Potential future uses for stored HSTs?

[ainsworth74]

They've done well to last as long as they did - a lot of front line "flagship" stock didn't last anything like as long -

I bet if BR was still a thing we'd have seen mass withdrawals and scrapping of HSTs around ten years ago and the final few that might have survived to go onto secondary routes (like XC) would be getting cut up as we speak. I certainly couldn't see BR expecting to continue using them well into the 2020s...

 

[gingertom]

I bet if BR was still a thing we'd have seen mass withdrawals and scrapping of HSTs around ten years ago and the final few that might have survived to go onto secondary routes (like XC) would be getting cut up as we speak. I certainly couldn't see BR expecting to continue using them well into the 2020s...

what would you speculate would have replaced them, and would the money have been made available?

 

[tbtc]

Glasgow to Nottingham would be a good route

I bet if BR was still a thing we'd have seen mass withdrawals and scrapping of HSTs around ten years ago and the final few that might have survived to go onto secondary routes (like XC) would be getting cut up as we speak. I certainly couldn't see BR expecting to continue using them well into the 2020s...

I agree.

If we can read anything into how BR would have acted then I'd expect them to keep putting new stock on the "flagship" routes and cascading downwards - e.g. the Deltics on the ECML replaced by the HSTs, mainly replaced by the 91s (the life expectancy at the top table being relatively short)... at the same time the MML was taking the cascaded HSTs and the Deltics were cascaded onto the Transpennine for a period.

Under the privatised railway, each franchise can order their own stock, so "secondary" routes like CrossCountry, MML and TransPennine routes have all had their own brand new stock (Voyagers, 222s, 185s etc), rather than waiting for the "flagship" trains to be cascaded away from "flagship" routes.

Similarly, the high profile Glasgow - Edinburgh route got twenty year old Class 47/4s under BR (rebranded as "47/7" and given a stripe of Scottish blue), to replace the 27s (that were themselves partly cascaded from the Great Northern) but under privatisation it's had 170s and now 385s, instead of waiting for older units to pass down the food chain.

The "problem" is that the ECML/GWML have endured with HSTs for much longer as a result - a mixed blessing as it's meant that "secondary" routes like XC/ EMT/ TPE have had much younger stock than they'd otherwise have had, but has meant that the flagship routes in the UK have struggled on with stock approaching forty years old.

 

[Indigo Soup]

Uses for retired HSTs? Razor blades, frying pans, retro-reflective road markings.... but not trains.

As far as Glasgow-Nottingham goes, it's one of those routes that has been done a disservice. I suspect that you really need to think in terms of Glasgow-Leeds and Leeds-Nottingham(-St Pancras), working through Leeds for operatoinal convenience. Glasgow-Leeds ought to be quite useful, but it doesn't have a chance because the S&C has been downgraded from a main line to a rural branch.

 

[randyrippley]

DRS possibly as a replacement for the T+T 37's and mk2's.

surely there's a market for charter, rescue and football specials.

they would make a welcome replacement on the wherry lines once the 37's are retired...keeps the kids and enthusiasts happy!

I think i've also suggested before that vivarail should get their hands on a few dozen power cars and cut "n" shut them so that the cl20's can be retired...we still have desperate need of a light (dual mode preferable) mixed freight engine with stupidly low RA.
cl88's and soon-to-be 93's are both RA7, which is a big restriction on allowed paths.

a re-geared hst ( to 75 or 90mph)could work.... nice short wheelbase,2250hp is cl4 territory,and at RA5 is the same as CL37.Even de-tuned to 1800hp-ish for better fuel economy is a option
..it would also need to bulk up by a few tonnes to improve the tractive effort...but the addition of OHL pick up gear,transformers,batteries etc should see to that.

extra poles on the motors should increase torque at lower RPM,at the expense of speed(would need to check compatibility with train control system in this case).
If it's a DC control system with old fashioned motors, it should not be an issue, but AC via frequency convertor would run into timing problems.

for a super cheap solution to 2*20 maybe back to back re-geared/re-motored cl43 is what we'll see in the future...with the addition of slow speed control and start/stop.

and whats the price of all those mods, along with the cost of remanufacturing a 40 year old rust box bodyshell?
cheaper to buy new

 

[randyrippley]

I agree.

If we can read anything into how BR would have acted then I'd expect them to keep putting new stock on the "flagship" routes and cascading downwards - e.g. the Deltics on the ECML replaced by the HSTs, mainly replaced by the 91s (the life expectancy at the top table being relatively short)... at the same time the MML was taking the cascaded HSTs and the Deltics were cascaded onto the Transpennine for a period.

Under the privatised railway, each franchise can order their own stock, so "secondary" routes like CrossCountry, MML and TransPennine routes have all had their own brand new stock (Voyagers, 222s, 185s etc), rather than waiting for the "flagship" trains to be cascaded away from "flagship" routes.

Similarly, the high profile Glasgow - Edinburgh route got twenty year old Class 47/4s under BR (rebranded as "47/7" and given a stripe of Scottish blue), to replace the 27s (that were themselves partly cascaded from the Great Northern) but under privatisation it's had 170s and now 385s, instead of waiting for older units to pass down the food chain.

The "problem" is that the ECML/GWML have endured with HSTs for much longer as a result - a mixed blessing as it's meant that "secondary" routes like XC/ EMT/ TPE have had much younger stock than they'd otherwise have had, but has meant that the flagship routes in the UK have struggled on with stock approaching forty years old.

Not really true - BR itself killed off that kind of cascading when sectorisation was introduced.
The Pacers and Sprinters were all purchased for the sectors, not for TOCs.

 

[DPWH]

What's going on with this class 19 DVT? I want to call it Pinocchio - it wasn't alive before but now it is -

 

[Clip]

Think its something to do with Hydrogen power or something - think it involves Chiltern aswell if me memory serves me right

 

[43096]

for a super cheap solution to 2*20 maybe back to back re-geared/re-motored cl43 is what we'll see in the future...with the addition of slow speed control and start/stop.

Some HST power cars already have slow speed control....

 

[GrimShady]

Glasgow - Leeds would be most useful!

 

[Bevan Price]

The HSTs are mostly 40+ years old - well beyond the typical lifetime of passenger stock. Whilst a few may go to charter operators, most can be expected to go to the metal recycling plants. Sad, but inevitable, just as happened to steam, Deltics & other one-time favourites.......

 

[Peter Kelford]

The HSTs are mostly 40+ years old - well beyond the typical lifetime of passenger stock. Whilst a few may go to charter operators, most can be expected to go to the metal recycling plants. Sad, but inevitable, just as happened to steam, Deltics & other one-time favourites.......

The difference is that the UK's progress has slowed down and now the latest and 'best' isn't that much better.

 

[Chester1]

There are rumours in other threads that TfW will use some ex GWR sets until the end of the year to run Cardiff-Hoyhead services while a large number of DMUs are out of service for PRM upgrades. There is no future long term for HSTs. The GWR and Scotrail mod problems have killed the business case.

 

[Iskra]

The GWR and Scotrail mod problems have killed the business case.

Not necessarily. The price may become cheaper as Wabtec could end up short of work otherwise.

 

[Chester1]

Not necessarily. The price may become cheaper as Wabtec could end up short of work otherwise.

They must have lost a lot of money on the current project. Over budget and hugely delayed. There is not likely to be a price that both Wabtec and a Rosco will agree to. It would be better value for the Rosco to order Mark V sets. The 67s + Mark IV option that TfW have chosen will be cheaper too. There will be plenty of both out of service very soon and the work required to make them compatible and compliant is small compared with HST upgrades. Its far from certain that either contract will be delivered. How many upgraded HSTs are in service? 3?

 

[Iskra]

They must have lost a lot of money on the current project. Over budget and hugely delayed. There is not likely to be a price that both Wabtec and a Rosco will agree to. It would be better value for the Rosco to order Mark V sets. The 67s + Mark IV option that TfW have chosen will be cheaper too. There will be plenty of both out of service very soon and the work required to make them compatible and compliant is small compared with HST upgrades. Its far from certain that either contract will be delivered. How many upgraded HSTs are in service? 3?

I’m not disputing that Wabtec are in trouble, I know they are. I’m saying that it could positively affect the economics. It all depends how deep the pockets of the American owners are and if they want to keep Doncaster works going in the future or not.

 

[Bevan Price]

The difference is that the UK's progress has slowed down and now the latest and 'best' isn't that much better.

In terms of passenger comfort, replacing old trains by new - but worse - trains has been happening since the 1950s. First generation dmus, with 3+2 seating were less comfortable than most loco-hauled stock with 2+2 seating (or with compartments); cheaper to operate - yes, more efficient technically - yes, but definitely a negative improvement in terms of seating layout.

HSTs were one of the few exceptions, in that the seating layout was similar to many of the trains they replaced. Apart from the hardish seats, I would say the Class 800s are just as good as HSTs in terms of seating layout; sadly in that respect, I think both are superior to Voyagers & Pendolinos

 

[randyrippley]

In terms of passenger comfort, replacing old trains by new - but worse - trains has been happening since the 1950s. First generation dmus, with 3+2 seating were less comfortable than most loco-hauled stock with 2+2 seating (or with compartments); cheaper to operate - yes, more efficient technically - yes, but definitely a negative improvement in terms of seating layout.

HSTs were one of the few exceptions, in that the seating layout was similar to many of the trains they replaced. Apart from the hardish seats, I would say the Class 800s are just as good as HSTs in terms of seating layout; sadly in that respect, I think both are superior to Voyagers & Pendolinos

Except most DMUs actually replaced 6 per side non-corridor steam hauled stock
The DMUs were better riding, most had corridors, better heating, access to toilets, no soot smuts. And were less cramped

 

[Bevan Price]

Except most DMUs actually replaced 6 per side non-corridor steam hauled stock
The DMUs were better riding, most had corridors, better heating, access to toilets, no soot smuts. And were less cramped

In some places, yes, they replaced non-corridor stock. But they also used them on services like Manchester to North Wales; Manchester to Blackpool; Birmingham to Norwich/Cambridge, etc., replacing corridor stock, and for which their 3+2 seating was totally unsuitable -- and which I suspect helped to drive passengers away from rail in the 1960s /1970s. Improvements only started when some Class 120 DMUs (with 2+2 seating) started to be released from the Western Region.

 

[w1bbl3]

I’m not disputing that Wabtec are in trouble, I know they are. I’m saying that it could positively affect the economics. It all depends how deep the pockets of the American owners are and if they want to keep Doncaster works going in the future or not.

Not really the core feature of the Wabtec MK3 offer was to deliver compliant coaches prior to the 2020 cut off which couldn't be achieved with new builds as Bombardier, Hitachi and CAF didn't have spare capacity. As it now looks likely that project will not deliver in time the ongoing viability of project seems somewhat questionable. At the moment Hitachi only have the first group OA order to deliver in 2021, so I'd expect new build AT300 / 80x deliveries to be possible from 2021 onwards which will have an economic life of 25yrs+ vs upto 10yrs for MK3 conversions, CAF will have capacity post 2022 at Newport, Bombardier similar.

Wabtec do have a secondary issue with Doncaster works in that the post privatisation fleets have so far had refurbishment works carried out by the original manufacturer so their future work stream does seem somewhat questionable. The 2017 annual report for Wabtec Rail certainly doesn't make good reading with chunky (£25m) loss attributed to rail refurbishment projects and note stating 2018 will be negatively impacted.

 

[Indigo Soup]

In some places, yes, they replaced non-corridor stock. But they also used them on services like Manchester to North Wales; Manchester to Blackpool; Birmingham to Norwich/Cambridge, etc., replacing corridor stock, and for which their 3+2 seating was totally unsuitable -- and which I suspect helped to drive passengers away from rail in the 1960s /1970s. Improvements only started when some Class 120 DMUs (with 2+2 seating) started to be released from the Western Region.

Let's not forget that the 2+3 DMUs were meant to replace non-corridor stock on branches that got closed, where they would have constituted an improvement. Rather than let them go to waste, they were used to replace superannuated corridor coaches on the surviving routes. Had the economics been more favourable, the likes of Manchester to Blackpool probably would have got replacement stock of comparable or better quality to what they already had.