Prospects of HSTs surviving on "Highland Chieftain" (London/Inverness VTEC)

[43074]

leads to the question of whether it makes sense to have Inverness-London as part of the EC franchise. Perhaps it would be more sensible to hand it over to Crosscountry, for example.

Why would adding another operator onto the ECML help anybody? Most of the traffic on these trains is in the Edinburgh-London portion anyway, where they form an important part of the hourly timetable.

Neither of you have clearly ever used the Chieftain - it's one of VTEC's most profitable trains, a significant part of the reason for this being because of the numbers of passengers who use it to make journeys such as Stirling or Perth to London. It would be a backward step to do anything else with it IMO, it's well used - particularly in summer - and there's no reason for it to change.

The other thing is that you'd probably have to chop the 07:10 Leeds to Aberdeen and 14:55 Aberdeen to King's Cross back to Edinburgh to make terminating the Chieftain at Edinburgh make any sense because otherwise you'd have a HST in Edinburgh from 16:30 onward and a set coming off Craigentinny at 11:00 which isn't particularly efficient use of stock.

 

[takno]

Neither of you have clearly ever used the Chieftain - it's one of VTEC's most profitable trains, a significant part of the reason for this being because of the numbers of passengers who use it to make journeys such as Stirling or Perth to London. It would be a backward step to do anything else with it IMO, it's well used - particularly in summer - and there's no reason for it to change.

The other thing is that you'd probably have to chop the 07:10 Leeds to Aberdeen and 14:55 Aberdeen to King's Cross back to Edinburgh to make terminating the Chieftain at Edinburgh make any sense because otherwise you'd have a HST in Edinburgh from 16:30 onward and a set coming off Craigentinny at 11:00 which isn't particularly efficient use of stock.

I have caught the highland chieftan, from Edinburgh. I never suggested cutting it at Edinburgh, and I don't think anybody else either did they?

 

[43074]

I have caught the highland chieftan, from Edinburgh. I never suggested cutting it at Edinburgh, and I don't think anybody else either did they?

No, but it follows that if BRX suggests transferring it to XC it would mean not running the Chieftain to London, as the whole point of XC is that they run the InterCity services which avoid London.

 

[BRX]

I've travelled on the HC probably in nearly every year since its inception in the 80s. I'm not suggesting changing the route, but changing its operator to one whose routes have similar stock requirements - a combination of fast mainline running with off-the wires sections involving significant gradients and so on. The point was being made that providing rolling stock ideal to the HC route would leave VTEC with a small number of sets that were anomalous compared to the rest of their operations.

Yes it would mean an XC service that ran into a London terminal, just as XC franchise services have run into London in the past, to Paddington and through Kensington Olympia.

And XC trains already run on the ECML between York and Edinburgh.

 

[gsnedders]

Wikipedia claims that a 9 coach 800 IEP is expected to weigh 540 tons (or an average 60 tons per coach). I would hope they can get the weight a bit lower than that. But if 540 is correct, diesel-mode performance climbing adverse gradients seems likely to be worse than a Class 158 or 170, and probably worse than a 9 coach HST (although it might have better acceleration from a standing start).

From memory, a 9 coach HST plus 2 power cars weighs in the region of 470 tons. That gives 4500/470 = 9.5 hp/ton

The IEP would be 3750/540 = 6.9 hp/ton

A Scotrail 3 coach 170 is about 1260//133 = 9.4 hp/ton

and a typical 2 coah 158 is about 700/77 = 9.1 hp/ton

That does, however, assume power output is constant and ignores gearing, which has a substantial affect on acceleration. If the IEP is near peak power it could well outperform the 170, given the 170 often sounds like it's struggling at low RPMs, and the diesel-electric power train should make that far more likely than the two-gear diesel-hydraulic setup of the 170.

 

[takno]

I've travelled on the HC probably in nearly every year since its inception in the 80s. I'm not suggesting changing the route, but changing its operator to one whose routes have similar stock requirements - a combination of fast mainline running with off-the wires sections involving significant gradients and so on. The point was being made that providing rolling stock ideal to the HC route would leave VTEC with a small number of sets that were anomalous compared to the rest of their operations.

Yes it would mean an XC service that ran into a London terminal, just as XC franchise services have run into London in the past, to Paddington and through Kensington Olympia.

And XC trains already run on the ECML between York and Edinburgh.

XC are already heavily challenged in terms of putting together a coherent service package by being forced to operate a range of services that just don't fit in anywhere else. As a result the classic NESW services suffer terribly, while the Nottingham-Cardiffs are basically the same as they were 20 years ago but with a misleading sheen of Intercity on the advertising.

Running more operators with more unintegrated services deep into Scotrail and VTEC territory is not the solution to a minor potential problem with some stock which has already been ordered and will actually probably do the job just fine.

 

[Jonny]

Wikipedia claims that a 9 coach 800 IEP is expected to weigh 540 tons (or an average 60 tons per coach). I would hope they can get the weight a bit lower than that. But if 540 is correct, diesel-mode performance climbing adverse gradients seems likely to be worse than a Class 158 or 170, and probably worse than a 9 coach HST (although it might have better acceleration from a standing start).

From memory, a 9 coach HST plus 2 power cars weighs in the region of 470 tons. That gives 4500/470 = 9.5 hp/ton

The IEP would be 3750/540 = 6.9 hp/ton

A Scotrail 3 coach 170 is about 1260//133 = 9.4 hp/ton

and a typical 2 coah 158 is about 700/77 = 9.1 hp/ton

Firstly, Wikipedia is vulnerable to inaccuracies. Secondly, if it turns out to be true, it would put it in the same league as the class 185s for route availability.

 

[Mag_seven]

perhaps it would be more sensible to hand it over to crosscountry, for example.

no no no

 

[Clansman]

I've travelled on the HC probably in nearly every year since its inception in the 80s. I'm not suggesting changing the route, but changing its operator to one whose routes have similar stock requirements - a combination of fast mainline running with off-the wires sections involving significant gradients and so on. The point was being made that providing rolling stock ideal to the HC route would leave VTEC with a small number of sets that were anomalous compared to the rest of their operations.

Yes it would mean an XC service that ran into a London terminal, just as XC franchise services have run into London in the past, to Paddington and through Kensington Olympia.

And XC trains already run on the ECML between York and Edinburgh.

To be honest, under that analogy TPE would already be running 185s to Inverness as opposed to Scotrail.

In a day in age where rolling stock is being ordered left right and centre, it's ludicrous to think that changing the service to a TOC who has never ran the routes at either end (excpet the odd Perth diversion to Dundee) for the sake of utilising it's rolling stock (which woud be a downgrade to the current minimum offering from Scotrail), would be beneficial on any fronts. XC Voyagers on the Chieftain would kill the service on all aspects.

 

[43096]

Given the amount of money thats been spent on the IEP project (not withstanding all the VTEC PR) I think that would be a political disaster. You can see the headlines now!

You need to go and read the VTEC franchise agreement! It has always been planned for VTEC to retain a few Mark 4 sets, but they have the option in the contract to retain either HST or Mark 4s.

 

[BRX]

I'm don't want the HC to be run with a Voyager any more than I want it to terminate at Edinburgh, neither of which things I proposed. It was a purely hypothetical musing in response to tbtc's post commenting that the requirements for the Highland section of its run were different to all of the rest of the EC network.

I simply argue that the ideal train for the HC would be similar to the ideal train for many of XC's long distance routes. In a scenario where XC procured a batch of such trains, I think there would be a case for considering moving the service into that franchise.

 

[sprinterguy]

Wikipedia claims that a 9 coach 800 IEP is expected to weigh 540 tons (or an average 60 tons per coach). I would hope they can get the weight a bit lower than that. But if 540 is correct, diesel-mode performance climbing adverse gradients seems likely to be worse than a Class 158 or 170, and probably worse than a 9 coach HST (although it might have better acceleration from a standing start).

From memory, a 9 coach HST plus 2 power cars weighs in the region of 470 tons. That gives 4500/470 = 9.5 hp/ton

The IEP would be 3750/540 = 6.9 hp/ton

A Scotrail 3 coach 170 is about 1260//133 = 9.4 hp/ton

and a typical 2 coah 158 is about 700/77 = 9.1 hp/ton

Blimey, when put into perspective like that it does make them sound rather underpowered for the Highland Main Line. It sounds like the IETs are weighing in A LOT heavier than was originally specified and subsequently stated by Hitachi a few years ago if Wikipedia is to be believed.

 

[najaB]

I simply argue that the ideal train for the HC would be similar to the ideal train for many of XC's long distance routes. In a scenario where XC procured a batch of such trains, I think there would be a case for considering moving the service into that franchise.

But only because the of the rolling stock. Nothing else about the Highland Chieftain fits into the XC model.

 

[gsnedders]

Blimey, when put into perspective like that it does make them sound rather underpowered for the Highland Main Line. It sounds like the IETs are weighing in A LOT heavier than was originally specified and subsequently stated by Hitachi a few years ago if Wikipedia is to be believed.

For comparison, the IEP contract requires a maximum of:

• 233.3 tonnes for a nominally 130m long Electric IEP Unit;
• 249.3 tonnes for a nominally 130m long Bi-mode IEP Unit;
• 399.8 tonnes for a nominally 234m long Electric IEP Unit; and
• 431.8 tonnes for a nominally 234m long Bi-mode IEP Unit.

That makes it 3750/431.8 = 8.7 hp/ton. The 802, by comparison, is 10.9 hp/ton (4700hp), assuming weight is identical (the different interior fittings will make that untrue, but AFAIK mechanically they're identical). And note those are maximum weights, so those should be the worst case figures.

With that level of difference to the 170/158, I wouldn't put it beyond them outperforming them due to gearing of them.

(Those figures are higher than the original tender, but those figures come from the document that forms the DfT-Agility Trains contract, and as such they are obliged to deliver them.)

 

[Bevan Price]

That does, however, assume power output is constant and ignores gearing, which has a substantial affect on acceleration. If the IEP is near peak power it could well outperform the 170, given the 170 often sounds like it's struggling at low RPMs, and the diesel-electric power train should make that far more likely than the two-gear diesel-hydraulic setup of the 170.

Yes, gearing affects acceleration rate - but it is power output that determines the balancing speed up adverse gradients, and the Highland line has several long sections with adverse gradients.

I have not sampled any Scottish 170s, but I would agree that some of the "English" 170s do seem to "under-perform".


If they can restrict the weight of the 800s to an average weight per coach of 50 tons, they would get 3500/450 = 8,3 hp/ton, which is a bit better, but still inferior to a HST or 158.

 

[najaB]

Yes, gearing affects acceleration rate - but it is power output that determines the balancing speed up adverse gradients, and the Highland line has several long sections with adverse gradients.

That said, distributed traction means greater efficiency in transmitting that power to the railhead in adverse conditions so the 800s may still fare better than HSTs in some circumstances. And bearing in mind HSTs are allowed to tackle those gradients with one PC shut down so - which halves the power/weight ratio - I think the 800s will do fine.

 

[PYROOGOBBO]

very stupid idea but, if the 800's struggle on the line really badly, would it make sense for virgin to retain a pair of HST powercars and use them for the difficult part?

kind of like this?

http://www.totnestrains.com/uploads/6/9/2/9/6929845/43029-43175-21-08-16-1z99_3_orig.jpg

probably a ton wrong with the idea, but throwing it in.

 

[najaB]

very stupid idea but, if the 800's struggle on the line really badly...

They won't.

...would it make sense for virgin to retain a pair of HST powercars and use them for the difficult part?

kind of like this?

http://www.totnestrains.com/uploads/6/9/2/9/6929845/43029-43175-21-08-16-1z99_3_orig.jpg

No, it would be cheaper to hire in a real locomotive - same or similar amount of power but only one engine and one set of track access charges.

 

[BRX]

But only because the of the rolling stock. Nothing else about the Highland Chieftain fits into the XC model.

I could equally say that aside from spending a little more than half of its time on their core route, nothing else about it fits into the EC model.

When the HC was introduced, prior to electrification of the ECML, HSTs were in charge of services on that line and it obviously made sense to extend some of those north of Edinburgh. Times have changed, and the ECML is a primarily electric operation, leaving the north-of Edinburgh services as the odd-ones out. I don't see any compelling reason why those services should necessarily continue to be run by the same operator as the principle London-Edinburgh ones. The ECML already has multiple operators, several of which also operate intercity services into KX. There's no more logic in Inverness services being operated by the main EC franchise than there is in those currently run by Grand Central or Hull Trains for example.

 

[najaB]

I could equally say that aside from spending a little more than half of its time on their core route, nothing else about it fits into the EC model.

In a word: London.

 

[Clansman]

I could equally say that aside from spending a little more than half of its time on their core route, nothing else about it fits into the EC model.

NajaB sums it up in a nutshell. London.

Times have changed

How? Demand for London services North of Edinburgh has increased.

I don't see any compelling reason why those services should necessarily continue to be run by the same operator as the principle London-Edinburgh ones. The ECML already has multiple operators, several of which also operate intercity services into KX. There's no more logic in Inverness services being operated by the main EC franchise than there is in those currently run by Grand Central or Hull Trains for example.

So you're against connections to cities which don't fit the catchment of the brand itself? So, in theory, you would be completely axing Inverness, Aberdeen, Hull, Skipton, Lincoln, Harrogate, Bradford, Sunderland, Glasgow - from VTEC services under your own analogy?

At the end of the day, TOCs don't always cater for the brand of their route - pretty expected.

Surprised you didn't pick one of the more obvious ones tbh:

• Scotrail - Why Carlisle and Newcastle? Both not in Scotland.
• Transpennine Express - Why Glasgow and Edinburgh? Both not remotely near the Pennines
• East Midlands Trains - Why Norwich and Liverpool? Both not in the East Midlands
• Arriva Trains Wales - Why Birmingham and Manchester? Both not in Wales

The commonality of all of these instances throughout the UK? Connectivity.

 

[BRX]

You both seem to be willfully misunderstanding my point.

I don't want to "axe" anything. I don't propose that the HC ceases to serve London. Changing the TOC responsible for the service doesn't change the route it can take or the places it can serve. It might however faciliate it running with more appropriate stock, if that stock could come from a pool shared with other services which have similar rolling stock demands. That's all.

 

[Clansman]

You both seem to be willfully misunderstanding my point.

I don't want to "axe" anything. I don't propose that the HC ceases to serve London. Changing the TOC responsible for the service doesn't change the route it can take or the places it can serve. It might however faciliate it running with more appropriate stock, if that stock could come from a pool shared with other services which have similar rolling stock demands. That's all.

It might have facilitated with the previous culture of the railways where new stock was only really ordered to replace slam door DMU/EMUs, so I'll give you that point - but then again even in that culture, the HSTs coped fine with the HML so there isn't a need for any other TOCs to run the service for the reason of using more suited rolling stock. The current culture of procuring new rolling stock because it's cheap to do just now alleviates the need for chopping and changing services between TOCs for the sake of utilising the best features of their rolling stock, hence why DfT have gone and specified an order for the IEPs, with the majority being built specifically for diesel routes.

I'm sure we'd have thought the 185s would've been put to better use on the HML, rather than some uneventful gradients between Manchester and Blackpool, or the Pacers put to more appropriate use on the Stourbridge branch line rather than some 3-hour journey through from Carlisle to Leeds.

So overall I see your point, but numerous factors would make it difficult to implement in reality.

 

[najaB]

You both seem to be willfully misunderstanding my point.

I don't want to "axe" anything. I don't propose that the HC ceases to serve London.

I haven't misunderstood anything.

You say that the Highland Chieftain should be a XC service due to them having appropriate rolling stock. The point I'm making is that GR is a 'London to...' operator, and XC is a 'Everywhere but London' operator. Giving a London to Inverness route to XC makes zero sense.

XC would need a London crew base for one service a day.

If you *really* wanted to transfer the service to another operator it would make more sense of it to be either VTWC and run down the WCML (fits into the London to... and they operate Voyagers) or Scotrail (since it is, effectively Inverness to Edinburgh and Edinburgh to London) though this would have made more sense before CS was hived off as a new franchise.

 

[43096]

If you *really* wanted to transfer the service to another operator it would make more sense of it to be either VTWC and run down the WCML (fits into the London to... and they operate Voyagers) or Scotrail (since it is, effectively Inverness to Edinburgh and Edinburgh to London) though this would have made more sense before CS was hived off as a new franchise.

And rename it The Clansman!

 

[BRX]

You say that the Highland Chieftain should be a XC service due to them having appropriate rolling stock. The point I'm making is that GR is a 'London to...' operator, and XC is a 'Everywhere but London' operator.

As I said before, the XC franchise has previously included services to London.

The core of the GR franchise is a fast, fully electrified route between major cities, with a maximum journey time of around 4 hours, serving major stations only, and running at a relatively high frequency. It's well used by business travellers and the journey time means its in direct competition with air services.

On the other hand, the XC franchise runs trains on lengthy journeys many of which have durations well in excess of 6hrs (unlike any other franchise with the exception of the GR Aberdeen and Inverness services) and which run on a mixture of high speed main lines and secondary lines, and on routes large portions of which are non-electrified. The services tend to stop at smaller stations as well as main ones. They are often used by people who want to avoid train changes, even if this might not save them any time. They are widely used by leisure travellers. Although portions of their routes fit into a regular-service timetable, those using them for long journeys book for a specific train without the expectation that should they miss it, there will be another one in an hour or two.

To me it's fairly obvious which of these two operations the Highland Chieftain shares the most characteristics with.

Yes it serves London, unlike any other XC train in the current timetable - but ultimately, so what? Yes, it would involve only one XC train per day serving London but there are other locations which have only one XC service per day. To passengers, I'd say the most important thing about maintaining the quality of the service is to run it with an appropriate train rather than one that's primarily designed for shorter and faster routes. *If* transferring it to XC could achieve that (and I realise that in reality it might not) , then it would make sense.

 

[najaB]

As I said before, the XC franchise has previously included services to London.

But it doesn't now. And there's no logic in giving them one service, purely based on rolling stock.

Yes, it would involve only one XC train per day serving London but there are other locations which have only one XC service per day.

As extensions of their core services. The Highland Chieftain would not fit that mould. You mentioned above that the HC 'only' shares half its route with other GR services, well it only shares Edinburgh to York with XC.

 

[47271]

I'd sooner go from Inverness to London on my hands and knees than use CrossCountry for the journey.

 

[Diplodicus]

Can HSTs be retrofitted to stop them spraying poo everywhere? I suspect that their exemption from this requirement may be expiring??

 

[BRX]

But it doesn't now. And there's no logic in giving them one service, purely based on rolling stock.As extensions of their core services. The Highland Chieftain would not fit that mould. You mentioned above that the HC 'only' shares half its route with other GR services, well it only shares Edinburgh to York with XC.

As I see it, using appropriate rolling stock has a real and practical impact on the service. You seem hung up on issues about the route it runs on. What would be the practical problems caused by it being the only XC train running between York and London? Of course there may be some that I am not aware of, and which would trump the rolling stock benefits.