ScotRail HST Introduction - Updates & Discussion

[Highland37]

I was reading Modern Railways last night. GWR sets are not that reliable either by the looks of the data.

 

[Clansman]

There were plans drawn up some time ago for refurbished four-car 170s for main line services in Scotland, which could be done by reducing some sets for other services to two cars. They had vestibule doors, a single first class area and buffets. I'd say that was fine.

In all fairness it would have been a downgrade from even the specs of the Hull Trains units, especially with the buffet, which in the plans, was only a shelf with a flip down chair in place of airline seats open in the passenger saloon.

The only way anybody is getting a 170 up to IC spec is going into the realms of unecomical. Noise vibration pads, more powerful and efficient engines to name a few examples - and generally a much more substansive interior overhaul than what even the plans proposed. Though in fairness, probably not as much as what Wabtec has racked up!

When people compare the overhauled 170 to HSTs, is it any wonder why Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government bit Abellio's hand off with what was being offered?

 

[Paul Kerr]

There were plans drawn up some time ago for refurbished four-car 170s for main line services in Scotland, which could be done by reducing some sets for other services to two cars. They had vestibule doors, a single first class area and buffets. I'd say that was fine.

A 4 car unit still wouldn't give enough capacity. And you still haven't addressed the issues with the lack of power either. A unit that can barely manage 50mph on a 1 in 70 gradient and can be overtaken by an HGV up the climb to Slochd or Drummochter is hardly going to encourage people to get out their car, is it?

Possibly not, but at least it would actually show up, and be less likely to break down.

But they show up reliably elsewhere, do they not? And their power unit is newer than the 170's as well. So there are other factors at play here.

No. It showed they wanted a similar level of facilities to HSTs. And they're not here! That's the problem!

What you've just stated here kind of contradicts your assertion of the 170 being a better option, does it not? If they wanted 170s, they would have asked them to stick with what they had, and they didn't. From what you've stated on this forum in the past, it's clear you've been involved in the procurement of rolling stock. Am I right? If so, do you ask passengers what they want as part of that process?

 

[Paul Kerr]

On your point of hacking apart 3

To make a 5 car 170 you would only be adding 2 of the middle coaches from 2 sets so hacking 2 sets apart to add 2 coaches to an existing 3 car unit. The remaining 2 driving cars could be coupled and used as 2 car 170’s.

Sorry, must be worrying that an engineer like me can't count! How embarrassing

 

[Journeyman]

Trust me, no-one is desperately clamouring for HSTs. They want seats and reliability. Right now, they get neither.

Whether HSTs operate reliably elsewhere is irrelevant. Right now, there aren't enough of them and availability is absolutely dreadful. Are we supposed to expect sudden drastic improvement? If so, when? They're 40 years old. Reliability is only going to get worse.

 

[Journeyman]

I was reading Modern Railways last night. GWR sets are not that reliable either by the looks of the data.

GWR HST reliability is significantly worse than LNER and EMR - they break down about twice as often. Anecdotally, I've seen a couple of LNER services cancelled due to defective HSTs in the last 2 weeks as well, so they're all getting worse.

 

[Paul Kerr]

Possibly not, but at least it would actually show up, and be less likely to break down.

I think ScotRail really do need to pull the plug on this flawed project now. Order some suitable new stock, and cobble together something as reliable as possible in the short term until it arrives.

There's a reason GWR withdrew all their HSTs - they're completely life-expired.

No they're not. The IET program drove their withdrawal, and the IETs haven't exactly covered themselves with glory either. And multiple examples have been cascaded onto regional services so plenty of life left in them yet.

Trust me, no-one is desperately clamouring for HSTs. They want seats and reliability. Right now, they get neither.

Whether HSTs operate reliably elsewhere is irrelevant. Right now, there aren't enough of them and availability is absolutely dreadful. Are we supposed to expect sudden drastic improvement? If so, when? They're 40 years old. Reliability is only going to get worse.

You say they want seats and reliability? Well a 170 fails on at least half that scorecard does it not? How is standing in a ram packed unit for half or more of a 200 mile journey acceptable? And if the HSTs are operating reliably elsewhere it suggests that the problem is internal to ScotRail, not with the trains themselves.

 

[Journeyman]

No they're not. The IET program drove their withdrawal, and the IETs haven't exactly covered themselves with glory either. And multiple examples have been cascaded onto regional services so plenty of life left in them yet.

Are you honestly suggesting the IETs were unnecessary? All HST fleets are showing declining reliability, which is what happens when trains get old. They're also not PRM compliant, and they're not fuel-efficient, and don't meet modern safety standards, so they needed to be replaced. They'd only be able to stay in service short-to-medium-term with major rebuilding, which as we have seen has turned out to be a disaster. Imagine how much worse it would be if the whole fleet was done.

As I've stated before, the average Mark 3 is now in absolutely dreadful condition, and spares are becoming a serious problem. Small fleets are only going to be viable because you can keep the few vehicles in decent nick and scrap the rest.

You say they want seats and reliability? Well a 170 fails on at least half that scorecard does it not? How is standing in a ram packed unit for half or more of a 200 mile journey acceptable? And if the HSTs are operating reliably elsewhere it suggests that the problem is internal to ScotRail, not with the trains themselves.

The only reason trains are overcrowded is because whoever came up with the wizard wheeze of putting HSTs in service wrote contracts that saw the 170s go off-lease before the HSTs were ready. If ScotRail had decided to keep them, there'd be plenty released by 385s for lengthening formations - running them in pairs gives you six passenger vehicles in the same length as a four-car HST, and this problem wouldn't exist. Ditto if new stock had been ordered when Abellio were given the franchise. Stop obsessing over 170s. Right now, the service is a complete disaster, and I don't see the promise of jam tomorrow making up for that.

I repeat - HST reliability is dropping everywhere because they're 40 years old. It's not going to suddenly miraculously improve.

 

[Paul Kerr]

GWR HST reliability is significantly worse than LNER and EMR - they break down about twice as often. Anecdotally, I've seen a couple of LNER services cancelled due to defective HSTs in the last 2 weeks as well, so they're all getting worse.

Hardly surprising if the LNER reliability was declining but I hardly think 2 failures in 2 weeks constitutes a crisis; they're about to be taken out of service so they're not going to throw the kitchen sink at them at this point are they?

I do agree with you in one respect- they missed a trick with the power cars they procured as the GEC traction motors are problematic and it sounds like a lot of tribal knowledge is needed to keep them running. However, the fundamental building block in the power car (the MTU engine and alternator set) is less than 15 years old, which incidentally is newer than the prime mover in the 170 and also newer than other stock that has been mooted as an alternative (180's, 221's and 222's).

We can go round and round all day on this. Ultimately you never wanted the HST introduced. I for my part will be glad to see the back of 170's on long haul services. We'll both find evidence to support our argument. I think more time is needed for the HSTs to bed in, and we would have been dealing with the same teething issues with other new or cascaded stock.

 

[43096]

I repeat - HST reliability is dropping everywhere because they're 40 years old. It's not going to suddenly miraculously improve.

Have you got any evidence of that?

Because using the data published in Modern Railways every January, LNER and EMT reliability has been pretty consistent for the last 5 years or so, XC dropped for a couple of years but then increased last year. Only GWR has been on a consistent slow decline.

 

[47271]

Cheer up everyone depressed by Scotrail HSTs, today was my second attempt to travel between Newcastle and Liverpool on services operated by brand new Nova 1s. Except both times the service got cancelled at the last minute due to the set breaking down, and I had to travel on the following train, both extraordinarily overcrowded 185s, and in one case have to take a taxi to recover the situation.

Scotrail doesn't have a monopoly on shambolic introductions of replacement stock, but they are one of the leaders in the field.

 

[Paul Kerr]

Are you honestly suggesting the IETs were unnecessary? All HST fleets are showing declining reliability, which is what happens when trains get old. They're also not PRM compliant, and they're not fuel-efficient, and don't meet modern safety standards, so they needed to be replaced. They'd only be able to stay in service short-to-medium-term with major rebuilding, which as we have seen has turned out to be a disaster. Imagine how much worse it would be if the whole fleet was done.

As I've stated before, the average Mark 3 is now in absolutely dreadful condition, and spares are becoming a serious problem. Small fleets are only going to be viable because you can keep the few vehicles in decent nick and scrap the rest.



The only reason trains are overcrowded is because whoever came up with the wizard wheeze of putting HSTs in service wrote contracts that saw the 170s go off-lease before the HSTs were ready. If ScotRail had decided to keep them, there'd be plenty released by 385s for lengthening formations - running them in pairs gives you six passenger vehicles in the same length as a four-car HST, and this problem wouldn't exist. Ditto if new stock had been ordered when Abellio were given the franchise. Stop obsessing over 170s. Right now, the service is a complete disaster, and I don't see the promise of jam tomorrow making up for that.

I repeat - HST reliability is dropping everywhere because they're 40 years old. It's not going to suddenly miraculously improve.

The trains were overcrowded long before 170s went off lease, as I and many others have pointed out to you in the past. I travelled on ram packed 158s and 170s in the previous decade on Aberdeen and Inverness services which was long before we had unit availability issues and it was common to see people still standing north of Stirling. Cramming people in like cattle is not acceptable, period. Overcrowding was a major contributing factor to why people preferred the East Coast services when they were available. A paying passenger should be entitled to a seat should they not? And running 2 units coupled backed to back means you can't get to a buffet car or use other facilities on the other half of the train. If you're trying to promote Inter-City travel, is it really OK to be stuck in a different carriage for over half an hour between stops because you needed to step away from your seat to use a toilet or visit the buffet car? At least 2 or 3 coupled 158s would be better in that regard.

You have a point on the condition of the Mk3's. The corrosion issues are more serious than anticipated, and the GWR vehicles seem to significantly worse than vehicles from other operatoes. But the issues can be remediated. In hindsight other vehicles would have been better, had they been available.

Also I would appreciated it if you would go easy on the language thank you. Nobody is "obsessing" over anything, and there is no need to be patronising and use bold font. We're all capable of reading, thank you.

 

[Paul Kerr]

Cheer up everyone depressed by Scotrail HSTs, today was my second attempt to travel between Newcastle and Liverpool on services operated by brand new Nova 1s. Except both times the service got cancelled at the last minute due to the set breaking down, and I had to travel on the following train, both extraordinarily overcrowded 185s, and in one case have to take a taxi to recover the situation.

Scotrail doesn't have a monopoly on shambolic introductions of replacement stock, but they are one of the leaders in the field.

Thanks for the light relief

 

[Paul Kerr]

Have you got any evidence of that?

Because using the data published in Modern Railways every January, LNER and EMT reliability has been pretty consistent for the last 5 years or so, XC dropped for a couple of years but then increased last year. Only GWR has been on a consistent slow decline.

Very interesting data, thanks for that. Out of curiosity, how does the MTIN compare between MMT, LNER, XC and GWR? Apologies if this was discussed already; the thread is rather long

 

[43096]

Very interesting data, thanks for that. Out of curiosity, how does the MTIN compare between MMT, LNER, XC and GWR? Apologies if this was discussed already; the thread is rather long

For the 12 months ended P7 in 2018, it was as follows:
GWR 5,756
XC 10,960
EMT 13,297
LNER 15,509

It will be interesting to see what the XC number is when they're next published as maintenance switched from LNER at Craigentinny to GWR at Laira last December.

 

[GrimShady]

For the 12 months ended P7 in 2018, it was as follows:
GWR 5,756
XC 10,960
EMT 13,297
LNER 15,509

It will be interesting to see what the XC number is when they're next published as maintenance switched from LNER at Craigentinny to GWR at Laira last December.

Are these figures for Class 43 or do they incorporate the coach rakes? I would have expected the difference between EMT & LNER to be very close together given that Neville Hill maintain both. Is it possible LNER PCs perform better given the longer distances/less thermal engine stress?

 

[43096]

Are these figures for Class 43 or do they incorporate the coach rakes? I would have expected the difference between EMT & LNER to be very close together given that Neville Hill maintain both. Is it possible LNER PCs perform better given the longer distances/less thermal engine stress?

The data is for the full sets, including trailers and power cars.

Craigentinny is home to the LNER fleet, not Neville Hill. Yes, NL do some work on them, but virtually all the heavy work is in Edinburgh.

 

[northernbelle]

For the 12 months ended P7 in 2018, it was as follows:
GWR 5,756
XC 10,960
EMT 13,297
LNER 15,509

It will be interesting to see what the XC number is when they're next published as maintenance switched from LNER at Craigentinny to GWR at Laira last December.

The figure for GWR seems to have climbed quite a bit according to the latest Modern Railways figure. Can't remember where the MAA sits.

 

[northernbelle]

GWR HST reliability is significantly worse than LNER and EMR - they break down about twice as often. Anecdotally, I've seen a couple of LNER services cancelled due to defective HSTs in the last 2 weeks as well, so they're all getting worse.

It could be argued that the nature of the GWR work is harsher than LNER. GWR's timetables are of a much more stop/start nature with the added complication of ATP equipment and therefore the opportunity for faults is greater.

The difference in reliability between the GWR and LNER 80x fleet is noticeable too - presumably thanks to hundreds of miles of high speed cruising that rack up the fault-free miles each time.

 

[GrimShady]

The data is for the full sets, including trailers and power cars.

Craigentinny is home to the LNER fleet, not Neville Hill. Yes, NL do some work on them, but virtually all the heavy work is in Edinburgh.

I stand corrected. In that case one would have thought all the knowledge Craigentinny have built up could have easily transferred to Haymarket.

In your view do the PCs fair better on longer stretches as stop/start has caused issues with other diesel locos in previous years?

 

[Journeyman]

For the 12 months ended P7 in 2018, it was as follows:
GWR 5,756
XC 10,960
EMT 13,297
LNER 15,509

And we all know where the ScotRail ones come from...

 

[43096]

And we all know where the ScotRail ones come from...

I see you chose to ignore my question about having evidence of declining reliability. I’ll make the obvious assumption.

 

[Journeyman]

I see you chose to ignore my question about having evidence of declining reliability. I’ll make the obvious assumption.

It's just what happens. Trains don't magically get more reliable when they get older.

I think the current availability of the ScotRail fleet speaks volumes. Exactly how long do we have to wait for them to be reliable?

 

[Highland37]

tiple examples have been cascaded onto regional services so plenty of life left in them yet.

What, specifically, do you mean by that?

 

[Paul Kerr]

What, specifically, do you mean by that?

That GWR are running the castle sets on regional services in Devon, Cornwall and Cardiff-Weymouth. I'm not sure how long GWR plan to run them for, but with the castle sets you have a refurbished PRM-compliant train and power cars with relatively new engines that have plenty of life left in them. It's certainly more than a short-term stop-gap solution.

 

[Paul Kerr]

It's just what happens. Trains don't magically get more reliable when they get older.

I think the current availability of the ScotRail fleet speaks volumes. Exactly how long do we have to wait for them to be reliable?

Don't you think it's interesting that reliability of the XC sets has been improving with "age"? It's nothing to do with age and everything to do with the way they are maintained. It's no secret that First franchises have a reputation for "sweating out" their assets (granted they are not the only ones who do this), but with a better maintenance regime the reliability will definitely improve. The GWR data is a clear outlier from the rest of the fleet; you can't argue with that. It's interesting too that the MML power cars with their older Paxman VP185 engines dating from 1989 are more than 2x more reliable. Nothing to do with age, that.

It all very well saying the availability of the ScotRail fleet speaks volumes. You've not shown us any data. Show us the reliability data on the refurbs once they have bedded in; then we can have a proper discussion.

 

[Highland37]

How a fleet which is neither present, available or reliable, bed in?

 

[Paul Kerr]

How a fleet which is neither present, available or reliable, bed in?

8 refurb sets are now in the country, are they not? Last data indicated we now have 5 sets actually in service on a daily basis, with more expected to be in service by the December timetable change, right? So we do have part of the fleet present on a daily basis, and as the crews get used to them we'll soon have a proper data baseline to discuss.

 

[Highland37]

No 7 are I think and five is the maximum that have been in service. They often do not complete their diagrams.

The data don't lie and ignoring it as it doesn't support your argument doesn't change them. There is no fleet. No one expects three sets to appear and operate reliably by Christmas.

 

[47271]

Here's The Herald's reporting of the toilet furore.

Cortes spouts off in his usual intemperate fashion, claiming that Scotrail cut back on engineering staff and took the cheapest bid from Wabtec, thereby shutting Springburn works, and then fumes against the franchising system.

He may be right, I have no idea, but it's difficult to take his pantomime baddie theatricals seriously. Calm down Manuel, and people might listen to you.


https://www.heraldscotland.com/news...uman-waste-scotlands-tracks-despite-promises/

ScotRail have come under fire after admitting that it will not hit a target of stopping the dumping of human excrement onto railway tracks more than two years after the practice was meant to be scrapped.

Unions have been appalled that high-speed trains being brought into service in Scotland will continue to dump human waste onto train tracks into 2020.

A deal between unions and the Scottish government was meant to scrap practice by December 2017 but a shake-up in the ScotRail fleet was expected to lead to its return.


Now it has emerged that delays to a fleet of refurbished trains means ScotRail will still be using rolling stock without toilet waste tanks next year even though further discussions meant it was supposed to end by 2020.

ScotRail was meant to have received 26 refurbished high-speed trains, with waste tanks fitted, for routes linking Scotland's seven cities from rail firm Wabtec by December last year. It is understood only nine have been delivered so far.


ScotRail has been in negotiations to accelerate the refurbishment programme. The train operator says 17 of the carriages are now being refurbished in Kilmarnock.

With newly-refurbished trains being delayed some older trains are being used as an interim measure to cover services which do not have tanks to store the waste to make up for the shortfall and they will still be in operation next year.

Similar issues with delays to refurbished trains emerged in October, last year.

Then, the RMT general secretary, Mick Cash, wrote to the ScotRail's managing director, Alex Hynes, and the Scottish government transport secretary, Michael Matheson, calling for urgent action on the issue and highlighting the “serious health risks” posed.

Then, a ScotRail spokesman acknowledged that it was likely to be some time before newly refurbished trains with human waste tanks would be ready.

Now ScotRail say: “We’re working with suppliers to ensure the refurbishment of our fleet of high-speed InterCity trains is completed as soon as possible.”

The transport staff union, TSSA has condemned ScotRail for failing to end the dumping of human waste on the tracks by 2020.

Manuel Cortes, TSSA General Secretary said, “More than a year ago ScotRail assured us, hand on heart, that they were working flat out to get their high speed trains equipped with retention tanks as soon as possible. Yet trains are still waiting for the tanks to be fitted.

“This simply isn’t good enough. In the 21st century passengers shouldn’t still have to be warned not to flush the toilet while the train is standing in the station. My heart goes out to the workers on the lines facing the unsavoury prospect of finding human waste on tracks.


“What we’re seeing is the long-term effects of Abellio’s penny-wise and pound-foolish management of ScotRail. They grabbed a quick buck by laying off engineering staff in the first years of the franchise leaving the department permanently understaffed.

"Then they bought 40-year-old museum pieces from Great Western rather than invest in new trains. And they rounded it off by getting the cheapest refurbishment contract they could – with Wabtec in Doncaster rather than investing in Scottish craftsmanship at the Caley [the historic St Rollox rail depot in Springburn which has shut down].


"And they’re surprised that Wabtec’s work hasn’t been up to scratch, the trains aren’t fit for purpose and their engineering department hasn’t enough staff to cope. But you can’t run a 21st century railway with pound-shop parts.

“But the real blame here lies with the privatisation system itself. If the railways were held in public ownership, run for the good of Scotland, as Labour have promised in their manifesto, then we wouldn’t see the relentless drive for profits above all else that leaves human waste flushed onto Scottish railway lines.”

In November, last year, Nicola Sturgeon insisted trains dumping human excrement onto tracks is “not a practice we support”.