Scotrail HST alternatives?

[Trainbike46]

Stadlers keep being mentioned but is that design concept practicable?
For the capacity needed they would need at least two power pods wouldnt they, and then would they fit where they need fit on platforms and termini?

To have the same (or better) power as a 3-car 755, a FLIRT can be up to 6 cars long for each power car.

 

[Clansman]

Stadlers keep being mentioned but is that design concept practicable?
For the capacity needed they would need at least two power pods wouldnt they, and then would they fit where they need fit on platforms and termini?

The power pods are shorter than the HST power cars, and each terminus on the I7C network can accomodate at least 8 x 23m carriages. Additionally, there's nothing stopping Stadler proposing power-cars or an all in one MU without power packs if they had the capabilities.

 

[najaB]

Additionally, there's nothing stopping Stadler proposing power-cars or an all in one MU without power packs if they had the capabilities.

I don't doubt that they could, but the advantage of the mid-unit power car is that it makes conversion to full EMU or BEMU easy.

 

[jagardner1984]

I don't doubt that they could, but the advantage of the mid-unit power car is that it makes conversion to full EMU or BEMU easy.

Indeed- though it seems fair to say given the state of the nation's finances (at both Holyrood and Westminster) - the cost of hundreds of miles of electrification to Aberdeen, Inverness etc looks ever more ..... challenging, so what was perhaps seen at one point as a bimode "stop gap" to fill in post HST pre electrification gap, will perhaps extend as bits of the projects are rephased to reduce the cost impact, and thus the period of diesel operation may be more of a significant part of the working life of these trains than initially envisaged.

 

[najaB]

Indeed- though it seems fair to say given the state of the nation's finances (at both Holyrood and Westminster) - the cost of hundreds of miles of electrification to Aberdeen, Inverness etc looks ever more ..... challenging, so what was perhaps seen at one point as a bimode "stop gap" to fill in post HST pre electrification gap, will perhaps extend as bits of the projects are rephased to reduce the cost impact, and thus the period of diesel operation may be more of a significant part of the working life of these trains than initially envisaged.

If the FLIRTs are anything like as long lived as the trains they're being proposed to replace then they'll be seeing service through 2070!

 

[Wyrleybart]

43129 damaged at Broughty Ferry this morning by what looks like a tree in the cab.
Not so sure how ASLEF will react to another HST incident in Scotland.

 

[Falcon1200]

Not so sure how ASLEF will react to another HST incident in Scotland.

Would any other type of train have come off any better though?

 

[Dan G]

Although confidential meaning I can't really mention the facts at this time, but it is confirmed a TOC has already signed them on, just haven't been publicly announced yet.

That's somewhat contradicted by this

The DfT hasn’t yet decided where any ex TFW rolling stock is going to end up. You have the possibility of Northern, GWR and Chiltern receiving this stock and nobody is any the wiser where the DfT are going to place the TfW 150, 158 and 175 stock.

The DfT seem to be playing the same game with the 175 fleet as they are with the 379’s and waiting for a decent lease offer. Not one of the three TOCs mentioned is keen on 175 fleet but, given the current loadings at all three TOCs, they will end up with someone - it is just a question of who is going to be told to have them.

You can't both be right.

Would any other type of train have come off any better though?

Because the class 43 cab is just timber and GRP. It's literally only to keep the wind off of the driver. A modern train has a full safety cell for the driver with a crash structure in front of it – take a look at an IET.

 

[43096]

It's literally only to keep the wind off of the driver.

Utter, utter hyperbolic nonsense. The cab met the crashworthiness standards of the time when it was built.

There was rather more to it than keeping the wind out.

 

[Charged up]

HST hit a tree near Broughty Ferry station this morning - no word yet on the driver's welfare or ASLEF thoughts on the matter!

 

[Clarence Yard]

You can't both be right.

We can if someone else (apart from the DfT and their TOCs) is after them and are willing to pay the current asking rates.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Because the class 43 cab is just timber and GRP. It's literally only to keep the wind off of the driver. A modern train has a full safety cell for the driver with a crash structure in front of it – take a look at an IET.

It does but also a modern railway thats obsessed with safety wouldn't tolerate the hazard of trees with the potential to foul the railway. Both need sorting and ASLEF would serve its members well by pursuing this urgently with Scotrail and NR.

 

[Meerkat]

To have the same (or better) power as a 3-car 755, a FLIRT can be up to 6 cars long for each power car.

I’m a bit confused how that statement matches the GA fleet - why did they jam 4 engines in the 3 cars if that is enough for twice the length? And would the power equivalent of a 3 car 755 be enough to meet the timings slogging up and over the HML?

The power pods are shorter than the HST power cars, and each terminus on the I7C network can accomodate at least 8 x 23m carriages. Additionally, there's nothing stopping Stadler proposing power-cars or an all in one MU without power packs if they had the capabilities.

I assume when people talk about ”Stadlers” they mean 755s (except interior possibly). Having power cars is a different concept, MUs would lose the low floor - the concept is changed and no different from getting other makers to knock up new designs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I assume when people talk about ”Stadlers” they mean 755s (except interior possibly). Having power cars is a different concept, MUs would lose the low floor - the concept is changed and no different from getting other makers to knock up new designs.

The Scandinavian Stadlers are conventional long bogied vehicles on the FLIRT platform, so they do do that if ordered.

They could do a conventional MU with one or two coaches dropped between the bogies and the others powered.

Or just take the 175s (the only vaguely suitable thing available now). Or the 222s when they become available.

Although confidential meaning I can't really mention the facts at this time, but it is confirmed a TOC has already signed them on, just haven't been publicly announced yet.

Sorry, missed this.

 

[Speed43125]

I’m a bit confused how that statement matches the GA fleet - why did they jam 4 engines in the 3 cars if that is enough for twice the length? And would the power equivalent of a 3 car 755 be enough to meet the timings slogging up and over the HML

The 3 car 755s only have 2 generator units, the 4 cars have 4. However the point is that to match the performance of a 755/3 you could use the 4 engine pack and have 6 carriages.

 

[Energy]

We can if someone else (apart from the DfT and their TOCs) is after them and are willing to pay the current asking rates.

The current open access proposals have the 222s or other stock IIRC. TfW is storing them so unlikely to be keeping them, Northern Ireland seems unlikely, so either export or a certain Scottish operator who probably wishes they kept the 170s...

 

[Chester1]

HST hit a tree near Broughty Ferry station this morning - no word yet on the driver's welfare or ASLEF thoughts on the matter!

That photo is an example of one photo saying more than a thousand words. That level of damage from a tree isn't acceptable these days. They need to be retired to rail tours and razor blades. I hope the driver is ok.

 

[najaB]

That photo is an example of one photo saying more than a thousand words. That level of damage from a tree isn't acceptable these days. They need to be retired to rail tours and razor blades. I hope the driver is ok.

I agree that HST cab crashworthiness is well below current standards, but you'd get a much greater uplift in safety, much more quickly by taking measures to prevent trains from colliding with objects on the line. Which would be of benefit regardless of the class of train involved.

 

[Clansman]

MUs would lose the low floor - the concept is changed and no different from getting other makers to knock up new designs.

No necessarily.

You could integrate the power packs into the design of the carriages in the same way that the Eurostar 373s required an additional power unit at the power-car end of the conjoining passenger carriages.

Mechanically there's lots of options out there to incorporate power packs that doesn't have to solely be autonomous.

 

[jagardner1984]

But isn't one of the advantages Stadler have is that its a "ready to go" design and as speed is of the essence, reworking that design goes somewhat against this. All possible of course, but if the platform length thing can be worked out, then sticking to essentially the GA design would seem very wise.

 

[Chester1]

I agree that HST cab crashworthiness is well below current standards, but you'd get a much greater uplift in safety, much more quickly by taking measures to prevent trains from colliding with objects on the line. Which would be of benefit regardless of the class of train involved.

Both should be started now because there a limitations to what additional measures can do. HST cabs look they have the crashworthyness of a robin reliant! Its barmy that the Scottish government signed contacts with no cancellation clauses to keep them in frequent use until they are half a century old.

 

[Falcon1200]

Because the class 43 cab is just timber and GRP. It's literally only to keep the wind off of the driver. A modern train has a full safety cell for the driver with a crash structure in front of it – take a look at an IET.

Having since seen the photo the Driver was extremely fortunate, and I am glad they managed to escape without injury. But, without knowing the size of the tree involved, I'm not sure a Class 170 cab for example would have fared much better. And I was on duty the day a tree penetrated, not the cab but the bodyshell, of a Class 158 on the Far North Line, luckily without injuring passengers or staff.

It does but also a modern railway thats obsessed with safety wouldn't tolerate the hazard of trees with the potential to foul the railway.

Which would require felling millions of trees, outside as well as within the railway boundary - Where did the tree in the HST incident come from? But I do agree that vegetation management should be a higher priority.

 

[Cowley]

I’m going to catch this before we get too blown off course…
There’s a thread here to discuss vegetation/trees etc that would be a better fit that stuff:

Trackside Trees

Why does Network Rail allow trees to grow so close to the tracks? Not only do they present a danger in high winds and can brush against the sides of trains but leaf fall is also a problem. Trees and bushes also block the view for passengers and present a fire hazard when steam trains use a line...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Meerkat]

The 3 car 755s only have 2 generator units, the 4 cars have 4. However the point is that to match the performance of a 755/3 you could use the 4 engine pack and have 6 carriages.

Sorry, I got all wrong on cars v GUs for 755s. Still…how many short Stadler cars do you need to match a 5 coach HST, and if a 4xGU power pod overheats in the flatlands it’s not going to like a long steep slog over the HML.

But isn't one of the advantages Stadler have is that its a "ready to go" design and as speed is of the essence, reworking that design goes somewhat against this. All possible of course, but if the platform length thing can be worked out, then sticking to essentially the GA design would seem very wise.

That was indeed my point - I can’t see how ‘just get Stadlers’ type comments can really mean anything other than 755 clones. Otherwise it’s a new train and so no real benefit in Stadlers (but still the massive factory killing disadvantage….)

 

[Dan G]

Utter, utter hyperbolic nonsense. The cab met the crashworthiness standards of the time when it was built.

There was rather more to it than keeping the wind out.

Quoting the Ladbroke Grove public inquiry (para 4.19), "the cab, which was constructed of GRP, would not meet modern [2000] structural requirements... the cab had no significant structural strength... and that it [would] provide minimal protection for the driver in a collision."

The cab is built from GRP so it can provide an aerodynamic front to the HST train.

 

[Clansman]

That was indeed my point - I can’t see how ‘just get Stadlers’ type comments can really mean anything other than 755 clones. Otherwise it’s a new train and so no real benefit in Stadlers (but still the massive factory killing disadvantage….)

Not entirely sure what you mean when you say that there's no point in going for Stadler built MUs if it's not some 755 variant.

ScotRail and Transport Scotland have a track record in going for bespoke and paying a premium for the privilege, so I am not sure how much weight any prediction holds for them merely going for an off-the-shelf tagalong order to an existing class for the sake of production efficiency.

 

[gingertom]

Sorry, I got all wrong on cars v GUs for 755s. Still…how many short Stadler cars do you need to match a 5 coach HST, and if a 4xGU power pod overheats in the flatlands it’s not going to like a long steep slog over the HML.

I'm 99.9% certain that a power pod could be inserted into the centre of half of a 745 to make a 6-car variant of a 755. All 6 coaches would therefore be long, and overprovision in the short term but creates substantial room for passenger growth.

 

[jagardner1984]

As a side (but relevant I feel) note - is there a methodology by which performance is measured - for example train needs to achieve 0-60mph in X seconds from a standing start on Y gradient - by which it can be measured for example a 170 achieves it in one time - often an HST advantage was cited as superior acceleration - so for example there is presumably a way of measuring predicted performance of for example a 6 Car 755 (as mooted above) by comparison to existing 4 car sets on comparable gradients in Greater Anglia land ?

Presumably there has to be reasonable certainty a train can maintain the timetable (or better it) before the point of order.

 

[Chester1]

Not entirely sure what you mean when you say that there's no point in going for Stadler built MUs if it's not some 755 variant.

ScotRail and Transport Scotland have a track record in going for bespoke and paying a premium for the privilege, so I am not sure how much weight any prediction holds for them merely going for an off-the-shelf tagalong order to an existing class for the sake of production efficiency.

A tag a long order would mean accepting the main specs DfT had decided for an English ToC. The current Scottish governing coalition will want a point a differentiation to show they are better!

 

[Wyrleybart]

Quoting the Ladbroke Grove public inquiry (para 4.19), "the cab, which was constructed of GRP, would not meet modern [2000] structural requirements... the cab had no significant structural strength... and that it [would] provide minimal protection for the driver in a collision."

The cab is built from GRP so it can provide an aerodynamic front to the HST train.

The HSDT which was designed very early 1970s and series produced from 1976, was of course 24 years old by this time. 24 years could be a life cycle in terms of rail traction - with the class 55s lasting less than that in service.

I think it is worth remembering the Scotrail traction policy here - specifically that the organisation has an ongoing plan to electrify a good proportion of the network. This mean that unlike England and Wales there was and is a plan for each route, and Scotrail chose to build the I7C network equipping with Inter city type diesel trains to enhance it's service offering. I am not an apologist for the HST even though I maintain they still have the most comfortable ride of any train in the UK, and I think Scotrail took a pragmatic approach with HST rolling stock - buying time for electrification schemes to be developed and constructed - ready for new rolling stock.

Mature trees are allowed to grow alongside railway lines in the same way buddleia are allowed to grow in load bearing structures