ScotRail HST Introduction - Updates & Discussion

hexagon789

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
9,919
Location
Glasgow
Fair point on maintenance and knowledge.

I was looking at it purely from the perspective of a service matched to passenger demand, and that could easily be delivered now without the use of HSTs.

Let's see what they do, but I'm sure we'd agree that HSTs zooming around all over the place while 170s are sat in depots wouldn't be the best move.

If it's purely on a cost basis, I'm not sure that the HSTs are a huge difference to 170s in fuel consumption. They coast a lot more because they get up to speed much quicker (about 2 mins less to reach 100mph), and on gradients they can be eased back to hold speed while 170s often won't even make linespeed in full power.

If ScotRail do indeed reduce HST diagrams, then at least they should rotate power cars rather than stick to a select few.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Speed43125

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2019
Messages
600
Location
Dunblane
I would argue, socially it would be better to run as long trains with as much capacity as possible during these times to reduce contact with others. If you half the frequency and size (4 x Mk3 -> 158 or 170) then passengers need to sit closer together, and as beneficial as that is for the operator, I would argue given the havoc this whole situation can cause, we'd be better off as a society burning a bit more fuel and money and running longer trains where passengers can properly isolate from each other.
 

Goldromans

Member
Joined
11 Feb 2017
Messages
173
I don't know where this talk of taking HST's out of service along with the reduced timetable has come from, but it doesn't make much sense. The reliability of the more recent sets seems to be much better than the ones delivered first, so I can see ScotRail taking this as an opportunity to sort out the problems with the earlier sets while using the more recent ones wherever possible.
 

hexagon789

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
9,919
Location
Glasgow
I would argue, socially it would be better to run as long trains with as much capacity as possible during these times to reduce contact with others. If you half the frequency and size (4 x Mk3 -> 158 or 170) then passengers need to sit closer together, and as beneficial as that is for the operator, I would argue given the havoc this whole situation can cause, we'd be better off as a society burning a bit more fuel and money and running longer trains where passengers can properly isolate from each other.

That was part of my thinking, you may as well keep the longer trains to enable anyone who has to travel to spread out more.
 

Speed43125

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2019
Messages
600
Location
Dunblane
That was part of my thinking, you may as well keep the longer trains to enable anyone who has to travel to spread out more.
I suppose the counter argument is that makes is harder and more time-consuming to disinfect trains ,when we come to that becoming a requirement.

Portugal is changing their law to reduce passenger numbers in vehicles to one third the original licensed number for exactly this reason.
Very interesting. Is there an article somewhere on that?
 

James James

Member
Joined
29 Jan 2018
Messages
372
If it's purely on a cost basis, I'm not sure that the HSTs are a huge difference to 170s in fuel consumption. They coast a lot more because they get up to speed much quicker (about 2 mins less to reach 100mph), and on gradients they can be eased back to hold speed while 170s often won't even make linespeed in full power.

If ScotRail do indeed reduce HST diagrams, then at least they should rotate power cars rather than stick to a select few.
The HST is around 4x as powerful as a 3-car 170. That means it's sucking around 4x as much fuel as the 170 at full power. That's going to be a huge difference, even if the HST isn't at full power as long. Given the extra weight an HST carries its guaranteed to burn more fuel by simple physics alone.
 

paul1609

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2006
Messages
4,110
Location
Wittersham Kent
If it's purely on a cost basis, I'm not sure that the HSTs are a huge difference to 170s in fuel consumption. They coast a lot more because they get up to speed much quicker (about 2 mins less to reach 100mph), and on gradients they can be eased back to hold speed while 170s often won't even make linespeed in full power.

If ScotRail do indeed reduce HST diagrams, then at least they should rotate power cars rather than stick to a select few.

The HSTs will use a massive amount of fuel compared to 170s.
I don't have figures for a Scotrail Configuration but a 2 +7 HST averages 4.6 l per km compared to 0.5l per km for a 3 car 170.
 

hexagon789

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
9,919
Location
Glasgow
Portugal is changing their law to reduce passenger numbers in vehicles to one third the original licensed number for exactly this reason.

Not a bad idea to be fair, though how workable that would be here...

I suppose the counter argument is that makes is harder and more time-consuming to disinfect trains ,when we come to that becoming a requirement.

I think that's already being done to an extent.

The HSTs will use a massive amount of fuel compared to 170s.
I don't have figures for a Scotrail Configuration but a 2 +7 HST averages 4.6 l per km compared to 0.5l per km for a 3 car 170.

2+7 presumably at 125mph, what would a lighter 2+4 at 100 consume? It's going to be less.

I'm not disputing an HST would consume more fuel, but those figures aren't reflective of a typical days duty where I suspect the figures will be closer.

Regardless, saving fuel by not running any HSTs isn't the highest priority presently in shouldn't think.
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
2,555
The HSTs will use a massive amount of fuel compared to 170s.
I don't have figures for a Scotrail Configuration but a 2 +7 HST averages 4.6 l per km compared to 0.5l per km for a 3 car 170.
I reckon those numbers are wrong or not like for like. Where are they from?
 

Mordac

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2016
Messages
1,923
Location
Birmingham
I am learning Portuguese and haven't checked it with Google Translates, but here it is ...

https://www.publico.pt/2020/03/21/e...portes-terco-teletrabalho-obrigatorio-1908832
The relevant paragraph reads:

"The decree-law regulating the state of emergency decreed by the President states that the maximum allowable number of passengers to transport must be reduced by 'a third of the number of available places, in order to guarantee appropriate distance between transport users."
 

InOban

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
2,871
The HSTs will use a massive amount of fuel compared to 170s.
I don't have figures for a Scotrail Configuration but a 2 +7 HST averages 4.6 l per km compared to 0.5l per km for a 3 car 170.

Which engine was in the HST? One of the reasons for re-engining was the better fuel economy of the more modern engines.
 

hexagon789

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
9,919
Location
Glasgow
Which engine was in the HST? One of the reasons for re-engining was the better fuel economy of the more modern engines.

From the Haynes manual a typical Valenta power car would consume 3.6 litres of fuel for every mile, so 2.24L/km. Obviously double that and you get 4.48L/km for a pair of power cars.

I suspect the figure quoted is from another thread on this forum, I found a few myself with 4.5-4.6 quoted.

I have not been able to find a conclusive figure for 170s.
 

PG

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
1,274
Location
at the end of the high and low roads
From the Haynes manual a typical Valenta power car would consume 3.6 litres of fuel for every mile, so 2.24L/km. Obviously double that and you get 4.48L/km for a pair of power cars.

I suspect the figure quoted is from another thread on this forum, I found a few myself with 4.5-4.6 quoted.

I have not been able to find a conclusive figure for 170s.
Safe to assume that the figure for MTUs is lower then?
 

hexagon789

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
9,919
Location
Glasgow
Safe to assume that the figure for MTUs is lower then?

I believe in another thread somewhere it was said that MTUs were not more fuel efficient in general terms, but I'll see what I find.

I do think this is rapidly becoming a seperate topic though and deserves a split off?
 

paul1609

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2006
Messages
4,110
Location
Wittersham Kent
From the Haynes manual a typical Valenta power car would consume 3.6 litres of fuel for every mile, so 2.24L/km. Obviously double that and you get 4.48L/km for a pair of power cars.

I suspect the figure quoted is from another thread on this forum, I found a few myself with 4.5-4.6 quoted.

I have not been able to find a conclusive figure for 170s.

Both the figures I've quoted were from the RSSB Traction Energy Metrics Report which no longer seems to be on line.
I think this was most likely for the Valenta Engine but Im not sure. MTUs blurb says that the replacement engine could save 15% on the Valentas.
If I had to place a bet I'd go for the 2 +4 car HST running on both power cars using about 5 times the fuel of a 3 car 170.
 

BRX

Established Member
Joined
20 Oct 2008
Messages
2,555
Both the figures I've quoted were from the RSSB Traction Energy Metrics Report which no longer seems to be on line.
I think this was most likely for the Valenta Engine but Im not sure. MTUs blurb says that the replacement engine could save 15% on the Valentas.
If I had to place a bet I'd go for the 2 +4 car HST running on both power cars using about 5 times the fuel of a 3 car 170.
Do you have a copy of that report?

The numbers don't seem to be in line with eg this report

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...rnal+article&usg=AOvVaw1dXSwr0SJFhGFHAG0rerCM

Screen Shot 2020-03-21 at 23.26.32.jpg
That's for CO2 emissions but it seems reasonable to assume they are broadly proportional to the amount of fuel burnt. Even if you were to assume that halving the length of an HST didn't produce a reduction in fuel consumption - so you'd be looking at a doubling per pass-km for the HST - the numbers would be c.115 per pass-km for HST vs c.72 for 170.
 

hexagon789

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
9,919
Location
Glasgow
Do you have a copy of that report?

The numbers don't seem to be in line with eg this report

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjh3dSm3KzoAhUYQkEAHdojBI4QFjACegQIBRAB&url=https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:cd7d3eb7-e57c-427d-9ec6-70da72389cce/download_file?safe_filename=Are%2Brailways%2Bclimate%2Bfriendly%2B-%2BGivoni%2BBrand%2BWatkiss%2B-%2Baccepted%2Bmanuscript.pdf&file_format=application%2Fpdf&type_of_work=Journal+article&usg=AOvVaw1dXSwr0SJFhGFHAG0rerCM

View attachment 75656
That's for CO2 emissions but it seems reasonable to assume they are broadly proportional to the amount of fuel burnt. Even if you were to assume that halving the length of an HST didn't produce a reduction in fuel consumption - so you'd be looking at a doubling per pass-km for the HST - the numbers would be c.115 per pass-km for HST vs c.72 for 170.

I've opened a new thread for this here: :https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/hst-fuel-consumption.202463/

To save this thread becoming more cluttered.

:)
 

scotraildriver

Established Member
Joined
15 Jun 2009
Messages
1,277
Back on topic - now that HA01and HA06 are at Doncaster that's all the vehicles for the whole project now underway. Also HA31/32/33 are to be retained by Scotrail for parts along with 43185. They will be permenanatly parked up next week at an unknown location leaving no classics in use.
 

hexagon789

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2016
Messages
9,919
Location
Glasgow
Back on topic - now that HA01and HA06 are at Doncaster that's all the vehicles for the whole project now underway. Also HA31/32/33 are to be retained by Scotrail for parts along with 43185. They will be permenanatly parked up next week at an unknown location leaving no classics in use.

Presumably with the idea that from now on, even after things return to normal that is, that only refurbs will run?
 

Goldromans

Member
Joined
11 Feb 2017
Messages
173
What's the current turnaround time for refurbishment? We were seeing a set every few weeks for a while, though I feel this might slow down with the current public health situation.
 

Top