. So Hitachi may be able to offer TPE bidders both a non-tilt bi-mode train suited to the North TPE core with 1/3, 2/3 doors, plus an electric tilt train with end doors for Scottish services, sharing a lot of common components, which might be a more attractive idea than buying a few babylinos.

The question is whether Hitachi, or anyone else, could whip up an electric train with enough diesel power to match a 185 up the hills which doesn't involve a raised floor in the middle, thus making it very difficult to add doors at the suburban positions. The Class 395 design has a flat floor throughout at the standard EMU height, so it isn't a challenge to put the doors at 1/3 and 2/3rds positions.

The 180s have power doors and while you can close up quicker than slam doors - though there are usually plenty of platform staff at Reading to deal with the HSTs - the actual process of getting people on and off a 180 is scarcely any better than an HST. The IEPs are not going to be any different, given the key constraints are door width and how fast people can move in and out of the coaches on aisles that are one person wide. Whereas a 1/3, 2/3 arrangement features door spaces that are two people wide and offers two directions to go in once inside the coach rather than one which you get with end doors and is clearly a far more suitable arrangement for the core section of TPE North, wherever the train's final destination may be.

The 180s are also only five carriages long, compared to eight or nine for an HST. Even if passenger numbers are the same, they'll be better distributed along the length of the train and thus the number of doorways available.

I'm not evangelising for end doored InterCity stock on TP North. I'm trying to argue that in the light of the difficulties involved with electrification, using such stock on the least unsuitable routes possible is a manageable compromise which would then free up stock for other services and enhance the longer-distance journeys as well. Once the wires are up, and the longer-distance TP flows are run on HS3 (if that is a whole new line), then TP North will be run with 8 car AT200/380-alikes just like how Network Rail originally intended for it to be.

Well I'm afraid all the evidence, with overcrowded trains on TPE, Northern and lots of other parts of the network, is that the beancounters are not at all generous when it comes to providing enough rolling stock for current needs, never mind allowing for growth. And the TPE bidders will have to fight these people tooth and nail to get as much rolling stock as they can, which probably will still turn out not to be enough anyway.

Said beancounters would have also already paid for the stock, meaning they may as well use it if it's available. Remember too that the economics of a new stock order will be better if there is a clear path for them to live out a full service life. AT300 carriages ordered for TransPennine would never be sitting unused, since there will always be another use for them somewhere on the network. The open-access paths on the ECML could be strengthened to be full length between King's Cross and Doncaster, and that would soak up quite a few extra carriages ordered for TP North around the time they would be made available.

None of which gets us away from the fact that there was a period when quite a lot of HSTs were sat around doing nothing. Unlike your original contention that they have all been working their little socks off without a pause.

When did I contend that they've always been in active service? I'm contending that because they are of a very standard nature, when a TOC which already used HSTs needed more stock it was very easy for them to go and pick up any which were left unused.

 

[matacaster]

I thought the issue with this was fairly well stated... Acceleration!

Aside from reducing the length of a Mk4 rake, I'm not sure swapping to a Class 90 or Class 88 locomotive (which are better set up for acceleration to 110/100mph) will do enough.

Wouldn't it be possible to regear the 91's for say 100mph or 110mph max which I think would give much improved acceleration. As they were designed for 140mph, the current gearing is only fit for long stretches with few stops like ECML.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can't see the TP wiring being reinstated in the short term.
It's all now linked in with the Northern Hub work (also delayed), and maybe HS3 decisions.
It remains baffling that the eastern section (Neville Hill-Colton Jn/Selby) has been stopped.
It's difficult to see what issues there were on these straight and simple routes.
A plan to run local EMUs would be better than the limbo the whole project seems to be in.

Perhaps the problem is that the routes you mention don't go anywhere near London?

 

[RobShipway]

The question is whether Hitachi, or anyone else, could whip up an electric train with enough diesel power to match a 185 up the hills which doesn't involve a raised floor in the middle, thus making it very difficult to add doors at the suburban positions. The Class 395 design has a flat floor throughout at the standard EMU height, so it isn't a challenge to put the doors at 1/3 and 2/3rds positions.



The 180s are also only five carriages long, compared to eight or nine for an HST. Even if passenger numbers are the same, they'll be better distributed along the length of the train and thus the number of doorways available.

I'm not evangelising for end doored InterCity stock on TP North. I'm trying to argue that in the light of the difficulties involved with electrification, using such stock on the least unsuitable routes possible is a manageable compromise which would then free up stock for other services and enhance the longer-distance journeys as well. Once the wires are up, and the longer-distance TP flows are run on HS3 (if that is a whole new line), then TP North will be run with 8 car AT200/380-alikes just like how Network Rail originally intended for it to be.



Said beancounters would have also already paid for the stock, meaning they may as well use it if it's available. Remember too that the economics of a new stock order will be better if there is a clear path for them to live out a full service life. AT300 carriages ordered for TransPennine would never be sitting unused, since there will always be another use for them somewhere on the network. The open-access paths on the ECML could be strengthened to be full length between King's Cross and Doncaster, and that would soak up quite a few extra carriages ordered for TP North around the time they would be made available.



When did I contend that they've always been in active service? I'm contending that because they are of a very standard nature, when a TOC which already used HSTs needed more stock it was very easy for them to go and pick up any which were left unused.

What HST's do you think will be unused other than any where the carriages will be rebuilt with electric doors within the next 5 years?

 

[NotATrainspott]

What HST's do you think will be unused other than any where the carriages will be rebuilt with electric doors within the next 5 years?

Em, the ones displaced by the IEPs/AT300s? The new ScotRail fleet is just made of the HSTs released by the original set of GWML IEPs. The DfT has just approved an order of AT300s to replace the remaining HSTs on West of England services, so GWR will be HST-less by 2020 or so. The surplus of 125mph D(E)MUs means that EMT and CrossCountry won't be likely to take them on either. It does look like the ScotRail ones will be the only ones in TOC revenue service in 2025.

 

[Haydn1971]

And HS3 isn't one big IF? You can have all the 'vision' you like but at the moment that is all it is, unlike the crowds of people using Northern and TPE services right now. We can't wait for politicians' vague fantasies about HS3 to be turned into something more concrete and the pace of HS2 development hardly suggests an HS3 is going to be with us any time soon. Six eight-car trains per hour through the Leeds-Huddersfield-Manchester corridor would still represent a big boost to capacity and the way to deliver it has been determined - unlike pretty much anything at all to do with HS3

Let's get one thing clear - I'm not saying don't do anything on TPE North - I'm saying it's time for the DfT to stop faffing about with false promises and deliver new longer DMU's or Bi-modes as soon as possible to improve capacity in 2-3 years and still push ahead with HS3 as a long term solution - Electrification will happen on TPE North, but it's looking like a start could be a good five years from now, it's going to take years, we won't see the benefits until at least mid 2020's.

HS2 is pressing ahead, just because you aren't seeing stuff happening on the ground doing mean it isn't full speed ahead - there's huge amounts of planning processes, early stage design, ground investigations, land ownership etc - these all take time and need to be mostly resolved before starting on site.

HS3 is intrinsically linked to what happens with advancing the Sheffield-Leeds element of HS2 - which could be built relatively quickly, providing benefits earlier than the originally envisaged 2032 date - complete the pre construction stuff in three years, get on site in a year and perhaps a three year build time to drop in the HS2 line between a transition North of Meadowhall and another just east of Wakefield (about 35-40km of track) with an early delivery of 300kph commuter units could be delivered as early as 2023 starting the transformation, similarly get the processes going next year for HS3 and you could be getting services under the Pennines as early as 2030. The only thing getting in the way is a lack of vision.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Let's get one thing clear - I'm not saying don't do anything on TPE North - I'm saying it's time for the DfT to stop faffing about with false promises and deliver new longer DMU's or Bi-modes as soon as possible to improve capacity in 2-3 years and still push ahead with HS3 as a long term solution - Electrification will happen on TPE North, but it's looking like a start could be a good five years from now, it's going to take years, we won't see the benefits until at least mid 2020's.

HS2 is pressing ahead, just because you aren't seeing stuff happening on the ground doing mean it isn't full speed ahead - there's huge amounts of planning processes, early stage design, ground investigations, land ownership etc - these all take time and need to be mostly resolved before starting on site.

HS3 is intrinsically linked to what happens with advancing the Sheffield-Leeds element of HS2 - which could be built relatively quickly, providing benefits earlier than the originally envisaged 2032 date - complete the pre construction stuff in three years, get on site in a year and perhaps a three year build time to drop in the HS2 line between a transition North of Meadowhall and another just east of Wakefield (about 35-40km of track) with an early delivery of 300kph commuter units could be delivered as early as 2023 starting the transformation, similarly get the processes going next year for HS3 and you could be getting services under the Pennines as early as 2030. The only thing getting in the way is a lack of vision.

All depends on getting the HS2 phase 2 Hybrid bill plus a separate Hybrid bill for HS3 through parliament as quickly as possible. Given that the decision on phase 2 of HS2 is running a year late already and HS3 is no more than a vague concept at the moment I can't see a HS3 hybrid bill entering parliament till after the 2020 general election at the earliest and won't achieve royal assent till around 2025. Then there has to be enough skilled people to build the thing, people who will be employed on building parts of HS2 such as the West Midlands to Crewe section first (by 2027) before any Sheffield to Leeds or Tunnel under the Pennines sections so I seriously doubt there will be any HS3 services before 2035 at the earliest.

 

[RobShipway]

Em, the ones displaced by the IEPs/AT300s? The new ScotRail fleet is just made of the HSTs released by the original set of GWML IEPs. The DfT has just approved an order of AT300s to replace the remaining HSTs on West of England services, so GWR will be HST-less by 2020 or so. The surplus of 125mph D(E)MUs means that EMT and CrossCountry won't be likely to take them on either. It does look like the ScotRail ones will be the only ones in TOC revenue service in 2025.

I think that you may find that HST carriages not converted to use electric power doors will end up on the scrap heap as without this they will not pass the disability act to come into place in 2020 and the power cars not used will either act as spares for the Scottish HST's or be scrapped as well.

So the only HST power cars or perhaps some coaches I see lying idle are those that are being used as spares.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I think that you may find that HST carriages not converted to use electric power doors will end up on the scrap heap as without this they will not pass the disability act to come into place in 2020 and the power cars not used will either act as spares for the Scottish HST's or be scrapped as well.

So the only HST power cars or perhaps some coaches I see lying idle are those that are being used as spares.

I'm really confused about what on earth you're trying to argue here, since you don't seem to be suggesting anything different what I'm saying. The only HSTs left in revenue service in 2025 will be the upgraded ScotRail ones. There might be one or two which will enter preservation, and the NMT will probably keep on going until Network Rail replace it with an HS2 classic-compatible-based measurement train or two, but apart from that all the power cars and Mk3 carriages will be scrapped. They're not going to be sitting around lying idle, because they're going to exist.

 

[jimm]

At what point do you believe HSTs are going to be sitting around? When some of the HST's get replaced they will be of to works to get the coaches rebuilt to have electric doors in place of the slam doors. The only ones that might be sitting around are going to be the ones in a few years time that get replaced by AT300's which is going to be too long for the TPE bidder to wait I believe.

Why don't you try reading posts back up the thread first, then you would see the discussion we were having about HSTs, which was about the period when a lot of them were laid up for many months after being displaced from XC by the arrival of the Voyagers. Certainly not any notion of some going to TPE, which is not going to happen unless things get really desperate.

The question is whether Hitachi, or anyone else, could whip up an electric train with enough diesel power to match a 185 up the hills which doesn't involve a raised floor in the middle, thus making it very difficult to add doors at the suburban positions. The Class 395 design has a flat floor throughout at the standard EMU height, so it isn't a challenge to put the doors at 1/3 and 2/3rds positions.

As I have already said, you do not need to use the particular MTU engine that is going to be fitted on the 800s and AT300s, which pumps out a thunking 700 kW (just under 940hp) which is a whole lot more than the 750hp Cummins under the floor of the 185s (and 180s and 22xs), so finding an engine from MTU (aka Rolls Royce), Cummins or someone else that can match a 185's power on another type of unit, and provide a flat floor throughout, is unlikely to be the problem you seem to think.

The 180s are also only five carriages long, compared to eight or nine for an HST. Even if passenger numbers are the same, they'll be better distributed along the length of the train and thus the number of doorways available.

I'm not evangelising for end doored InterCity stock on TP North. I'm trying to argue that in the light of the difficulties involved with electrification, using such stock on the least unsuitable routes possible is a manageable compromise which would then free up stock for other services and enhance the longer-distance journeys as well. Once the wires are up, and the longer-distance TP flows are run on HS3 (if that is a whole new line), then TP North will be run with 8 car AT200/380-alikes just like how Network Rail originally intended for it to be.

End doors are end doors, however many coaches there are in a train and coaches fitted with them are slower to load and unload. No ifs, no buts. And if TPE ends up with them on any service they will always be an operational liability on the Leeds-Huddersfield-Manchester section.

Said beancounters would have also already paid for the stock, meaning they may as well use it if it's available. Remember too that the economics of a new stock order will be better if there is a clear path for them to live out a full service life. AT300 carriages ordered for TransPennine would never be sitting unused, since there will always be another use for them somewhere on the network. The open-access paths on the ECML could be strengthened to be full length between King's Cross and Doncaster, and that would soak up quite a few extra carriages ordered for TP North around the time they would be made available.

When did I contend that they've always been in active service? I'm contending that because they are of a very standard nature, when a TOC which already used HSTs needed more stock it was very easy for them to go and pick up any which were left unused.

Well we haven't actually got to anyone ordering anything for TPE yet, have we? Or even deciding what happens with the wiring scheme, which will be an important consideration when it comes to determining the actual shape of such orders.

You said - post 105 on page 7 of the thread - that HST sets "have always been able to find a user" but as I pointed out, the ones discarded by XC didn't, and were it not for Operation Rio which saw the SRA footing the bill for many of them to be reactivated, and First Group buying some outright, the chances are a good few would have been cut up years ago. So there is no certainty that any AT300s would immediately find a home, especially in an age of DfT micro-management of franchise finances where the TOCs have had to fight tooth and nail to be allowed to take extra stock, such as 150s moving from LM to FGW.

And why is it that people are obsessed with 'full-length' trains? It seems to me that both GC and HT consider five coaches to be pretty much the optimum size of train for their purposes, balancing running costs against a decent number of passengers to bring in the money, rather like Ryanair's passion for the Boeing 737.

 

[RobShipway]

Why don't you try reading posts back up the thread first, then you would see the discussion we were having about HSTs, which was about the period when a lot of them were laid up for many months after being displaced from XC by the arrival of the Voyagers. Certainly not any notion of some going to TPE, which is not going to happen unless things get really desperate.
.

I did actually read the posts from the beginning of this thread before commenting as I always do.

In no way was I suggesting that the HSTs would be going to TPE unless as you have said there is desperate need for some stock and the HSTs are the only stock available.

I was just curious as to at what point over the next 5 - 10 years you think that the HSTs would be sitting around, as other than those being used for spares I do not see the HSTs sitting around doing nothing unless one of them is in a museum like NRM or at the Didcot Railway if they have space for an HST set.

 

[D365]

I was just curious as to at what point over the next 5 - 10 years you think that the HSTs would be sitting around, as other than those being used for spares I do not see the HSTs sitting around doing nothing unless one of them is in a museum like NRM or at the Didcot Railway if they have space for an HST set.

The discussion before you joined in was about the CrossCountry HSTs which were originally replaced by their new Voyager trains, the question you are asking here is about a completely different timeline (for rolling stock renewal) which is yet to begin in earnest.

Let me ask a question in return: Do you foresee all [redundant] HST formations being scrapped immediately?

It certainly did not happen after the Voyagers were introduced.

 

[pemma]

Jimm - How exactly would loading/unloading be slower using a longer train but one with end doors? The only reason I can think of is if passengers all congregate near the same doors which is an easy problem to solve.

 

[NotATrainspott]

As I have already said, you do not need to use the particular MTU engine that is going to be fitted on the 800s and AT300s, which pumps out a thunking 700 kW (just under 940hp) which is a whole lot more than the 750hp Cummins under the floor of the 185s (and 180s and 22xs), so finding an engine from MTU (aka Rolls Royce), Cummins or someone else that can match a 185's power on another type of unit, and provide a flat floor throughout, is unlikely to be the problem you seem to think.

If new trains were bi-modes, which seems almost certain, then they'll need all the components of an electric train like the transformer. The AT300 design puts the pantograph and transformer in the driving vehicles, leaving no space for an engine. The remaining carriages then have to have more powerful engines to compensate compared to the other post-privatisation DEMUs, which all have one engine per carriage. That each carriage is 2-3m longer won't help either. If the engineers at Hitachi find it possible to use a smaller engine then I'm sure they'll use that instead.

End doors are end doors, however many coaches there are in a train and coaches fitted with them are slower to load and unload. No ifs, no buts. And if TPE ends up with them on any service they will always be an operational liability on the Leeds-Huddersfield-Manchester section.

Would it be more of an operational liability to not be able to take on as many new carriages? The ideal situation is that the TPE bidders can get a train manufacturer to order the perfect train for TP North - 125mph capable on electric power, capable of matching a 185 over the Pennines on diesel power and with wide gangways so that it works well in the core. Failing that, they'll have to make a decision and I'm trying to argue that in the light of the situation, the least bad solution is to get more carriages even if they're not ideally suited to the route. These less-than-ideal trains should then be designed internally to minimise the effects of the door layout, since the internal layout can make a difference to dwell times even with end doors.

Well we haven't actually got to anyone ordering anything for TPE yet, have we? Or even deciding what happens with the wiring scheme, which will be an important consideration when it comes to determining the actual shape of such orders.

The TPE bidders are planning on the basis that TP North will not be electrified within the term of the franchise.

You said - post 105 on page 7 of the thread - that HST sets "have always been able to find a user" but as I pointed out, the ones discarded by XC didn't, and were it not for Operation Rio which saw the SRA footing the bill for many of them to be reactivated, and First Group buying some outright, the chances are a good few would have been cut up years ago. So there is no certainty that any AT300s would immediately find a home, especially in an age of DfT micro-management of franchise finances where the TOCs have had to fight tooth and nail to be allowed to take extra stock, such as 150s moving from LM to FGW.

I was wrong to say that they've 'always' been able to find a user, then. However, when a user did come knocking, as has happened more recently as passenger numbers have soared and the short new trains have proved to be inadequate, it was easy for them to add the HSTs into their fleet since all their staff and equipment were already ready to handle them.

If you have to order more trains than are required in the medium-long term for the interest of the short term, the least bad way of going about it is to buy the same model as is used elsewhere. That means the costs to the TOCs of adding them to their fleet in future are minimised. It's like how the ROSCOs did speculative orders for Turbostars back when they were being built. Even if they didn't immediately have a user identified, the ROSCOs knew that they would be able to find a user eventually without any major hassle. They wouldn't have gone and bought a completely or substantially different model speculatively because they knew they would have had much more difficulty then getting it leased out.

And why is it that people are obsessed with 'full-length' trains? It seems to me that both GC and HT consider five coaches to be pretty much the optimum size of train for their purposes, balancing running costs against a decent number of passengers to bring in the money, rather like Ryanair's passion for the Boeing 737.

On the ECML, MML and GWML, 5 car sets can be doubled to use up the full length of the platforms available. 5 car sets on TP North would just waste the platform lengths available (after works at Huddersfield are completed) because the maximum length is somewhere between 7 and 8 carriages, and the minimum length of an AT300 is 5 carriages. If Hitachi whip up a bi-mode 125mph AT200 then there's nothing at all wrong with ordering four-car sets, since they could be doubled to efficiently use the platform space and then reduce operational costs off-peak.

The open-access operators get by with short trains because they aren't allowed to call at the major market stations which make longer trains profitable.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Apologies for briefly shifting this topic from the future of Transpennine to the present, but I've noticed an apparent increase in the number of 6-car formations on North TPE services in the last week or so. Increased availability of 185s presumably, have any returned from long-term repairs (the Malton l/c incident for instance)?

 

[thealexweb]

How many Class 185s are still in use by Transpennine North West? And does anyone know how many they utilised on the north west routes at their peak prior to the December 2013 timetable change.

 

[RobShipway]

The discussion before you joined in was about the CrossCountry HSTs which were originally replaced by their new Voyager trains, the question you are asking here is about a completely different timeline (for rolling stock renewal) which is yet to begin in earnest.

Let me ask a question in return: Do you foresee all [redundant] HST formations being scrapped immediately?

It certainly did not happen after the Voyagers were introduced.

Personally I do not see all redundant HST being scrapped. Yes, some will be used as spares for the HST's going to Scotrail, but I think the others that are not kept to be spares could be put to good use by another TOC such as possibly Grand Central or a new TOC using the HST's for routes such as Cleethorpes to Holyhead but in short 5 or 6 car formation with the carriages being chilternised.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Personally I do not see all redundant HST being scrapped. Yes, some will be used as spares for the HST's going to Scotrail, but I think the others that are not kept to be spares could be put to good use by another TOC such as possibly Grand Central or a new TOC using the HST's for routes such as Cleethorpes to Holyhead but in short 5 or 6 car formation with the carriages being chilternised.

GC will be getting rid of the ones they already have as soon they can...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The ideal situation is that the TPE bidders can get a train manufacturer to order the perfect train for TP North - 125mph capable on electric power, capable of matching a 185 over the Pennines on diesel power and with wide gangways so that it works well in the core.

The ideal TPE bi-mode train would also tilt on the WCML.
Now that really would be a valuable train (if even more expensive).

 

[WatcherZero]

Thing is though that any HS2 Scotland speed upgrade of the WCML is unlikely to include tilt instead focusing on clearing bottlenecks, adding loops and increasing conventional line speeds through track straightening, so while its a little ways off something that could do 125/140 would be beneficial even if it didn't tilt, in fact tilt may even be a superfluous weight/maintenence cost penalty for the Manchester-Scotland route.

 

[swt_passenger]

GC will be getting rid of the ones they already have as soon they can...

As they clearly say in their recent ECML track access application, they want to standardise on 180s and bin their HSTs. Sounds like they are being realistic.

 

[D365]

As they clearly say in their recent ECML track access application, they want to standardise on 180s and bin their HSTs. Sounds like they are being realistic.

And there's a good chance that they can claim the remaining four 180s if Hull Trains is to receive a new electric/bi-mode fleet.

 

[Bevan Price]

Personally I do not see all redundant HST being scrapped. Yes, some will be used as spares for the HST's going to Scotrail, but I think the others that are not kept to be spares could be put to good use by another TOC such as possibly Grand Central or a new TOC using the HST's for routes such as Cleethorpes to Holyhead but in short 5 or 6 car formation with the carriages being chilternised.

In addition, I expect that some - maybe as many as 20 - HSTs will be bought by charter comapanies, to replace ageing loco-hauled Mark 1 and 2 stock on charter trains. Some may even be upgraded for use on Northern Belle - style luxury tours. The only residual "heritage" hauled coaches may be a few sets for use on steam-hauled charters (assuming that some of these still exist by the 2020s) ,

 

[BurtonM]

An heritage HST set does sound silly, but at the same time it's totally plausible...

 

[61653 HTAFC]

An heritage HST set does sound silly, but at the same time it's totally plausible...

Given that Virgin CrossCountry painted a few 47s into heritage liveries for their last few months, perhaps we can try and persuade VTEC to do the same and have a blue, executive and swallow HST set on the East Coast...

 

[SpacePhoenix]

In addition, I expect that some - maybe as many as 20 - HSTs will be bought by charter comapanies, to replace ageing loco-hauled Mark 1 and 2 stock on charter trains. Some may even be upgraded for use on Northern Belle - style luxury tours. The only residual "heritage" hauled coaches may be a few sets for use on steam-hauled charters (assuming that some of these still exist by the 2020s) ,

If some old HSTs were to be bought by charter companies they'd have to be short-link to allow them into 3rd rail territory

 

[47802]

In addition, I expect that some - maybe as many as 20 - HSTs will be bought by charter comapanies, to replace ageing loco-hauled Mark 1 and 2 stock on charter trains. Some may even be upgraded for use on Northern Belle - style luxury tours. The only residual "heritage" hauled coaches may be a few sets for use on steam-hauled charters (assuming that some of these still exist by the 2020s) ,

It will be interesting to see if any of the charter companies buy some HST's, presumably GA Loco Hauled MK3 will likely be an alternate option, but in either case presumably they would still need to do some work on the doors, altering the Central Locking and internal door handle might be cheaper than power doors but would still be expensive for a charter company I expect, of course if they could get hold of some MK4's it would mean a lot less work, but we getting somewhat away from TPX

 

[SpacePhoenix]

It will be interesting to see if any of the charter companies buy some HST's, presumably GA Loco Hauled MK3 will likely be an alternate option, but in either case presumably they would still need to do some work on the doors, altering the Central Locking and internal door handle might be cheaper than power doors but would still be expensive for a charter company I expect, of course if they could get hold of some MK4's it would mean a lot less work, but we getting somewhat away from TPX

Could Mk4s work in third rail territory without fouling the 3rd rail?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

It will be interesting to see if any of the charter companies buy some HST's, presumably GA Loco Hauled MK3 will likely be an alternate option, but in either case presumably they would still need to do some work on the doors, altering the Central Locking and internal door handle might be cheaper than power doors but would still be expensive for a charter company I expect, of course if they could get hold of some MK4's it would mean a lot less work, but we getting somewhat away from TPX

I'm surprised by this, surely as they'd effectively be working museum pieces so would have some derogation on the accessibility regs? If not, surely this would presumably affect all the MK.1s currently used on steam charters too? (not the internal handle issue, mind!).

 

[47802]

I'm surprised by this, surely as they'd effectively be working. museum pieces so would have some derogation on the accessibility regs? If not, surely this would presumably affect all the MK.1s currently used on steam charters too? (not the internal handle issue, mind!).

Will the charter companies be given some exemptions I don't know, I guess if there were stewards to man the doors you might be ok, but if you wanted to run some charters without a load of stewards presumably you would have to do something with the doors.