ScotRail HST Introduction - Updates & Discussion

[Bletchleyite]

That depends on how you define what makes up a train. If you replace basically everything, is it still the same train?

As I've said before it's a bit more like a house than a car. You can gut a house back to the bricks and it's still the same house. You don't knock it down completely (even if it's been involved in a serious fire or similar) unless you want to build something different or there are very serious structural problems.

 

[TheMuttley]

Trigger's broom

I wondered when that analogy would make it in...

 

[scotraildriver]

As someone trained on these I am very much looking forward to driving them in service. From a passenger perspective they are very very nice. However, there have been reliability problems with the training trains, and while it is true they have new and highly reliable MTU power units the rest of the power car is untouched. The clean air compartment (air systems, distributors, braking systems, electrical systems, relays, fuses) and the guards van and equipment IS 40 years old and untouched, and these are the areas causing problems with air leaks, burst pipes and the like. I hope they are reliable, they are great trains but the also are not "all new" inside as many seem to believe. Nice new engine, not so new rest of it!

 

[David M]

Fair enough. Perhaps we're expecting too much from the Herald - if only the New York Times or The Guardian would take more of an interest...!

I think we're only expecting journalism as opposed to printing press releases. My view is that the perception of the traveller will be that an HST is a huge improvement over a class 170 (or 158).

 

[TheMuttley]

The clean air compartment (air systems, distributors, braking systems, electrical systems, relays, fuses) and the guards van and equipment IS 40 years old and untouched, and these are the areas causing problems with air leaks, burst pipes and the like.

Are these problems also present with the LNER fleet (or other operators), or are they specific to GWR power cars? I'm just wondering whether these are problems which any operator would face now, or whether it is down to lack of maintenance or suitable improvement projects, from GWR?

If these are emerging problems, for all operators, then it really does refer us back to the "40 year old trains" issue. If they are specific to these particular cars, then it is surely an issue of catching up with maintenance work which other operators/owners have already deemed necessary to support reliable operations. Of course, I'm ignoring the issue of who would pay for any required work and whether that was anticipated by the parties involved...

 

[najaB]

If they are specific to these particular cars, then it is surely an issue of catching up with maintenance work which other operators/owners have already deemed necessary to support reliable operations.

It's been reported on this thread that GWR power cars were less reliable than other operator's, make of that what you will.

 

[jingsmonty]

As someone trained on these I am very much looking forward to driving them in service. From a passenger perspective they are very very nice. However, there have been reliability problems with the training trains, and while it is true they have new and highly reliable MTU power units the rest of the power car is untouched. The clean air compartment (air systems, distributors, braking systems, electrical systems, relays, fuses) and the guards van and equipment IS 40 years old and untouched, and these are the areas causing problems with air leaks, burst pipes and the like. I hope they are reliable, they are great trains but the also are not "all new" inside as many seem to believe.View attachment 51404 View attachment 51405 Nice new engine, not so new rest of it!

Fair point, which I'd totally agree with, having also driven the training train. Think the main issue is that the ex GWR power cars have had the least amount of 'upgrade' work done on them...Others have had the upgraded electronic package fitted, but I think the GWR power cars have been re-engined & little else.

We really don't need a failure in passenger service like what happened with 43127 a few weeks ago- the brake pipe behind the E70 valve bursting! I think this is something that was replaced by all the other TOCs, but not GWR....

Hopefully, the learning curve working the training trains will include issues like this - it's not just for train crew benefit, running the training train!

 

[Journeyman]

It isn't, lazy journalism. Nor should the Herald be expected to be an unthinking cheerleader for this endeavour.

It expresses a view of a senior Union Official that the trains are not fit for purpose, that they are 40 year old is a fact, that they are good trains is an opinion. In terms of the latter, you take one view, he takes another. Mine is somewhere in between. You seem completely one eyed about this.

They were good trains. It's been discovered in the course of the refurb that they're significantly more knackered than anyone previously thought.

 

[Journeyman]

It's been reported on this thread that GWR power cars were less reliable than other operator's, make of that what you will.

Yup, GWR HSTs only manage about 5500 miles between failures, all the other fleets manage in excess of 10000. Expect one of them to completely block the Highland Main Line on a single track section, and to do it soon.

 

[najaB]

Expect one of them to completely block the Highland Main Line on a single track section, and to do it soon.

One would hope that any failures won't be things that leave the set immobile.

 

[TheMuttley]

One would hope that any failures won't be things that leave the set immobile.

But if it's related to the brake systems, that's precisely the risk, isn't it?

 

[Northhighland]

Are these problems also present with the LNER fleet (or other operators), or are they specific to GWR power cars? I'm just wondering whether these are problems which any operator would face now, or whether it is down to lack of maintenance or suitable improvement projects, from GWR?

If these are emerging problems, for all operators, then it really does refer us back to the "40 year old trains" issue. If they are specific to these particular cars, then it is surely an issue of catching up with maintenance work which other operators/owners have already deemed necessary to support reliable operations. Of course, I'm ignoring the issue of who would pay for any required work and whether that was anticipated by the parties involved...

Good point. Iam also assuming that when all the HST sets are replaced by 80x there will maybe be better power cars free? As long as the coaches are refurbed surely any power car could be used?

 

[TheMuttley]

Good point. Iam also assuming that when all the HST sets are replaced by 80x there will maybe be better power cars free? As long as the coaches are refurbed surely any power car could be used?

Perhaps, although I would imagine there might be contractual issues about which power cars are leased. Plus, a quick glance here suggests that the majority of GWR power cars are leased from Angel Trains, whilst the majority of LNER sets are leased from Porterbrook (if I'm reading the list correctly) - so it might not be so easy for ScotRail to change supplier (unless they went down the lines of "not as fit for purpose etc."...)?

Edit: Actually, a closer look shows quite a few leased to [LNER] VTEC from both major owners, so you could be on to something...

 

[najaB]

Expect one of them to completely block the Highland Main Line on a single track section, and to do it soon.

Scotrail will have had a few month's worth of Glasgow/Edinburgh to Aberdeen service under their belts by the time HSTs are introduced to the HML.

 

[GrimShady]

It isn't, lazy journalism. Nor should the Herald be expected to be an unthinking cheerleader for this endeavour.

It expresses a view of a senior Union Official that the trains are not fit for purpose, that they are 40 year old is a fact, that they are good trains is an opinion. In terms of the latter, you take one view, he takes another. Mine is somewhere in between. You seem completely one eyed about this.

Not in the slightest, obviously there's going to be problems with any machine of this vintage. The article doesn't present a balanced view as TheMuttley correctly said above. Simply publishing a statement without contesting what was said is lazy.

The fact of the matter is ScotRail are at least trying to upgrade a service which as others have said hasn't been the same since the shove duff sets back in the late 80s.

 

[GrimShady]

Does it test the assertions made? Or look beyond the soundbites? I think that is what is being referred to as "lazy journalism", perhaps.

Quite correct.

 

[Rail Blues]

Not in the slightest, obviously there's going to be problems with any machine of this vintage. The article doesn't present a balanced view TheMuttley correctly said above. Simply publishing a statement without contesting what was said is lazy.

The fact of the matter is ScotRail are at least trying to upgrade a service which as others have said hasn't been the same since the shove duff sets back in the late 80s.

Well surely, as this article suggests, it is a question worth asking, should we be using 40 year old rolling stock? It is an uplift in capacity, but an improvement? That remains to be seen.

If you'd read the article, you'd have seen that it reports a rail union official's comments and isn't an editorial or opinion piece. Scotrail were also contacted for a comment and if that's the best their press office can do, we'll quite frankly they deserve all the bad press that's coming their way.

 

[GrimShady]

Well surely, as this article suggests, it is a question worth asking, should we be using 40 year old rolling stock? It is an uplift in capacity, but an improvement? That remains to be seen.

If you'd read the article, you'd have seen that it reports a rail union official's comments and isn't an editorial or opinion piece. Scotrail were also contacted for a comment and if that's the best their press office can do, we'll quite frankly they deserve all the bad press that's coming their way.

It's certainly an improvement comfort wise over a 170. Reliability....well only time will tell. If they can pull it off (reliably) then I do think it will prove popular. Should we be using 40 year old stock? Maybe not but they'll do in the meantime until NR can make up their minds when these lines will be electrified.

What's their beef anyway? Its not as if the fleet is dangerous or hazardous to staff/passenger.

 

[Rail Blues]

It's certainly an improvement comfort wise over a 170. Reliability....well only time will tell. If they can pull it off (reliably) then I do think it will prove popular. Should we be using 40 year old stock? Maybe not but they'll do in the meantime until NR can make up their minds when these lines will be electrified.

What's their beef anyway? Its not as if the fleet is dangerous or hazardous to staff/passenger.

Again, that's a subjective opinion, I don't find MK3s particularly comfortable. Not hazardous, but rather disheartening that 40 year old stock with pretty ropey reliability records is presented as a solution to the 'problem'.

 

[43096]

Again, that's a subjective opinion, I don't find MK3s particularly comfortable. Not hazardous, but rather disheartening that 40 year old stock with pretty ropey reliability records is presented as a solution to the 'problem'.

Ropey reliability records? That depends on who maintains them. GWR sets are poor, whereas the likes of VTEC are good - better than some much newer stock. We’ll see where ScotRail sit on that scale in time.

 

[GrimShady]

Again, that's a subjective opinion, I don't find MK3s particularly comfortable. Not hazardous, but rather disheartening that 40 year old stock with pretty ropey reliability records is presented as a solution to the 'problem'.

Very few would argue Mk3s are bad but each to their own.

I would have preferred to see Mk5 and 68s.

 

[47271]

To be objective on this, what do we think the main areas of vulnerability on reliability on these trains will be? Brakes has been mentioned. What about door operation, they've been a nightmare to fit and they're the least established part of the HST, are they going to be a nightmare in service?

I remain of the view that they'll be more comfortable than any other day train in use in the UK. But a big comfy seat is small consolation if you've conked out.

It's so important that they don't allow them to get a reputation for poor reliability. If they do fail excessively then Cortes' type of comment will be fair enough. Until then it would be helpful if those whose livelihoods depend on the success of the rail industry keep their own counsel, it's not as if anything is going to be changed by his sniping.

 

[Journeyman]

Very few would argue Mk3s are bad but each to their own.

I would have preferred to see Mk5 and 68s.

I will. They're old and knackered and full of rust. They also have components that regularly fail, and the gangways and couplers squeak like crazy.

 

[Rail Blues]

Ropey reliability records? That depends on who maintains them. GWR sets are poor, whereas the likes of VTEC are good - better than some much newer stock. We’ll see where ScotRail sit on that scale in time.

Didn't the LNER 43s have a more comprehensive overhaul than the GWR equivalents?

 

[Journeyman]

Didn't the LNER 43s have a more comprehensive overhaul than the GWR equivalents?

Yes. The LNER ones (432xx and 433xx) have been fitted with control mods that allow improve performance. They're allowed to operate on the Highland Main Line on one power car with no assistance.

The ex-GWR ScotRail ones don't have these mods, and can't operate with one power car on the HML...even in short formations. Oops.

 

[mcmad]

It's certainly an improvement comfort wise over a 170. Reliability....well only time will tell. If they can pull it off (reliably) then I do think it will prove popular. Should we be using 40 year old stock? Maybe not but they'll do in the meantime until NR can make up their minds when these lines will be electrified.

What's their beef anyway? Its not as if the fleet is dangerous or hazardous to staff/passenger.

Since (unless you were one of the invited VIP's) you've not yet sampled the new interior you're basing that opinion on other mk3, presumably the VTEC? Given the scotrail ones have ironing board seats and as yet unknown reliability then I for one am quiet happy that the Edinburgh - Aberdeen route is going to have to iron out most of the teething problems as I don't use it.

They may be fantastic, they may be awful, until they've been in service for a while we've no way of knowing who is right and who is wrong.

 

[GrimShady]

Since (unless you were one of the invited VIP's) you've not yet sampled the new interior you're basing that opinion on other mk3, presumably the VTEC? Given the scotrail ones have ironing board seats and as yet unknown reliability then I for one am quiet happy that the Edinburgh - Aberdeen route is going to have to iron out most of the teething problems as I don't use it.

They may be fantastic, they may be awful, until they've been in service for a while we've no way of knowing who is right and who is wrong.

No underfloor engines, first looks spectacular. Agreed standard might not have the best seats.

 

[Northhighland]

To be objective on this, what do we think the main areas of vulnerability on reliability on these trains will be? Brakes has been mentioned. What about door operation, they've been a nightmare to fit and they're the least established part of the HST, are they going to be a nightmare in service?

I remain of the view that they'll be more comfortable than any other day train in use in the UK. But a big comfy seat is small consolation if you've conked out.

It's so important that they don't allow them to get a reputation for poor reliability. If they do fail excessively then Cortes' type of comment will be fair enough. Until then it would be helpful if those whose livelihoods depend on the success of the rail industry keep their own counsel, it's not as if anything is going to be changed by his sniping.

The argument against HST use is a fair and reasonable point to make. It is a significant risk to use 40 year old trains, especially without major refurbishment. Had the power cars been overhauled and pipework cabling controls etc replaced it would be different. Had all that work been done though we would probably have had new trains as a cheaper option.

Reliability is going to be a key issue. I would hope that the maintenance teams in Edinburgh, Inverness and Aberdeen are cracking on with understanding and learning about the particular foibles of the HST. This for me is key. Obviously there are experienced teams that have previously looked after these units hopefully the experience is being passed on.

The press much prefer negative stories to positive ones, that is the angry Britain we live in, something goes wrong we have to have a head on a pole. Not good.

 

[43096]

Yes. The LNER ones (432xx and 433xx) have been fitted with control mods that allow improve performance. They're allowed to operate on the Highland Main Line on one power car with no assistance.

The ex-GWR ScotRail ones don't have these mods, and can't operate with one power car on the HML...even in short formations. Oops.

The electronics upgrade was removed from the original ScotRail project scope, as I understand it.

Bizarre decision, given that the new WSP that is included enables significantly longer time between bogie overhauls (around 100,000 miles extra).

 

[Journeyman]

No underfloor engines, first looks spectacular. Agreed standard might not have the best seats.

What is it about you and underfloor engines?!? 99.9% of people don't care where the engines are.