What stock will Scotrail procure to replace HSTs?

[Citybreak1]

Why can’t they use those Transpenine express trains which came out of service a year or so ago?

 

[Diedinium]

Sorry to be the boring one but I have a strong feeling they'll end up getting a 8xx derivative of some kind, or something similar to the 10 unit CAF Civity order going to LNER (Class 897 apparently?).

Just makes sense to pick a known platform in terms of procurement risk, costs and implementation.

 

[Davester50]

Why can’t they use those Transpenine express trains which came out of service a year or so ago?

Not enough of them.

 

[Sorcerer]

Sorry to be the boring one but I have a strong feeling they'll end up getting a 8xx derivative of some kind, or something similar to the 10 unit CAF Civity order going to LNER (Class 897 apparently?).

Just makes sense to pick a known platform in terms of procurement risk, costs and implementation.

If they are newly procured stock, chances are it would be a Civity as a follow-on to the LNER order. As I understand it Hitachi stock has become a bit too expensive for a lot of operator's likings.

 

[LudwigTails]

They look like trains to me! And far more importantly, they can have level boarding. Now that GA have proved that long distance services can work with FLIRTs, they (or another provider that can do level boarding) should be standard for new stock procurement. Continuing to buy non-accessible stock is insulting and discriminatory.

yea and said design is killing off great amount of passenger boarding because you only get one door per carriage.
and when said accessibility is not even always matching the platform height is not call full accessibility when that applies to every train. And then they are not gonna add a buffet or whatever catering service onboard because the Scotrail probs doesnt care.
I am really tired of hearing FLIRTs being to replace everything in the UK like a stain like i can never wipe off. Just find a proper train that has 2 doors that can load and unload passenger at a better rate like a proper regional/intercity train.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Am I right in thinking the 222s can’t operate at SP speed differentials because of their weight?

Given the timescales I genuinely don’t see 222s being what Scotrail want. It’s not even that they’d be the cheap option, for the leasing cost you may as well buy new under a lease and maintain deal.

 

[northscots]

I’m intrigued as to how you think fuel hungry 222s fit with the dr-carbonisation agenda referenced in the press release.

It doesn't but surely they use less fuel and have lower emmisons than a HST?

 

[DanNCL]

I don't see how the 222 would meet the Minister's desire for the new trains to "provide more comfort and accessibility for passengers".

Neither 170s or 22x are compatible with the stated desire to improve comfort and accessibility for passengers.

Comfort is a matter of personal opinion. You may prefer the HSTs. Others may prefer the 222s.

As for accessibility, the 222 may not have level boarding but they’re almost certainly more accessible than the HSTs.

 

[JamesT]

It doesn't but surely they use less fuel and have lower emmisons than a HST?

There have been previous threads on the subject of Voyager vs. HST fuel consumption and it’s not clear cut in favour of the 22x. Fewer bigger engines can be more efficient and the HSTs were fitted with new engines so they’re not as old as the rest of the train.

 

[northscots]

There have been previous threads on the subject of Voyager vs. HST fuel consumption and it’s not clear cut in favour of the 22x. Fewer bigger engines can be more efficient and the HSTs were fitted with new engines so they’re not as old as the rest of the train.

This is whilst running. Scotrail HSTs are kept running on one engine constantly, even when stabled.

 

[Vectron383]

yea and said design is killing off great amount of passenger boarding because you only get one door per carriage.
and when said accessibility is not even always matching the platform height is not call full accessibility when that applies to every train. And then they are not gonna add a buffet or whatever catering service onboard because the Scotrail probs doesnt care.
I am really tired of hearing FLIRTs being to replace everything in the UK like a stain like i can never wipe off. Just find a proper train that has 2 doors that can load and unload passenger at a better rate like a proper regional/intercity train.

ScotRail could order them with 2 doors per carriage, like TfW. This is a slightly odd reaction to have to the FLIRTs, which as far as I am aware are one of the few new-build units which have a generally positive reputation on this forum?

 

[Sorcerer]

yea and said design is killing off great amount of passenger boarding because you only get one door per carriage.
and when said accessibility is not even always matching the platform height is not call full accessibility when that applies to every train. And then they are not gonna add a buffet or whatever catering service onboard because the Scotrail probs doesnt care.
I am really tired of hearing FLIRTs being to replace everything in the UK like a stain like i can never wipe off. Just find a proper train that has 2 doors that can load and unload passenger at a better rate like a proper regional/intercity train.

Having a pair of wide double-doors in the middle of the coach isn't that much different that having two single doors at the end of each coach aside from the fact you can get a better flow of passengers through the double doors. Also if they don't add a buffet that sounds more like a decision not taken by the manufacturers since Greater Anglia have one on their FLIRTs. They might not be fully accessible 100% of the time due to differing platform heights, but they do a much better job than stock without level boarding, and the platform height differences is an infrastructure issue, not one relating to rolling stock.

 

[jfowkes]

yea and said design is killing off great amount of passenger boarding because you only get one door per carriage.
and when said accessibility is not even always matching the platform height is not call full accessibility when that applies to every train. And then they are not gonna add a buffet or whatever catering service onboard because the Scotrail probs doesnt care.
I am really tired of hearing FLIRTs being to replace everything in the UK like a stain like i can never wipe off. Just find a proper train that has 2 doors that can load and unload passenger at a better rate like a proper regional/intercity train.

Ok with one door per carriage you add some dwell time. But you also make loading and unloading wheelchairs, heavy luggage and bikes a lot quicker. And you virtually eliminate the risk of trips and falls when boarding/alighting. I'd say that's worth some extra dwell time.

 

[Snow1964]

My fear is a diesel electric derivative of the 385, spartan nasty things.

My thoughts entirely.
An absolutely horrific prospect for any journey over an hour, let alone the 3 1/2 hours from Inverness and back.
And is the catering going to remain at the same beyond basic level of service?

Many passengers on the Highland Main Line will continue to plan journeys around The Chieftain.

Not exactly unknown in Britain though, the 3.5 hour Cardiff-Portsmouth (a route serving 7 cities) is often operated by ex suburban class 165 DMUs

Of course it is perfectly possible to equip a multiple unit to close to inter-city standard (eg class 397 or 444)

Yes, particularly as the spec won't be for something 125mph capable.

I see no reason for anything faster than 110mph (or maybe 100mph)

Of course if got 5 years before service date, can't totally rule out a BEMU, not unreasonable within 5 years managed to wire about 10 miles of each route (eg something like Dundee-Carnoustie and Kingussie-Aviemore) then ought to be within range of a BEMU. Maybe would also bit of wires in Terminus to keep it within 50-60 miles range in a cold winter.
A BEMU is more consistent with the low carbon or low emissions requirements

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ok with one door per carriage you add some dwell time. But you also make loading and unloading wheelchairs, heavy luggage and bikes a lot quicker. And you virtually eliminate the risk of trips and falls when boarding/alighting. I'd say that's worth some extra dwell time.

They are also shorter vehicles, typically 16-18m rather than 24-26m.

 

[LudwigTails]

They are also shorter vehicles, typically 16-18m rather than 24-26m.

and short vehicles doesn't meant =/= more capacity. Also impractical when you need to build more carriages for a longer consist.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Completely agree on this. level boarding should be non-negotiable.

+1 from me too. For safety and reduced mobility access if nothing else

 

[JCO1406]

Theoretically, could a Bi-mode version of the 745 (and number of coaches adjusted to their requirements) be possible and the 755s to replace the 318, 320 and 334. If they can get a deal with Stadler, it could work out well.

 

[ABB125]

Also impractical when you need to build more carriages for a longer consist.

What do you mean by that? If you need a ~120m long train, you simply tell Stadler to build a 7-car (or whatever) FLIRT.

 

[nwales58]

and short vehicles doesn't meant =/= more capacity. Also impractical when you need to build more carriages for a longer consist.

Oh dear. Have you told the swiss (e.g. Giruno 200m sets with 18m coaches), french (200m TGVs with 20m coaches, 500 seats in Duplex), spanish (200m high speed trains with *13m* coaches, up to 600 seats)?

Girunos board pretty fast for a long distance train thanks to a wide doorway.

 

[LudwigTails]

What do you mean by that? If you need a ~120m long train, you simply tell Stadler to build a 7-car (or whatever) FLIRT.

or... hear me out, why not just build a long carriage outright like the class 730s?????? we dont need sharing bogeys, make the wheels a bit smaller so the train floor is lower, there. We dont need the flirts at all.

 

[ABB125]

or... hear me out, why not just build a long carriage outright like the class 730s?????? we dont need sharing bogeys, make the wheels a bit smaller so the train floor is lower, there. We dont need the flirts at all.

What's wrong with having more, shorter coaches? It really doesn't matter whether a train is made up of 17m or 29m (like DB's ICE4 trains) coached, or anything in between

 

[LudwigTails]

What's wrong with having more, shorter coaches? It really doesn't matter whether a train is made up of 17m or 29m (like DB's ICE4 trains) coached, or anything in between

you're costing more to build just a carriage (and at this point it might as well be a long tram) when you could've (and what it still works) just build longer carriages, which one amount of money can go to and can carry more passengers. At the moment i am seeing this as a similar thing with the Merseyrail's new stadler trains. (And i seriously HATE the long short long short design, its so inconsistent this design makes me mad.) Like the electrical things for each carriage needed, how much does that cost for each carriage?? You're saying short short short carriages are the way to go? Its like asking a Class 700 to run these services. You might as well just have something like the IET body to do intercity/regional services of the scotrail HST. Not the FLIRTs. And i dont have a degree in train designing but i am sure there is a reason why intercity/long distance trains carriages on EMUs or Carriages are designed to have pair of doors on each end of the carriage. And not whatever FLIRTs have that is atrocious.

 

[Energy]

you're costing more to build just a carriage (and at this point it might as well be a long tram) when you could've (and what it still works) just build longer carriages

Shorter carriages can be wider...

You're saying short short short carriages are the way to go? Its like asking a Class 700 to run these services.

The class 390 and class 720 are both 24m yet they couldn't be more different?

And i dont have a degree in train designing but i am sure there is a reason why intercity/long distance trains carriages on EMUs or Carriages are designed to have pair of doors on each end of the carriage.

Train design is a balance of door space and useable space for seating. The single doors at the ends give a single long usable space for passengers, but there's no reason why you couldn't move the door to the centre and split the area in half.

 

[LudwigTails]

Shorter carriages can be wider...

I mean what is currently the widest the train in the UK. Carriages can only go very wide, that doenst really help with seating capacity only standing (unless u count 3+2 seating on a intercity train).

Train design is a balance of door space and useable space for seating. The single doors at the ends give a single long usable space for passengers, but there's no reason why you couldn't move the door to the centre and split the area in half.

splitting the area in half still makes things worse because people will have to disembark using the other carriage if the carriage they were seated in are too crowded. At least in current case where 2 pair of doors on each end. At least you dont have to walk to the other carriage to disembark the train. Plus the flow of boarding and disembarking the passengers, in one coach you can just go either 2 ways so both get off first, and then passengers can get on and meet in the middle of the carriage as they board. Only having one pair of the door in the middle meaning you're squeezing both ends of the carriage as passenger to get off with no other alternative other than walking over to the other carriage to disembark again as i mention before. Sure, you could also argue that the doors on each end layout can be done the same and makes no difference, but at least the door is actually close to the other. And slower boarding time means longer journeys total, it doesnt really take long for a staff to apply a ramp to a train so I dont get why we desperately so needed low floor.
I just see no benefits on having 1 pair of doors in the middle could solve god knows what everything.

 

[Crithylum]

splitting the area in half still makes things worse because people will have to disembark using the other carriage if the carriage they were seated in are too crowded.

If your carriage is "too crowded", shouldn't you move to the other carriage anyways if it is less crowded? Are you suggesting it is a good thing that the whole length of the train shouldn't be used? Also I don't think it really matters what carriage you are in given the wide open gangways of modern stock.

Plus the flow of boarding and disembarking the passengers, in one coach you can just go either 2 ways so both get off first, and then passengers can get on and meet in the middle of the carriage as they board. Only having one pair of the door in the middle meaning you're squeezing both ends of the carriage as passenger to get off with no other alternative other than walking over to the other carriage to disembark again as i mention before. Sure, you could also argue that the doors on each end layout can be done the same and makes no difference, but at least the door is actually close to the other.

Isn't it easier if (on a train with equal loading per carriage) it is already decided for you which door to go to (the one in the middle of your carriage), instead of having to make a choice of which end to go to, which will result one door being busier than the other. Also if the door is twice as wide, that means passengers can alight from both halves simultaneously.

 

[jfowkes]

And slower boarding time means longer journeys total, it doesnt really take long for a staff to apply a ramp to a train so I dont get why we desperately so needed low floor.

Because low floor/level boarding means you don't need that staff member and ramp anymore. The current system of booking assistance is not fit for purpose - every few weeks we hear about a new situation where someone has been failed in this regard by the railway in some way.
There's a moral and legal responsibility to close that gap.

 

[A0]

Neither 170s or 22x are compatible with the stated desire to improve comfort and accessibility for passengers.

In your opinion.

Factually, the 222's are accessible and meet the legislation. Comfort wise I always found them more comfortable than EMT/EMR's HSTs.

 

[Vectron383]

I mean what is currently the widest the train in the UK. Carriages can only go very wide, that doenst really help with seating capacity only standing (unless u count 3+2 seating on a intercity train).

splitting the area in half still makes things worse because people will have to disembark using the other carriage if the carriage they were seated in are too crowded. At least in current case where 2 pair of doors on each end. At least you dont have to walk to the other carriage to disembark the train. Plus the flow of boarding and disembarking the passengers, in one coach you can just go either 2 ways so both get off first, and then passengers can get on and meet in the middle of the carriage as they board. Only having one pair of the door in the middle meaning you're squeezing both ends of the carriage as passenger to get off with no other alternative other than walking over to the other carriage to disembark again as i mention before. Sure, you could also argue that the doors on each end layout can be done the same and makes no difference, but at least the door is actually close to the other. And slower boarding time means longer journeys total, it doesnt really take long for a staff to apply a ramp to a train so I dont get why we desperately so needed low floor.
I just see no benefits on having 1 pair of doors in the middle could solve god knows what everything.

I fail to see how any of what you have described here is an issue. Let’s not forget that these trains won’t be being used for suburban routes with lots of stops with hundreds of passengers boarding and disembarking every minute, plus as others have said level boarding will substantially reduce dwell times when compared to the current system of manual ramp deployment. Greater Anglia’s FLIRTs manage perfectly well with one pair of doors per coach, but even if having one door per coach is a problem, TfW have 2 pairs of doors on each driving coach so ScotRail could order their FLIRTs with that configuration. Stadler are well recognised for their modular designs, so it would be easy and inexpensive for ScotRail to spec a FLIRT that really suits its needs.

 

[SC318250]

With the HSTs being replaced, and it also suggested that if more units were ordered to replace 170/158 on the non HST operated Inter City 7 services could result in a cascade of 170 to allow 156 withdrawl, it looks now that all 42 Scotrail Class 156 units are going to visit Wolverton for a C6, so looks like they will be here until at least 2030 now also.