• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

ScotRail HST Introduction - Updates & Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
hexagon789

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,785
Location
Glasgow
Highland37 said:
Wow. This gets worse and worse. The 156s have 8? 170s 4? HSTs 2? What a joke.
Click to expand...

I thought the 170s were two as well? Regardless, people keep telling ScotRail it's insufficient and indeed I've seen a few reports that the racks in the refurbed HSTs can't easily take even two bikes, the mounting causes parts of the adjacent bike to catch on one already hanging up and so people can't always put another bike in anyway!

It is indeed - completely ridiculous and needs sorting out.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

C

CJSwan

Member
Joined
23 Aug 2017
Messages
153
Without trying to go too far off topic... Most of the 170s have space for 4 bikes. 2 in the 50xxx and 2 in the 79xxx coaches. Some only have space for 2 in the 50xxx, I think theses are the ones without first class compartments.
 
JLUK144

JLUK144

Member
Joined
8 Sep 2017
Messages
89
Location
Glasgow
Why don’t they reduce the amount of Standard seating in one of the coaches to create a space for bicycles in the same style as the 156.
 
H

Highland37

Established Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
1,259
JLUK144 said:
Why don’t they reduce the amount of Standard seating in one of the coaches to create a space for bicycles in the same style as the 156.
Click to expand...

Because they don't care much, don't want to invest the money and probably rightly so, have so little confidence in wabtec that they will not commit to anything.
 
43096

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,285
JLUK144 said:
Why don’t they reduce the amount of Standard seating in one of the coaches to create a space for bicycles in the same style as the 156.
Click to expand...
Or even just do what BR did 39 years ago and put a vehicle in the formation that had dedicated space for the guard and luggage/parcels/cycles - it's called a TGS. Not too late to go back to Angel and change the contract to make all sets 5-car with a TGS as the fifth vehicle.
 
hexagon789

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,785
Location
Glasgow
JLUK144 said:
Why don’t they reduce the amount of Standard seating in one of the coaches to create a space for bicycles in the same style as the 156.
Click to expand...

Probably because they think for the reduction in seating is not worth it. What do they gain by reducing seats even to make more cycle space? Think of it like that.
 
hexagon789

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,785
Location
Glasgow
43096 said:
Or even just do what BR did 39 years ago and put a vehicle in the formation that had dedicated space for the guard and luggage/parcels/cycles - it's called a TGS. Not too late to go back to Angel and change the contract to make all sets 5-car with a TGS as the fifth vehicle.
Click to expand...

That wouldn't be a bad idea, indeed other than marginally reducing the planned capacity of a 5-car it would make a lot of sense.
 
H

haggishunter

Member
Joined
25 Aug 2016
Messages
349
It’s not just bikes but on both the HML and WHL grossly more luggage than there is storage space for. What’s happened to the end to end bikes in the power cars?

Perhaps there needs to be an option of end to end checked in luggage (and possibly significant holiday / outdoor intermediate stations like Aviemore)? This could go in power cars In time, but transported by road in vans for the time being and when demand is high?
 
I

InOban

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
4,218
Because in the UK cyclists don't have to pay for their bikes, although I've seen somewhere that they plan to charge for the 153 conversions on the WHL
 
Killingworth

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,882
Location
Sheffield
JLUK144 said:
Why don’t they reduce the amount of Standard seating in one of the coaches to create a space for bicycles in the same style as the 156.
Click to expand...

Maybe because passengers pay and cycles don't. When space is so critical and cycle booking is becoming essential it can't be long before the old practice of paying to take cycles aboard trains is considered. Or let's provide longer and/or more frequent trains so we eliminate standing and luggage congestion. If only it was so simple as the apparently obvious space in power cars.
 
43096

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,285
hexagon789 said:
I thought this wasn't possible because of the potential for the fire safety systems to trigger in the other power car?
Click to expand...
Which sounds rather like an excuse than a genuine reason. The Inergen fire bottles are in the power car van, but the system covers the engine room and clean air compartments, and not the cooler group, cab or van area. There is therefore a gap (cooler group) between the area covered and the van if they're worried about proximity to the fire extinguishant.
 
PG

PG

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
2,849
Location
at the end of the high and low roads
hexagon789 said:
That wouldn't be a bad idea, indeed other than marginally reducing the planned capacity of a 5-car it would make a lot of sense.
Click to expand...
43096 said:
Or even just do what BR did 39 years ago and put a vehicle in the formation that had dedicated space for the guard and luggage/parcels/cycles - it's called a TGS. Not too late to go back to Angel and change the contract to make all sets 5-car with a TGS as the fifth vehicle.
Click to expand...
It would also (hopefully!) mean a quicker refurbishment as there would only be the doors at one end requiring the power door treatment :idea:
 
C

computerSaysNo

Member
Joined
14 Dec 2018
Messages
1,160
Last time I took my bike on the train it went in the front power car, I didn't have much time to look but there seemed to be plenty of space, I would guess at least five bikes could be carried there, maybe six or seven if they were put in correctly. That was months ago though so they may have disallowed the carriage of bikes in the power car since then.
 
hexagon789

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,785
Location
Glasgow
43096 said:
Which sounds rather like an excuse than a genuine reason. The Inergen fire bottles are in the power car van, but the system covers the engine room and clean air compartments, and not the cooler group, cab or van area. There is therefore a gap (cooler group) between the area covered and the van if they're worried about proximity to the fire extinguishant.
Click to expand...

So it's ScotRail being overly cautious really.
 
hexagon789

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,785
Location
Glasgow
PG said:
It would also (hopefully!) mean a quicker refurbishment as there would only be the doors at one end requiring the power door treatment :idea:
Click to expand...

That also crossed my mind, you'd be able to get the fifth vehicles done slightly more quickly seeing as it's the door mods that seem to take the longest.
 
Paul Kerr

Paul Kerr

Member
Joined
6 Nov 2017
Messages
143
hexagon789 said:
That also crossed my mind, you'd be able to get the fifth vehicles done slightly more quickly seeing as it's the door mods that seem to take the longest.
Click to expand...
The only issue I see is the first class/buffet car already has a guard's compartment, so having a TGS kind of defeats the purpose does it not? You could make the TGS compartment a dedicated compartment for bike storage instead of using the space in the power cars, but you now have 8 less seats available for passengers.

As we only have 4 car sets running and under conversion right now it would be an ideal time to change the spec to incorporate TGS vehicles into the formations, but having 2 staff compartments on the train does seem to be a bit of a waste of space...
 
G

Goldromans

Member
Joined
11 Feb 2017
Messages
222
ld0595 said:
I would've thought that they'd try get at least 27 4-car sets out before extending them.
Click to expand...
I believed the consensus on here was that they would be delivered as intended to operate: 9 4-coach and 17 5-coach. At the rate of delivery, I’m sure the works needed would be complete before more than a couple of 5-coach sets will be delivered.
 
hexagon789

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,785
Location
Glasgow
Goldromans said:
I believed the consensus on here was that they would be delivered as intended to operate: 9 4-coach and 17 5-coach. At the rate of delivery, I’m sure the works needed would be complete before more than a couple of 5-coach sets will be delivered.
Click to expand...

It was mentioned recently that all the sets are to be made up to 2+5.
 
hexagon789

hexagon789

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
15,785
Location
Glasgow
Paul Kerr said:
The only issue I see is the first class/buffet car already has a guard's compartment, so having a TGS kind of defeats the purpose does it not? You could make the TGS compartment a dedicated compartment for bike storage instead of using the space in the power cars, but you now have 8 less seats available for passengers.

As we only have 4 car sets running and under conversion right now it would be an ideal time to change the spec to incorporate TGS vehicles into the formations, but having 2 staff compartments on the train does seem to be a bit of a waste of space...
Click to expand...

It would be purely as a cycle storage/luggage area - I'd remove all the guards equipment to make additional room. As for seating, it's hugely significantly different to a TS (typically 63-65 against 74-76 for low-density arrangements). You could always retain the GWR layout and make it the unreserved coach, either way it's still more seats than a 170! ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top