ScotRail HST Introduction - Updates & Discussion

[jingsmonty]

Incidentally, one of my colleagues said tgat if the speedo ever failed, to try tripping & resetting the circuit breaker for the ATP....!

Yep that works. We were taught that on our training course. You can also reboot the ATP in the guards van which clears the fault but it's a bit of a faff.[/QUOTE]

I must be one of the lucky ones, as I've never had a speedo failure!

 

[jingsmonty]

Yes, I have no doubt that the service has deteriorated, it's been well and publicly documented. What I'm trying to get at, at risk of going on the circular argument (again) and being moderated (again) is whether, or not, the deterioration is due to MECHANICAL failures of the HSTs (reburb or classic), or not - as compared to the 170s. I'm just looking for actual facts and data either way.

We are all still learning about HSTs - that goes for Train Crew & maintenance staff. We haven't had the chance to build a knowledge base for HST yet that the other TOCS that use them have managed. That won't be helping things. Stuff like exams that over-run.
The recent pulling of some sets for training trains hasn't helped either. The speedo issue (as just discussed) has caused failures too, I'm sure.

It's a good point you make - I wouldn't mind knowing that myself. There's probably a certain amount of caution just now, as there's no way a set will go out if there's the slightest remote possibility of a failure - wheras, with 170/158, due to the vast accumulated knowledge, they will have a far better idea of what faults would result in a failure (or not). Some of the DMUs are in a right state....

 

[Stoney1979]

We are all still learning about HSTs - that goes for Train Crew & maintenance staff. We haven't had the chance to build a knowledge base for HST yet that the other TOCS that use them have managed. That won't be helping things. Stuff like exams that over-run.
The recent pulling of some sets for training trains hasn't helped either. The speedo issue (as just discussed) has caused failures too, I'm sure.

It's a good point you make - I wouldn't mind knowing that myself. There's probably a certain amount of caution just now, as there's no way a set will go out if there's the slightest remote possibility of a failure - wheras, with 170/158, due to the vast accumulated knowledge, they will have a far better idea of what faults would result in a failure (or not). Some of the DMUs are in a right state....

Thanks, a very interesting insight. A justifiably fairly cautious approach. Not that the general public will ever know of it, sadly.

 

[Highland37]

Apologies for my miscalculated sums above. The point stands though. Wabtec need to speed up delivery to rate that suggests it is very unlikely to be possible.

 

[scotraildriver]

I must be one of the lucky ones, as I've never had a speedo failure![/QUOTE]

Nether have I. Or anyone else I've spoken to. It's definitely an issue but not a common one.

 

[samuelmorris]

From this January's Modern Railways' figures:

Scotrail 170: 19042 (MAA 10889)
Scotrail 158: 11198 (MAA 8472)
Scotrail 156: 8931 (MAA 11400)
GWR HST: 6463 (MAA 5756)

LNER HST (for reference): 22368 (MAA 15509)
EMT HST (for reference): 25047 (MAA 13297)
XC HST (for reference): 7996 (MAA 10960)

That'll be about the last GWR HST figure that's very relevant as now the fleet size will be shrinking rapidly. Generally speaking, the number of faults they encountered in GWR (whether mechanical or otherwise is irrelevant) that cause delays is almost double that of Scotrail's Sprinters and more than double that of their 170s. It may well be so that their reliability improves at Scotrail and I certainly hope it does, but for now, if performance stays the same and doesn't get worse as a result of the newly fitted PRM modifications, lack of staff familiarisation, new operating environment and so on, which I think would be pretty commendable in itself, at least for the first year of service, they're going to be significantly less reliable than the DMUs they're displacing.
The current EMT/LNER figures show a probable best-case scenario once they bed in, which would be respectable enough, if unexemplary.

 

[jingsmonty]

Thanks, a very interesting insight. A justifiably fairly cautious approach. Not that the general public will ever know of it, sadly.

I have to be honest here & just say that I'm not sure that this IS actually the case - it's just my personal opinion!

 

[mikey9]

1. Do the MMA figures relate to power cars or the whole train?
Does running at 100mph + for sustained periods result in higher failures (I guess the LNER train does some 100+ - but not i Scotland)
GWR 8 coach sets - with unrefurbed coaches - do faults with 8 coaches, 20 bogies total, count against the MMA figures.

(Poss grasping at straws here...)
Can we compare GWR 8 coach sustained 100mph+ running with Scotrail, refurbed 4 coach sets on trains with 12 bogies running at much slower speeds.

I am sure there are arguments both ways involving speed/servicing experience/driver knowledge etc. that will influence the figures - but I propose that so will the services used upon, intensity of diagramming and make up of sets.....

If the answer to 1. is "power cars" - please ignore the rest!

 

[samuelmorris]

I've no idea I'm afraid but I doubt it's just the power cars as there would be plenty of reasons why a service might incur a delay due to a Mk3 and there would be nowhere to attribute that otherwise.

 

[jingsmonty]

1. Do the MMA figures relate to power cars or the whole train?
Does running at 100mph + for sustained periods result in higher failures (I guess the LNER train does some 100+ - but not i Scotland)
GWR 8 coach sets - with unrefurbed coaches - do faults with 8 coaches, 20 bogies total, count against the MMA figures.

(Poss grasping at straws here...)
Can we compare GWR 8 coach sustained 100mph+ running with Scotrail, refurbed 4 coach sets on trains with 12 bogies running at much slower speeds.

I am sure there are arguments both ways involving speed/servicing experience/driver knowledge etc. that will influence the figures - but I propose that so will the services used upon, intensity of diagramming and make up of sets.....

If the answer to 1. is "power cars" - please ignore the rest!

That's WAY over my head, I'm afraid! All I know, from my limited experience, is that a failure would most likely be related to a power car, but not sure if the MMA figures differentiate between PCs & coaches.

 

[sprinterguy]

1. Do the MMA figures relate to power cars or the whole train?

The Miles per Technical Incident (MTIN) statistics which have been quoted take into account the whole train, power cars and coaching stock alike.

 

[jingsmonty]

I've no idea I'm afraid but I doubt it's just the power cars as there would be plenty of reasons why a service might incur a delay due to a Mk3 and there would be nowhere to attribute that otherwise.

Exactly. Although the majority of issues would likely be with a Power Car, a Mk3 could have a dragging brake & require the coach brake to be isolated. Or the traction arm on a coach bogie would break, which would dictate that bogie to have the brake isolated & a max speed of 80mph for the whole set.

I'm not sure how often this is likely to happen (I've never seen it), but I'd think there would be some way of recording this for fault tracking purposes? Or do the failure figures just count both PC & Coach issues together?

 

[gsnedders]

Exactly. Although the majority of issues would likely be with a Power Car, a Mk3 could have a dragging brake & require the coach brake to be isolated. Or the traction arm on a coach bogie would break, which would dictate that bogie to have the brake isolated & a max speed of 80mph for the whole set.

I'm not sure how often this is likely to happen (I've never seen it), but I'd think there would be some way of recording this for fault tracking purposes? Or do the failure figures just count both PC & Coach issues together?

The overall failure figures just lump them all together (once there's a three minute delay, IIRC—you have three minutes to fix the problem before it starts counting, which I'd guess if it's on the rearmost coach might be pushing it given contacting signaller, etc., but obviously you'll know better how long that takes!).

 

[47271]

I do have another less objective source on Scotrail HST performance, which is my own experience over the 19 single journeys (or failed journeys) I've made on Scotrail intercity trains since the start of the new timetable. All were on Highland Main Line services, or connections between Perth and Glasgow using Aberdeen trains. I didn't use any Edinburgh-Aberdeen trains, Glasgow-Aberdeen trains north of Perth or Aberdeen-Inverness trains.

Of the 19, 12 were booked as 170s and ran successfully ('successfully' means it turned up and didn't break down, it could have been late) as 170s or 158s - I didn't bother to note which type of unit turned up. I didn't have to stand on any of the 19 so wasn't too concerned about the stock.

The remaining 7 were booked as HSTs, in all but one case the 1739 Edinburgh-Inverness. In three instances the train ran successfully as a 170. Otherwise, I experienced one failed HST (it never left Waverley and we all got sent away), two cancellations due to crew shortages, and only one successful HST journey. The crew shortages I suppose could be indirectly attributable to HST operation but, unless Scotrail were fibbing about the reason for cancellation, aren't in any way technical faults with the trains themselves.

So that's a grim overall cancellation rate of 3/19 or 16%, no surprises there. Set failures 1/16 or 6% overall, or 50% of all services known to run, or attempt to with an HST. No technical problems on 158s or 170s.

The problem with this analysis of course is that so few HSTs actually ran, whether through staffing issues or because of a lack of availability, that one failure makes a huge impact. But in terms of the question posed upthread by Stoney1979, it's safe to say that 170 and 158 reliability was extremely good, and that of the very few HSTs was poor.

 

[43096]

I do have another less objective source on Scotrail HST performance, which is my own experience over the 19 single journeys (or failed journeys) I've made on Scotrail intercity trains since the start of the new timetable. All were on Highland Main Line services, or connections between Perth and Glasgow using Aberdeen trains. I didn't use any Edinburgh-Aberdeen trains, Glasgow-Aberdeen trains north of Perth or Aberdeen-Inverness trains.

Of the 19, 12 were booked as 170s and ran successfully ('successfully' means it turned up and didn't break down, it could have been late) as 170s or 158s - I didn't bother to note which type of unit turned up. I didn't have to stand on any of the 19 so wasn't too concerned about the stock.

The remaining 7 were booked as HSTs, in all but one case the 1739 Edinburgh-Inverness. In three instances the train ran successfully as a 170. Otherwise, I experienced one failed HST (it never left Waverley and we all got sent away), two cancellations due to crew shortages, and only one successful HST journey. The crew shortages I suppose could be indirectly attributable to HST operation but, unless Scotrail were fibbing about the reason for cancellation, aren't in any way technical faults with the trains themselves.

So that's a grim overall cancellation rate of 3/19 or 16%, no surprises there. Set failures 1/16 or 6% overall, or 50% of all services known to run, or attempt to with an HST. No technical problems on 158s or 170s.

The problem with this analysis of course is that so few HSTs actually ran, whether through staffing issues or because of a lack of availability, that one failure makes a huge impact. But in terms of the question posed upthread by Stoney1979, it's safe to say that 170 and 158 reliability was extremely good, and that of the very few HSTs was poor.

So you are making a judgement on HST reliability based on TWO trains. That is just statistical nonsense and is utterly invalid as a way of judging reliability.

 

[jingsmonty]

I do have another less objective source on Scotrail HST performance, which is my own experience over the 19 single journeys (or failed journeys) I've made on Scotrail intercity trains since the start of the new timetable. All were on Highland Main Line services, or connections between Perth and Glasgow using Aberdeen trains. I didn't use any Edinburgh-Aberdeen trains, Glasgow-Aberdeen trains north of Perth or Aberdeen-Inverness trains.

Of the 19, 12 were booked as 170s and ran successfully ('successfully' means it turned up and didn't break down, it could have been late) as 170s or 158s - I didn't bother to note which type of unit turned up. I didn't have to stand on any of the 19 so wasn't too concerned about the stock.

The remaining 7 were booked as HSTs, in all but one case the 1739 Edinburgh-Inverness. In three instances the train ran successfully as a 170. Otherwise, I experienced one failed HST (it never left Waverley and we all got sent away), two cancellations due to crew shortages, and only one successful HST journey. The crew shortages I suppose could be indirectly attributable to HST operation but, unless Scotrail were fibbing about the reason for cancellation, aren't in any way technical faults with the trains themselves.

So that's a grim overall cancellation rate of 3/19 or 16%, no surprises there. Set failures 1/16 or 6% overall, or 50% of all services known to run, or attempt to with an HST. No technical problems on 158s or 170s.

The problem with this analysis of course is that so few HSTs actually ran, whether through staffing issues or because of a lack of availability, that one failure makes a huge impact. But in terms of the question posed upthread by Stoney1979, it's safe to say that 170 and 158 reliability was extremely good, and that of the very few HSTs was poor.

What you need to remember is that Scotrail have far more experience with 158/170 operation than HST, therefore they may run with minor 'work around' faults, whereas an HST with any sort of fault probably won't run.

Also, maintenance & train crew are still feeling our way with HSTs, which won't help reliability. I'd hope this would improve, going forward.

As others have said, you can't really base HST reliability on a couple of runs - it may not be a train fault that causes an HST to be substituted.

Some of the 158/170 sets that do run are in a bit of a state as well...heating (or lack of it) being the main issues.

 

[Stoney1979]

From this January's Modern Railways' figures:

Scotrail 170: 19042 (MAA 10889)
Scotrail 158: 11198 (MAA 8472)
Scotrail 156: 8931 (MAA 11400)
GWR HST: 6463 (MAA 5756)

LNER HST (for reference): 22368 (MAA 15509)
EMT HST (for reference): 25047 (MAA 13297)
XC HST (for reference): 7996 (MAA 10960)

That'll be about the last GWR HST figure that's very relevant as now the fleet size will be shrinking rapidly. Generally speaking, the number of faults they encountered in GWR (whether mechanical or otherwise is irrelevant) that cause delays is almost double that of Scotrail's Sprinters and more than double that of their 170s. It may well be so that their reliability improves at Scotrail and I certainly hope it does, but for now, if performance stays the same and doesn't get worse as a result of the newly fitted PRM modifications, lack of staff familiarisation, new operating environment and so on, which I think would be pretty commendable in itself, at least for the first year of service, they're going to be significantly less reliable than the DMUs they're displacing.
The current EMT/LNER figures show a probable best-case scenario once they bed in, which would be respectable enough, if unexemplary.

Thank you very much for this info, fascinating. Still digesting....

 

[FtoE]

Just off the “Classic” HST 17:25 from Inverness. I was impressed (other than a catering snafu meant no trolley). I was in FC - one of five - and the lights aren’t as glaringly bright as Standard. Seats big and comfortable, though they don’t seem to recline as much as GNER. Smooth ride and really noticed how much quieter things are when accelerating out of stations.
I wonder (as others have) if ScotRail will have 1st Class offers to help fill it a bit more.

 

[47271]

So you are making a judgement on HST reliability based on TWO trains. That is just statistical nonsense and is utterly invalid as a way of judging reliability.

There's no need to be rude. I acknowledged that very clearly in my opening and final paragraphs.

Alternatively I could have reported nothing from the past two months.

 

[47271]

What you need to remember is that Scotrail have far more experience with 158/170 operation than HST, therefore they may run with minor 'work around' faults, whereas an HST with any sort of fault probably won't run.

Also, maintenance & train crew are still feeling our way with HSTs, which won't help reliability. I'd hope this would improve, going forward.

As others have said, you can't really base HST reliability on a couple of runs - it may not be a train fault that causes an HST to be substituted.

Some of the 158/170 sets that do run are in a bit of a state as well...heating (or lack of it) being the main issues.

Thank you for responding politely to my report.

 

[jingsmonty]

Thank you for responding politely to my report.

No problem!

 

[43096]

There's no need to be rude. I acknowledged that very clearly in my opening and final paragraphs.

Alternatively I could have reported nothing from the past two months.

If you think someone pointing out the fundamental flaw in your data is “rude”, then I hate to think how you would react to something genuinely rude.

You used the phrase “it's safe to say that 170 and 158 reliability was extremely good, and that of the very few HSTs was poor.” Your are completely wrong. It is not “safe to say” HST reliability is poor. It is lies, damned lies and statistics. A meaningless conclusion reached from a meaningless data set.

 

[Stoney1979]

I do have another less objective source on Scotrail HST performance, which is my own experience over the 19 single journeys (or failed journeys) I've made on Scotrail intercity trains since the start of the new timetable. All were on Highland Main Line services, or connections between Perth and Glasgow using Aberdeen trains. I didn't use any Edinburgh-Aberdeen trains, Glasgow-Aberdeen trains north of Perth or Aberdeen-Inverness trains.

Of the 19, 12 were booked as 170s and ran successfully ('successfully' means it turned up and didn't break down, it could have been late) as 170s or 158s - I didn't bother to note which type of unit turned up. I didn't have to stand on any of the 19 so wasn't too concerned about the stock.

The remaining 7 were booked as HSTs, in all but one case the 1739 Edinburgh-Inverness. In three instances the train ran successfully as a 170. Otherwise, I experienced one failed HST (it never left Waverley and we all got sent away), two cancellations due to crew shortages, and only one successful HST journey. The crew shortages I suppose could be indirectly attributable to HST operation but, unless Scotrail were fibbing about the reason for cancellation, aren't in any way technical faults with the trains themselves.

So that's a grim overall cancellation rate of 3/19 or 16%, no surprises there. Set failures 1/16 or 6% overall, or 50% of all services known to run, or attempt to with an HST. No technical problems on 158s or 170s.

The problem with this analysis of course is that so few HSTs actually ran, whether through staffing issues or because of a lack of availability, that one failure makes a huge impact. But in terms of the question posed upthread by Stoney1979, it's safe to say that 170 and 158 reliability was extremely good, and that of the very few HSTs was poor.

And, for my part, thank you for your report. All things considered it looks near certain that HST reliability in the short to medium term (up to a year from now) will be well below what the previous DMUs provided, for a myriad of reasons. Looking on the up-side, things can only get better. It might just take about a year. Probably.

 

[jingsmonty]

Just off the “Classic” HST 17:25 from Inverness. I was impressed (other than a catering snafu meant no trolley). I was in FC - one of five - and the lights aren’t as glaringly bright as Standard. Seats big and comfortable, though they don’t seem to recline as much as GNER. Smooth ride and really noticed how much quieter things are when accelerating out of stations.
I wonder (as others have) if ScotRail will have 1st Class offers to help fill it a bit more.

I think that's a great idea. The refurbished sets will have slightly less 1st class seats than the classics (but still way more than a 170), but something like a 1st advance (like LNER have) might be a winner. Or a weekday upgrade option for full fare standard fares (such as the weekend 1st).

The 1st class is a significant upgrade from standard class (much more than the current stock) & I think it will help Scotrail gain more business traffic (from LNER, in particular).

 

[jingsmonty]

And, for my part, thank you for your report. All things considered it looks near certain that HST reliability in the short to medium term (up to a year from now) will be well below what the previous DMUs provided, for a myriad of reasons. Looking on the up-side, things can only get better. It might just take about a year. Probably.

That's my thoughts too - HSTs are very different to DMU stock (both to drive & to maintain). Once they bed in, I'd hope the reliability will improve.

 

[47271]

If you think someone pointing out the fundamental flaw in your data is “rude”, then I hate to think how you would react to something genuinely rude.

You used the phrase “it's safe to say that 170 and 158 reliability was extremely good, and that of the very few HSTs was poor.” Your are completely wrong. It is not “safe to say” HST reliability is poor. It is lies, damned lies and statistics. A meaningless conclusion reached from a meaningless data set.

Er, no. Regardless of the conclusions I drew, I very clearly pointed out the flaws in my analysis and the limited data I had available to me. Your needless focus on what I had already acknowledged to be wrong is what was rude.

Anyway, let's move on, I enjoy your posts and we very rarely differ in our views on the matter in hand.

 

[Highlandspring]

HA26 was moved from Haymarket to Eastfield today for Queen Street staff training.

 

[jingsmonty]

HA26 was moved from Haymarket to Eastfield today for Queen Street staff training.

That's good to hear - hopefully this means that we might actually see more refurbished sets heading North. I'm still waiting to see inside one

 

[Stoney1979]

That's good to hear - hopefully this means that we might actually see more refurbished sets heading North. I'm still waiting to see inside one

Not sure if it's for this thread, but it would be great to have a real-time feed on what the SR HSTs are doing on a daily basis.

As discussed up-thread, there's no reliable way of knowing due to all the substitutions. It would take some pre-planning, but I'd love to catch one on the HML.

 

[InvHst]

Not sure if it's for this thread, but it would be great to have a real-time feed on what the SR HSTs are doing on a daily basis.

As discussed up-thread, there's no reliable way of knowing due to all the substitutions. It would take some pre-planning, but I'd love to catch one on the HML.

Your hml services on a weekday are as follows
0833 Edinburgh - Inverness
0944 Inverness - Edinburgh
1255 Inverness - Edinburgh
1336 Edinburgh - Inverness
1725 Inverness - Glasgow
1739 Edinburgh - Inverness

These may not all run though as they are 2 seperats diagrams so if they don't have required crew or maintenance issues they are replaced by 170s. Scotrails journeycheck on the formation updates will say if they are 3 instead of 4 which means it's a 170