Scotrail HST alternatives?

[Kenny G]

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.

I'm surprised then that in the name of pragmatism they haven't suggested drivers wear crash helmets to protect themselves next time a tree enters the cabin.

 

[Southsider]

Given the reported unreliability of the HSTs, are Angel on the hook for penalties whenever one is unfit for service?

 

[43096]

Given the reported unreliability of the HSTs, are Angel on the hook for penalties whenever one is unfit for service?

Very, very, very unlikely. If they were, then Angel wouldn’t have de-scoped the electronics and WSP upgrade that was originally planned for the power cars. That was a ScotRail decision, presumably based on cost (even though it reduces cost long term). The WSP upgrade is happening in 2024, as ScotRail have learnt the hard way.

 

[gingertom]

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.

There's several ways of doing it. All methods use the laws of physics, the mass of the vehicles and the characteristics of the traction motors & control systems to model the acceleration curve.

Take, for example, the Norwegian Flirt. It is a 5-car electric only set with 4 long cars, one short car, and is equipped with 3 traction bogies that give a total of 4000 BHP, an average of 800 BHP per car. Compare that with the 22x voyager/meridian family, where the diesel gensets give out 750BHP per car. With no diesel gensets to lug about and no abstraction of power to drive ancillaries and hotel power the Norwegian Flirt is quite sprightly. If you stick a power pod into a half 745 you'd end up with 2700 BHP powering 7 vehicles, average 385 BHP per vehicle, so the performance would be on a par with a 158, but with some improvement achieved with the electric transmission. I'd suggest that would be a downgrade in performance, but a significant capacity boost. Perhaps that capacity boost is overly ambitious. Let's make the starting point the Norwegian 5-car with 2 traction bogies and a power pod, which would deliver 450 BHP per vehicle, more like a 170 but with the benefit of electric transmission. A 3rd traction bogie would require a 2nd power pod in the rake, making the numbers interesting- is it possible to have 3 gensets in a power pod or does it have to be an even number? If it is possible there's the bigger (=heavier) long range fuel tanks sorted!

 

[jagardner1984]

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.

But isn't there something rather unique here in the removal of one piece of equipment (predominantly the 170 on these routes) and replacing with something (the broad consensus on here would seem to suggest) of a lower safety standard, at least in this important regard ?

I'm trying to think of other occasions where something comparately modern (10-15 years at the decision making point) was replaced by something older than it by a factor of 30+ years ?

I'm sure there are examples, I just can't immediately think of them, at least not on the scale and significance as the entire I7C network.

 

[takno]

But isn't there something rather unique here in the removal of one piece of equipment (predominantly the 170 on these routes) and replacing with something (the broad consensus on here would seem to suggest) of a lower safety standard, at least in this important regard ?

I'm trying to think of other occasions where something comparately modern (10-15 years at the decision making point) was replaced by something older than it by a factor of 30+ years ?

I'm sure there are examples, I just can't immediately think of them, at least not on the scale and significance as the entire I7C network.

I think that if you pick through enough factors that were coincidental and not a significant factor in the procurement process, then you'll probably find something unique about every change of stock on a service.

 

[Dan G]

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.

If only there was a class of intercity express train that can run on diesel, electricity where it is available, and be converted to electric-only operation when the wires reach end to end...

I guess GWR could afford such vehicles and ScotRail couldn't, so ScotRail got the hand-me-downs while GWR got the shiny new trains.

 

[gingertom]

If only there was a class of intercity express train that can run on diesel, electricity where it is available, and be converted to electric-only operation when the wires reach end to end...

I guess GWR could afford such vehicles and ScotRail couldn't, so ScotRail got the hand-me-downs while GWR got the shiny new trains.

80x with its 140mph top speed on electric is just a little bit over-specified for Scotrail's needs. We need diesel hill-climbing power for the Highland Mainline until the wires arrive. I'd like to see how an 810 gets on with these hills....

 

[Bletchleyite]

80x with its 140mph top speed on electric is just a little bit over-specified for Scotrail's needs. We need diesel hill-climbing power for the Highland Mainline until the wires arrive. I'd like to see how an 810 gets on with these hills....

Not sure why it has to be an 810, but LNER runs 80x up to Inverness every day so the data on that exists.

 

[Davester50]

Given the reported unreliability of the HSTs, are Angel on the hook for penalties whenever one is unfit for service?

I hope they're not still paying for the sets abandoned in Doncaster.

 

[northscots]

Asides from the lease running until 2030 and the desire to save money meaning TS are not likely to want to pay two concurrent leasing charges.

I think you need to try more closer to 2035... that is about the current estimation for full replacement if something was ordered right now.

Nothing has been ordered that I'm aware of.

The rest of ScotRail diesel fleet cannot be stretched to cover.

The only potential alternative, the 222s was discounted on cost.

So we are really left with one option - making it work as best it can.

The WSP mods will certainly help with the main long-running issue - wheel flats/damage in the autumn/winter.

There is next to chance these will be in service that long. Reading between the lines there days are numbered.

It sounds as though the electrification program has been pulled so the money can be used to improve resilience and and prevent constant blanket speed restrictions and line closures, usually during poor weather.

I've heard lots of talk from Scotrail staff suggesting the 175 are heading to Scotland to operate Fife and Borders services, freeing up 170s and 158s to cover the HST diagrams.

Given the very blasé statement from ASLEF after what happened at Broughty Ferry the other day, I imagine they are already aware of plans or they would be jumping all over Scotrail with regards to the safety of the HSTs.

Ending the HST lease early would be costly but is it more costly than the running and maintenance cost of the current fleet for another 10 years?

 

[gingertom]

Not sure why it has to be an 810, but LNER runs 80x up to Inverness every day so the data on that exists.

The running times over the HML had to be extended because the 800s were slower than the HSTs at hill climbing. The 810, with 4 engines, would make short work of the climbs.

I also think the 4th engine an 810-based set would be more appropriate for the Devon banks.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I've heard lots of talk from Scotrail staff suggesting the 175 are heading to Scotland to operate Fife and Borders services, freeing up 170s and 158s to cover the HST diagrams.

Why would they do it that way round? Surely the 175s would be better suited to the Inter7City routes and 170s to the Fife Circle than the other way around.

Ending the HST lease early would be costly but is it more costly than the running and maintenance cost of the current fleet for another 10 years?

I doubt it; leasing, running and maintaining an interim replacement fleet (such as the 175s) will have an associated cost too of course...

 

[chuff chuff]

Why would they do it that way round? Surely the 175s would be better suited to the Inter7City routes and 170s to the Fife Circle.

Never heard anyone mention 175's up here.

 

[gingertom]

Why would they do it that way round? Surely the 175s would be better suited to the Inter7City routes and 170s to the Fife Circle than the other way around.


I doubt it; leasing, running and maintaining an interim replacement fleet (such as the 175s) will have an associated cost too of course...

not enough 175s to take on the I7C routes. They could take on the Fife and Borders routes, releasing 158s for I7C duties.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

The rest of ScotRail diesel fleet cannot be stretched to cover.

If they get just a handful more diesels I don’t see a problem. Say they took a few 158s from when TfW hand them back this time next year, to compensate what they gave to Northern, and you’re back to where you were in 2018, only the 385s now have most of the work in the South West that they used to do, and even so it’s not like many HSTs make it out anyway.

Why would they do it that way round? Surely the 175s would be better suited to the Inter7City routes and 170s to the Fife Circle than the other way around.

Definitely.

not enough 175s to take on the I7C routes. They could take on the Fife and Borders routes, releasing 158s for I7C duties.

There’s 27 175s and the 2019 timetable planned for 23 HSTs in service each day. Now I know they’re much shorter, but when you consider how many HST diagrams actually end up covered by 158/170, you’d think you could easily pair a fair few and cover the rest with 158/170.

 

[northscots]

If they get just a handful more diesels I don’t see a problem. Say they took a few 158s from when TfW hand them back this time next year, to compensate what they gave to Northern, and you’re back to where you were in 2018, only the 385s now have most of the work in the South West that they used to do, and even so it’s not like many HSTs make it out anyway.


Definitely.


There’s 27 175s and the 2019 timetable planned for 23 HSTs in service each day. Now I know they’re much shorter, but when you consider how many HST diagrams actually end up covered by 158/170, you’d think you could easily pair a fair few and cover the rest with 158/170.

Training crews would be simpler if the 175 were limited to Fife and Borders. They also don't have 1st class, where the 170s do. Scotrail may have 25 HST sets, judging by what's been posted in other forums, it's rare for more than 10 to be fit for service on a daily basis

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Training crews would be simpler if the 175 were limited to Fife and Borders. They also don't have 1st class, where the 170s do. Scotrail may have 25 HST sets, judging by what's been posted in other forums, it's rare for more than 10 to be for service on a daily basis

Yes, so the amount of 175s would not be a problem, it’d be other issues.

 

[gingertom]

Training crews would be simpler if the 175 were limited to Fife and Borders. They also don't have 1st class, where the 170s do. Scotrail may have 25 HST sets, judging by what's been posted in other forums, it's rare for more than 10 to be fit for service on a daily basis

agreed, but these routes don't need the 100mph capabilities of the 175. There's a couple of stretches on the Aberdeen route and the Highland main line that could exploit this capability. But with the high power levels demanded in these situations there is the increased risk of a thermal incident... Borders and Fife.

 

[Southsider]

Very, very, very unlikely. If they were, then Angel wouldn’t have de-scoped the electronics and WSP upgrade that was originally planned for the power cars. That was a ScotRail decision, presumably based on cost (even though it reduces cost long term). The WSP upgrade is happening in 2024, as ScotRail have learnt the hard way.

What then incentivizes them to provide a reliable, fit for purpose product?

 

[43096]

What then incentivizes them to provide a reliable, fit for purpose product?

Future leases. If you don't provide what your customer wants, they are unlikely to come back to you again. Same as any business, really...

 

[Wyrleybart]

What then incentivizes them to provide a reliable, fit for purpose product?

Seemingly very very little

How recent has it been that the 150s (built from 1985) have been fitted with WSP ?
Does it suggest that WSP is only a recent phenomenon ?
How about voyagers and sanding capability ? Now on their third iteration.

 

[GlitterUnicorn]

What then incentivizes them to provide a reliable, fit for purpose product?

I suspect some people are being a bit political with the truth, because ScotRail being financially on the hook for the HST under some kind of contractual terms indefinitely harms the case for withdrawing them

If the trains don't work, and it's not ScotRail's fault, it's incredibly unlikely that Scotrail is financially on the hook.

 

[takno]

If the trains don't work, and it's not ScotRail's fault, it's incredibly unlikely that Scotrail is financially on the hook.

You might think that, but for the most part rolling stock leasing mostly just a money thing. The ROSCO agrees to provide a shell. The company that's doing the leasing agrees to pay a certain amount every year, that they will only make heavy modifications they've agreed in advance, and that when they give them back they'll still have engines and seats. They aren't like residential landlords who are committed to fixing leaks in the roof and popping round to fix the engine for you if it breaks.

 

[43096]

You might think that, but for the most part rolling stock leasing mostly just a money thing. The ROSCO agrees to provide a shell. The company that's doing the leasing agrees to pay a certain amount every year, that they will only make heavy modifications they've agreed in advance, and that when they give them back they'll still have engines and seats. They aren't like residential landlords who are committed to fixing leaks in the roof and popping round to fix the engine for you if it breaks.

It depends on the type of lease, though: wet, soggy or dry!
Wet lease - ROSCO responsible for all maintenance
Soggy lease - operator does the more day-to-day work, with the ROSCO responsible for heavy work (typically what BR would call 'Level 5' maintenance)
Dry lease - operator is responsible for all maintenance

The inital MOLA leases at privatisation were soggy leases, but the move has been towards dry leases since (in part with DfT encouragement as part of their ROSCO vendetta).

 

[jagardner1984]

It depends on the type of lease, though: wet, soggy or dry!
Wet lease - ROSCO responsible for all maintenance
Soggy lease - operator does the more day-to-day work, with the ROSCO responsible for heavy work (typically what BR would call 'Level 5' maintenance)
Dry lease - operator is responsible for all maintenance

The inital MOLA leases at privatisation were soggy leases, but the move has been towards dry leases since (in part with DfT encouragement as part of their ROSCO vendetta).

The irony of equipment paid for by the taxpayer being sold for peanuts to some dubiously funded financiers to then significantly outlive any predicted design life and then said financiers lease these back to the taxpayer in their knackered state whilst the taxpayer must pay the costs of surface level deknackering of the clearly knackered thing and holding the taxpayer to pay leasing charges on the clearly knackered only scrap value thing until the very last moment of the laugh all the way to the bank contract …. Is not lost on us, is it ?

 

[Meerkat]

Future leases. If you don't provide what your customer wants, they are unlikely to come back to you again. Same as any business, really...

If a lease counts as a public procurement are you allowed to pay much attention to prior performance, or just product and price?

 

[Rhydgaled]

It depends on the type of lease, though: wet, soggy or dry!
Wet lease - ROSCO responsible for all maintenance
Soggy lease - operator does the more day-to-day work, with the ROSCO responsible for heavy work (typically what BR would call 'Level 5' maintenance)
Dry lease - operator is responsible for all maintenance

The inital MOLA leases at privatisation were soggy leases, but the move has been towards dry leases since (in part with DfT encouragement as part of their ROSCO vendetta).

Aside from the Intercity Express Programme of course, which surely was at least a move towards a wet lease (indeed, it probably is a full-on wet lease isn't it?)

 

[grinderx]

You might think that, but for the most part rolling stock leasing mostly just a money thing. The ROSCO agrees to provide a shell. The company that's doing the leasing agrees to pay a certain amount every year, that they will only make heavy modifications they've agreed in advance, and that when they give them back they'll still have engines and seats. They aren't like residential landlords who are committed to fixing leaks in the roof and popping round to fix the engine for you if it breaks.

This is one of the things that as a passenger I hate about uk railways. The rolling stock is owned by somebody else, who sweats the assets and then restricts access to them. I suppose that's the gamble of privatisation.

It's quite annoying to be paying so much money for tickets which get spent on fancy trains when frankly there are enough carriages redundant to be a bit smarter. The class 230s were a bit of a disaster and it still makes little sense to me why the focus wasn't on making use of the huge number of mk3 emus. Probably because they were not looked after and so became so rusty that the decision literally came down to London underground investment and aluminium bodywork? That a startup firm were driving this and ultimately bankrupted themselves makes it even more confusing.

The HST thing IMHO should come down to a pragmatic approach. The carriages are relatively simple and the passengers like them. The locos are more complex, heavily polluting and unsafe. Change the locos then. Is it really to hard given all the money changing hands to switch the locos for something more modern and perhaps move to a contemporary railway standard for multiple working based on something like industrial ethernet?

The uk's obsession with multiple units rather than loco hauled carriages really doesn't help does it? Rant over...

 

[JamesT]

This is one of the things that as a passenger I hate about uk railways. The rolling stock is owned by somebody else, who sweats the assets and then restricts access to them. I suppose that's the gamble of privatisation.

It's quite annoying to be paying so much money for tickets which get spent on fancy trains when frankly there are enough carriages redundant to be a bit smarter. The class 230s were a bit of a disaster and it still makes little sense to me why the focus wasn't on making use of the huge number of mk3 emus. Probably because they were not looked after and so became so rusty that the decision literally came down to London underground investment and aluminium bodywork? That a startup firm were driving this and ultimately bankrupted themselves makes it even more confusing.

The HST thing IMHO should come down to a pragmatic approach. The carriages are relatively simple and the passengers like them. The locos are more complex, heavily polluting and unsafe. Change the locos then. Is it really to hard given all the money changing hands to switch the locos for something more modern and perhaps move to a contemporary railway standard for multiple working based on something like industrial ethernet?

The uk's obsession with multiple units rather than loco hauled carriages really doesn't help does it? Rant over...

They did try making use of Mk3 EMUs, have you not heard of the Class 769? Those also have had issues, trying to convert old stock is not easy.

The HST carriages are also end of life. See threads past for the number of issues with them. They also use an electrical system that only works with the Class 43s. So you would need an expensive upgrade programme to either make the carriages work with a normal loco, or locos provide the different electrical system. Is that really worthwhile for carriages that at best are 40 years old?

There are multiple threads on here where the advantages of multiple units have been explained.