ScotRail HST Introduction - Updates & Discussion

[route101]

I think the 158 is the poorest design I travel on. The refurb on first sight looks good but the new big seats render the legroom to unacceptably little . They are always hot. If they had only refurbished like 156 they would be better. Just gone into GLASGOW in an unrefurbished 156. And returning in a refurbished 158. The former far better than the latter. More room airy and cooler ! Missed opportunity to improve the 158 given wrong seats. Take out tables fit an air con that works.

Yep , 156 other day less cramped and hemmed in like a 158 . 170s are comfortable enough but 3 car sets to Inverness and Aberdeen is not enough .

 

[GrimShady]

The much better travel experience over a knees under you chin noisy dmu may attract enough extra passengers to pay for any increased operating costs.
Incidentally I seem to remember a scheme of a few years ago to use one power car, 4 coaches one with a cab.
K

Any more information on this proposal Kev?

 

[Bungle965]

Sorry but yes they are. The incessant drone and vibration from those Cummins engines is enough to drive me to distraction every time I travel on them. In the sense of them being cheap to run, you have a point- they're decent from that standpoint, but compared to HSTs they are slow, cramped and thoroughly uncomfortable and fundamentally unsuited to Inter City rail travel. I do prefer loco hauled over multiple units so maybe you could accuse me of being biased, but it's nothing to do with "hellfire thrash"- a loco hauled saloon is superior. Yes a multiple unit is cheaper and you could argue it's a better use of taxpayer's money, but you cannot deny that a multiple unit based solution always is a compromise. Having an engine under the floor invariably results in more noise regardless of the amount of dampening undertaken and as components such as bearings and crank shafts start to wear you will always get more vibration with time. That's a fact. In a few years it's almost certain that the noise and vibration issues will rear their ugly heads with the bi-mode units being introduced on so much of the network. HSTs are not perfect but they are a considerable step up on 170's. The 170 is a good commuter unit but an intercity design it most certainly is not.

Small point of order, but I believe that the 170s engines are MTU not Cummins.
Sam

 

[gingertom]

Small point of order, but I believe that the 170s engines are MTU not Cummins.
Sam

according to Wiki it's one MTU 6R 183TD13H of 423 BHP per car. It's the least powerful of that range of engines. There's a 449 BHP version, a 483 BHP and a 523 BHP. One wonders what the performance would be like to have the 523 version in a 170, if it fits.

 

[Paul Kerr]

Any more information on this proposal Kev?

Not sure if it's the same proposal, but I recall reading that the ScotRail engineers were actively looking at short formation HST sets formed from power cars and Mk3 trailers that were shortly to be displaced from the ECML to replace the 47/7's in 1989/1990 instead of using the 158's mandated by the Regional Railways sector. The HST would have comprised of one power car and a Mk3 DVT at the other end, with 3 or 4 TSOs and a CO in between. They tested the performance of an HST on the 1 in 40 incline in the Queen St tunnel with one power car shut down to see how one power car coped with the gradient. The test demonstrated it was feasible but the direction from higher levels was to go with the 158 that was to be the Regional Railways flagship train across the entire sector. The HSTs displaced from the ECML were transferred to the Intercity sector's Cross Country pool and that was the end of that. Kind of ironic actually that we have come full circle and we will have short formation HSTs almost 30 years after the idea was first mooted!

 

[Paul Kerr]

according to Wiki it's one MTU 6R 183TD13H of 423 BHP per car. It's the least powerful of that range of engines. There's a 449 BHP version, a 483 BHP and a 523 BHP. One wonders what the performance would be like to have the 523 version in a 170, if it fits.

I stand corrected, thanks for the info.

 

[Journeyman]

Even if the person responsible for pushing this option was an HST enthusiast, in my mind that's irrelevant. They have given sterling service for 40 years and they are head and shoulders above their successors. Today's trains are designed with cost as their primary consideration. Sorry, but the 170's are a joke, as are their predecessors the 158's. I've heard them described as garden shed engineering. Voyagers are not much better; they are pretty much glorified class 170's. Their performance is good and after a very poor start their reliability is better now, I accept, but the seating capacity on a Voyager isn't really that much more than a 170. Also, their body design makes the saloon cramped and uncomfortable, and they are simply do not have enough capacity for a long distance inter city service. No wonder HSTs were reintroduced when Virgin lost the Cross Country franchise.

Also please help me understand how a short formation HST is "hugely fuel-inefficient". How can that be? If the power cars are transporting less mass (132 tonnes less on a 4 car unit and 99 tonnes less on a 5 car unit), they are going to use less fuel as the engines are under less load than if they were conveying 8 coaches, are they not? Or are you describing fuel consumption per passenger? What figures are you using and where did you get them from? In any case, as the vehicles are older they are leased at a lower cost so this would largely offset any increase in fuel costs, would it not?

Yes, they've given sterling service for 40 years - and this is precisely why we should be retiring them. They've been belting up and down at full power for years, and the things are falling to pieces. Attempting to patch them up for further use is not a good idea.

170s are not "a joke", I travel on them frequently and find them much more spacious and comfortable than a lot of other trains. The seat/window alignment is good, the seats are comfortable and well spaced, and there's a good mix of airline and table seats. I do appreciate something better is needed for long runs, though - I've already said that.

Short HSTs are fuel-inefficient because the power to weight ratio is unnecessarily high - with a DMU it's more or less constant regardless of the length of the train - and the HST has very basic control systems that don't optimise power output. It's designed for prolonged high power operation at maximum speed, with a longer train, and anything less than that is operating at sub-optimal efficiency. The things are enormous gas guzzlers in the form they're going to operate in.

They're also not cheaper to lease than newer trains, and the Variable Usage Charge, related to axle load, is high because you've got a fairly heavy loco at each end, which makes them more expensive to operate than a multiple unit. It's not a problem with longer sets as it all evens out due to the trailers having lower VUC charges, but for the length and capacity of the train in the shorter setup, VUC charges are steep.

 

[BRX]

Again, I'd be interested to know the numbers. Do they use 5% or 10% or 30% more fuel? Are the track charges 5% or 10% or 30% higher? Without any actual numbers it's impossible to come to any meaningful conclusion about whether these things cancel out the benefits of not buying new.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't see how anyone can call a ScotRail 170 a "knees under the chin DMU". The seat pitch is quite generous; no worse than the GWR high density HST layout, and I think near 100% window aligned too.

Rip the seats out and fit modern thin ones (e.g. Grammer E3000 if you don't like ironing boards) and it'll be better still.

 

[GrimShady]

Not sure if it's the same proposal, but I recall reading that the ScotRail engineers were actively looking at short formation HST sets formed from power cars and Mk3 trailers that were shortly to be displaced from the ECML to replace the 47/7's in 1989/1990 instead of using the 158's mandated by the Regional Railways sector. The HST would have comprised of one power car and a Mk3 DVT at the other end, with 3 or 4 TSOs and a CO in between. They tested the performance of an HST on the 1 in 40 incline in the Queen St tunnel with one power car shut down to see how one power car coped with the gradient. The test demonstrated it was feasible but the direction from higher levels was to go with the 158 that was to be the Regional Railways flagship train across the entire sector. The HSTs displaced from the ECML were transferred to the Intercity sector's Cross Country pool and that was the end of that. Kind of ironic actually that we have come full circle and we will have short formation HSTs almost 30 years after the idea was first mooted!

Excellent information Kev thank you!

I suggested something similar for WHL replacement stock last year and was met with nothing but ridicule. Looks like I have the last laugh!

 

[Paul Kerr]

They're also not cheaper to lease than newer trains, and the Variable Usage Charge, related to axle load, is high because you've got a fairly heavy loco at each end, which makes them more expensive to operate than a multiple unit. It's not a problem with longer sets as it all evens out due to the trailers having lower VUC charges, but for the length and capacity of the train in the shorter setup, VUC charges are steep.

Fair point on the track access charges, but your only argument is an economic one. Multiple sources (Rail, Modern Railways and Rail Express) have indicated that the leasing costs were much less with HSTs than going for a new build unit. Ultimately the franchise spec called for an HST-style solution or equivalent to provide a proper Inter City traveling experience. First basically ignored the spec as they subscribe to the group-think very prevalent in the UK that multiple units are the answer. It was hardly surprising that their bid was rejected and I for one am glad that it was. In terms of comfort and performance I believe the HST will be far superior. The acceleration will be better based on the raw data and I will take the quiet ambience of a hauled saloon any day of the week over getting an unwanted free massage from the vibration of a noisy and rattling underfloor engine. Train solutions should not be based purely on cost. Cost is an important factor, but as the famous adage goes: "Fast, cheap and good... You cannot have all three".

 

[Paul Kerr]

Short HSTs are fuel-inefficient because the power to weight ratio is unnecessarily high - with a DMU it's more or less constant regardless of the length of the train - and the HST has very basic control systems that don't optimise power output. It's designed for prolonged high power operation at maximum speed, with a longer train, and anything less than that is operating at sub-optimal efficiency. The things are enormous gas guzzlers in the form they're going to operate in.

I don't follow your argument on power to mass ratio. As a short formation set has a better power to mass ratio than a long formation, the trains are going to spend significantly less time accelerating to line speed which is the time when they use the most fuel. Some basic swag calculations on power to mass ratio (assuming 90% efficiency on traction motors and 90% on the alternator sets) yield the following results:

4-coach HST- 13.4hp per tonne
5-coach HST- 12.0hp per tonne
Class 221- 10.75hp per tonne
Class 220- 13.3hp per tonne
Class 170- 9.4hp per tonne (assuming no losses in the hydraulic transmission)
8-coach HST- 9.02hp per tonne

The short formation HSTs will wipe the floor with the 170s and will closely match the Class 220's. The Class 220's can't hit 125mph or remotely close to it anywhere they run north of the border so how is the fuel consumption going to be significantly worse with the HSTs? Remember the HSTs all have more modern power units than the Voyagers anyway.

You may have a point on the fuel consumption but I remain to be convinced. Typically the mpg curve on a petrol or diesel-engined vehicle rises to a maximum well below a vehicle's top speed before tailing off (be it a car, bus, HGV or train). What is the difference in consumption between trains running at 90-100mph (the maximum on ScotRail routes) vs 125mph?

 

[Paul Kerr]

Yes, they've given sterling service for 40 years - and this is precisely why we should be retiring them. They've been belting up and down at full power for years, and the things are falling to pieces. Attempting to patch them up for further use is not a good idea.

Not sure I agree with you on that point. Corrosion can be fixed and they now have relatively new MTU engines which will give them at least another 10 years of working life.

 

[Paul Kerr]

170s are not "a joke", I travel on them frequently and find them much more spacious and comfortable than a lot of other trains. The seat/window alignment is good, the seats are comfortable and well spaced, and there's a good mix of airline and table seats. I do appreciate something better is needed for long runs, though - I've already said that.

Again, we'll agree to differ on this one. Maybe "a joke" was a poor choice of wording and I would agree with you that they are (or were when they were built) decent for short haul services (< 50 miles) as they are a good solid high-density commuter design, but as Inter City trains they are very poor. Having travelled on them on many occasions the drone and vibration from those underfloor engines is incessant and as they age it's getting worse. The air conditioning equipment is getting noisier with age as well.

 

[Northhighland]

All this debate is fine but the focus should be on solving the problem that ScotRail face. Capacity particularly on routes to and from Inverness and Aberdeen to Edinburgh and Glasgow is inadequate. Frequent occurrence to stand until Perth going North.

New trains are without doubt the answer long term. That will take time though and carrying on with the 170’s is not the solution

They are not well suited to 3.5 hour journeys. Seats are fine but they are noisy and cramped. Air Con is noisy they rattle everywhere and are way to small.

So HST May have its issues but as long as reliability remains ok they will do a job until a long term solution can be found.

Just need to get them into service......

 

[najaB]

New trains are without doubt the answer long term.

And in 10-15 years, bimode units would be perfect. So HSTs as a stopgap makes good sense.

 

[Rail Blues]

basically ignored the spec as they subscribe to the group-think very prevalent in the UK that multiple units are the answer.

You say groupthink, I say a rational consensus, given the huge pressure on the network the efficiencies offered by D/EMUs are crystal clear. I agree 170s are unsuited to longer journeys but 390/80x/222 are clearly inter City standard units ( obviously not available and no use to Scotrail) but the notion that multiple units cannot provide an intercity standard of travel in a nonsense.

will take the quiet ambience of a hauled saloon any day of the week over getting an unwanted free massage from the vibration of a noisy and rattling underfloor engine

Obviously hugely subjective, but I have never been on an intercity DMU where I've found the noise or vibrations to be intrusive. The doom mongers were busy telling us that the 800s were going to be so loud on diesel they'd drown out conversation and surprise surprise the noise is barely, if at all, perceptible. I often wonder if the calls of 'noisy great diesels thumping away under your feet' is a product of them actively listening for the noise or if it is the only argument they have in favour of LHCS.

 

[najaB]

Obviously hugely subjective, but I have never been on an intercity DMU where I've found the noise or vibrations to be intrusive.

Try a 170 on the climb out of Inverness.

 

[Rail Blues]

Try a 170 on the climb out of Inverness.

As I said, intercity DMUs.

 

[najaB]

As I said, intercity DMUs.

It's a DMU on an intercity route...

Okay, try a Voyager under acceleration anywhere.

 

[Macwomble]

Here's a new one.....trains delayed by.......the wrong kind of carpet!!

https://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/age-of-the-train-delayed-by-wrong-kind-of-carpet-1-4772224

The swansong in Scotland of what experts have hailed as one of Britain’s best ever train fleets has been hit by delays while refurbishing the 40-year-old carriages.

A union fears it will mean passengers on overcrowded inter-city ScotRail routes having to wait until the end of the year for trains which were originally due to have been introduced in March.

The diesel classic, designed by Sir Kenneth Grange, in its heyday. Picture: Central Press/Getty

Problems are believed to include the fitting of the wrong carpets, which have had to be ripped out.


News of the further delay to the former InterCity High Speed Trains (HSTs) comes days before ScotRail plans to start running the first of its brand new electric trains – ten months late. The veteran expresses, designed by Sir Kenneth Grange, hold the diesel speed record of 148mph set in 1987. They are being phased out from the Great Western and East Coast main lines where they started operating in 1976.


However, 26 are being overhauled at a cost of £54 million to provide more space and comfort – including hot meals – on routes between Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Inverness.

They are expected to run until 2030.

ScotRail had planned to launch them this month, but it is understood the first will not now be ready until at least the end of the summer because of delays at the Wabtec works in Doncaster.

Kevin Lindsay, Scottish secretary of train drivers’ union Aslef, said it could be as late as December.

ScotRail chief operating officer Angus Thom said: “We had hoped our suppliers, [trains owner] Angel Trains and Wabtec, could have delivered the first InterCity train to our deadline.

“Their delays prevent us from beginning to transform how we connect customers across Scotland’s seven cities.

“Our suppliers have faced challenges with their delivery schedule, and we are working closely with them to get these iconic trains running as soon as we can.”

An Angel Trains spokeswoman said: “Due to unforeseen refurbishment issues in the supply chain, the delivery of the HSTs to ScotRail has been delayed. The introduction of the first HST on the Aberdeen-Edinburgh route is forecast for later this summer.”



A Transport Scotland spokeswoman said: “While any delay in the programme is frustrating, we are sure passengers will welcome the service improvements they bring when they undergo a phased introduction in the coming months.”

No Wabtec response was provided.

 

[route101]

170s do have comfortable seating and less cramped than a 158. Certainly the 365s and 380s show up the 170 sluggishness .

 

[mullac30]

Here's a new one.....trains delayed by.......the wrong kind of carpet!!

https://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/age-of-the-train-delayed-by-wrong-kind-of-carpet-1-4772224

For the love of god, stay away from the comments on that article!

 

[gingertom]

I don't follow your argument on power to mass ratio. As a short formation set has a better power to mass ratio than a long formation, the trains are going to spend significantly less time accelerating to line speed which is the time when they use the most fuel. Some basic swag calculations on power to mass ratio (assuming 90% efficiency on traction motors and 90% on the alternator sets) yield the following results:

4-coach HST- 13.4hp per tonne
5-coach HST- 12.0hp per tonne
Class 221- 10.75hp per tonne
Class 220- 13.3hp per tonne
Class 170- 9.4hp per tonne (assuming no losses in the hydraulic transmission)
8-coach HST- 9.02hp per tonne

The short formation HSTs will wipe the floor with the 170s and will closely match the Class 220's. The Class 220's can't hit 125mph or remotely close to it anywhere they run north of the border so how is the fuel consumption going to be significantly worse with the HSTs? Remember the HSTs all have more modern power units than the Voyagers anyway.

You may have a point on the fuel consumption but I remain to be convinced. Typically the mpg curve on a petrol or diesel-engined vehicle rises to a maximum well below a vehicle's top speed before tailing off (be it a car, bus, HGV or train). What is the difference in consumption between trains running at 90-100mph (the maximum on ScotRail routes) vs 125mph?

I've done some simple physics and compared the kinetic energy of each train travelling at 100mph.
The 170 comes out a 133862MJ
2+4 HST 274637 MJ
2+5 HST 308205 MJ
A 2+4 HST needs twice as much energy to get to 100mph and all things being equal (which they aren't) twice as much fuel. As there's a lot more horsepower available the HST's acceleration is much quicker, where the cruising power needed to maintain that speed is a lot less. With 70-odd more seats available one would hope that would result in greater passenger numbers.

Just for interest a 2+9 HST at 125mph has 694467MJ, more than twice that of a 2+5 at 100mph, so in theory the 2+5 should reach 100 in less than half the time a 2+9 takes to reach 125.

 

[najaB]

A 2+4 HST needs twice as much energy to get to 100mph and all things being equal (which they aren't) twice as much fuel.

As you said, all things aren't equal. The 170 will spend a lot more time at a high throttle setting every time it has to get up to speed. This will bring the fuel consumption figures a lot closer to parity than they initially would seem to be.

 

[Rail Blues]

It's a DMU on an intercity route...

Okay, try a Voyager under acceleration anywhere.

I have found the noise levels perfectly acceptable on a voyager and far quieter and more comfortable than a mk 3 with its various squeaks and rattles.

 

[kje7812]

I have found the noise levels perfectly acceptable on a voyager and far quieter and more comfortable than a mk 3 with its various squeaks and rattles.

Agreed, for me the biggest issues of a voyager are space (or lack of it) and poor lining up of seats to windows. Both of these would have been solved (or at the very least reduced) if the units had been longer in length when designed.

 

[najaB]

I have found the noise levels perfectly acceptable on a voyager and far quieter and more comfortable than a mk 3 with its various squeaks and rattles.

I suppose it depends on the specific carriage - I agree that there some squeeky Mk.3s but the engine noise is definitely an issue with Voyagers, no matter what carriage.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

And in 10-15 years, bimode units would be perfect. So HSTs as a stopgap makes good sense.

That was my thought too also helps with a rolling electrification program.

 

[Paul Kerr]

You say groupthink, I say a rational consensus, given the huge pressure on the network the efficiencies offered by D/EMUs are crystal clear. I agree 170s are unsuited to longer journeys but 390/80x/222 are clearly inter City standard units ( obviously not available and no use to Scotrail) but the notion that multiple units cannot provide an intercity standard of travel in a nonsense.

No argument with you on the 390s but I do not agree with you on the 222s and with the 80x units we'll see what happens as they age. When you say "efficiency" I say cost. If cost were the only factor, then I would agree with you, but cost needs to be balanced against other factors. Every argument I have seen for a multiple unit is based on cost, pure and simple. It's been like that since DMUs were introduced on branch and commuter lines in the 1950s. I do not argue that multiple units have their place; my point is that we should not be so blinkered that it's "multiple units or nothing"; it was refreshing to see that TPE opted for a loco hauled solution for example. If cost is your primary driver (which it appears to be with most TOCs in the UK), multiple units will win out but they will always be a compromise.

Obviously hugely subjective, but I have never been on an intercity DMU where I've found the noise or vibrations to be intrusive. The doom mongers were busy telling us that the 800s were going to be so loud on diesel they'd drown out conversation and surprise surprise the noise is barely, if at all, perceptible. I often wonder if the calls of 'noisy great diesels thumping away under your feet' is a product of them actively listening for the noise or if it is the only argument they have in favour of LHCS.

We'll see what happens with the 80x units. For the first 2-3 years you most likely will be right. It's what happens when high rpm rotating components start to wear- that's when the noise and vibration kick in. I lived in Ireland for a few years roundabout the time when they introduced the Mitsui/Rotem Intercity railcars and their ride and noise levels were just as good as the Mk3s they replaced but last year I travelled on one again and the noise and vibration was very noticeable. It was the same with the 170s as well actually; the noice was barely noticeable at first but it has become considerably worse with time.