What stock will Scotrail procure to replace HSTs?

[800001]

I have never because i have no reason to take a ride to the Anglia region. And i missed my chance on it to ride behind class 90s before they were kicked out by plastics. I have considered trying them out at one point because apparently countless people say that its so good that they need to vote kick every train in existence in the UK because apparently existing trains cant do jobs well enough.

I can still never understand why how 1 pair of door is better than 1. Just through picture the 2 doors are almost just as similar size as those seen on electrocstar. How are doors size like seen on class 444 or the voyager Classes are worse doors on the flirt. They are literally a big piece of sliding door. But FLIRTs just does the same but with 2 piece of doors in one set. All those doors are big is like people complaining existing doors aren't big enough.

So never rode on a flirt train or experience boarding through the one door yet criticise the train.

A class 444 door is a lot slower to open than a flirt, that’s for sure!

Plastic? Pretty sure it’s steel or aluminium?

Its like the people who criticise class 700 or 80X seats, yet have never actually sat on one

 

[Vectron383]

I have never because i have no reason to take a ride to the Anglia region. And i missed my chance on it to ride behind class 90s before they were kicked out by plastics. I have considered trying them out at one point because apparently countless people say that its so good that they need to vote kick every train in existence in the UK because apparently existing trains cant do jobs well enough.

I can still never understand why how 1 pair of door is better than 1. Just through picture the 2 doors are almost just as similar size as those seen on electrocstar. How are doors size like seen on class 444 or the voyager Classes are worse doors on the flirt. They are literally a big piece of sliding door. But FLIRTs just does the same but with 2 piece of doors in one set. All those doors are big is like people complaining existing doors aren't big enough.

Countless people on this thread have explained that a) number of doors is not an issue, their position, dimensions and speed are more useful and b) if it was somehow determined that 1 door per side wasn’t enough, ScotRail could just spec their FLIRTs with 2 doors per side.

And when it comes to ‘vote kicking’ other trains (an expression I’ve only ever heard from my teenage brother), I would encourage you to look at the number of FLIRTs operating nationwide. I’d say we’re still a few orders away from class 66-style dominance. And if a train which gives wheelchair users a greater level of freedom and liberty becomes near universal in the UK, is that such a bad thing?

 

[class26]

I have never because i have no reason to take a ride to the Anglia region. And i missed my chance on it to ride behind class 90s before they were kicked out by plastics. I have considered trying them out at one point because apparently countless people say that its so good that they need to vote kick every train in existence in the UK because apparently existing trains cant do jobs well enough.

I can still never understand why how 1 pair of door is better than 1. Just through picture the 2 doors are almost just as similar size as those seen on electrocstar. How are doors size like seen on class 444 or the voyager Classes are worse doors on the flirt. They are literally a big piece of sliding door. But FLIRTs just does the same but with 2 piece of doors in one set. All those doors are big is like people complaining existing doors aren't big enough.

Flirts are excellent trains and if you have never travelled on them your criticism is somewhat void. Ian Warmsely of Modern Railways (who knows are thing or two about railways) says ALL inter city trains in the UK should be Flirts and I know who I would rather believe

 

[gordonthemoron]

Perhaps Scotrail could buy the same CAF units that NSW Trainlink has bought to replace the XPTs? They’re supposedly bi-mode

 

[Vectron383]

Perhaps Scotrail could buy the same CAF units that NSW Trainlink has bought to replace the XPTs? They’re supposedly bi-mode

Those are from the literal other side of the world, so they’d essentially be buying a new design with the associated higher costs. Plus I imagine there’d be a substantial redesign needed to take into account the substantial differences between Scotland and Australia.

 

[43096]

Flirts are excellent trains and if you have never travelled on them your criticism is somewhat void. Ian Warmsely of Modern Railways (who knows are thing or two about railways) says ALL inter city trains in the UK should be Flirts and I know who I would rather believe

I'd believe Ian Walmsley over either of them...

 

[hwl]

Doesn't "support efforts to decarbonise Scotland's railways" suggest new bi-mode stock, rather than reuse of existing stock released from elsewhere?

Any existing train that uses less fuel than the HST would qualify - this would cover pretty much every re-use of existing stock option!

Existing stock with working lives beyond 2030 also helps with the Scottish budget crunch and needing to delay electrification.

New Bi-modes are horrifically expensive and transport soctland aim to to get rid of any need for them to run on diesel...

Hence stop gap till electrification.

 

[LudwigTails]

So never rode on a flirt train or experience boarding through the one door yet criticise the train.

A class 444 door is a lot slower to open than a flirt, that’s for sure!

Plastic? Pretty sure it’s steel or aluminium?

Its like the people who criticise class 700 or 80X seats, yet have never actually sat on one

I have for one actually tried out class 700 and 80Xs. Those are not trains. i am not going to suffer on these trains unless its up most necessary and my only option.
I am only saying about a single big/wide sliding door. How is that not good at all?? This is so biased against the FLIRTs.

Countless people on this thread have explained that a) number of doors is not an issue, their position, dimensions and speed are more useful and b) if it was somehow determined that 1 door per side wasn’t enough, ScotRail could just spec their FLIRTs with 2 doors per side.

And when it comes to ‘vote kicking’ other trains (an expression I’ve only ever heard from my teenage brother), I would encourage you to look at the number of FLIRTs operating nationwide. I’d say we’re still a few orders away from class 66-style dominance. And if a train which gives wheelchair users a greater level of freedom and liberty becomes near universal in the UK, is that such a bad thing?

its not a bad thing, but can we just not design something that isnt like the FLIRTs? Seriously not all carriages even share the bogey even if its a selling point. If they are going to do sharing bogeys (which reduce the amount of bogey for Maintenace compared to nomral trains yes) and for low floor design. Then you might as well have the entire consist to be sharing bogey why did they not do that here??? And the space use is just not for intecity. The layout just screw everything up and it does not look right at all.

 

[signed]

Seriously not all carriages even share the bogey even if its a selling point.

They don't?

Both 756, 231 and the GA variants have full Jacobs Bogey. You of course need both ends to have a bogey themselves, but I don't see your point

 

[ld0595]

I have for one actually tried out class 700 and 80Xs. Those are not trains. i am not going to suffer on these trains unless its up most necessary and my only option.

If they aren't trains, then what are they?!

its not a bad thing, but can we just not design something that isnt like the FLIRTs? Seriously not all carriages even share the bogey even if its a selling point. If they are going to do sharing bogeys (which reduce the amount of bogey for Maintenace compared to nomral trains yes) and for low floor design. Then you might as well have the entire consist to be sharing bogey why did they not do that here??? And the space use is just not for intecity. The layout just screw everything up and it does not look right at all.

I'm not really sure what your point is here? Do you have an issue with articulated coaches which are used by intercity units across the world?

 

[LudwigTails]

They don't?

Both 756, 231 and the GA variants have full Jacobs Bogey. You of course need both ends to have a bogey themselves, but I don't see your point

745

If they aren't trains, then what are they?!


I'm not really sure what your point is here? Do you have an issue with articulated coaches which are used by intercity units across the world?

yes. more specifically half articulated ones and trains looking like trams.

 

[signed]

745

Fair, but what's the issue? Like it just looks fine

The reason seems to be that all the non-linked bogeys are powered and the Jacobs bogey are unpowered

 

[800001]

745

yes. more specifically half articulated ones and trains looking like trams.

What is the issue with articulated vehicles?
The 745 does not lose space, seats are above the bogies.

 

[Vectron383]

I have for one actually tried out class 700 and 80Xs. Those are not trains. i am not going to suffer on these trains unless its up most necessary and my only option.
I am only saying about a single big/wide sliding door. How is that not good at all?? This is so biased against the FLIRTs.

its not a bad thing, but can we just not design something that isnt like the FLIRTs? Seriously not all carriages even share the bogey even if its a selling point. If they are going to do sharing bogeys (which reduce the amount of bogey for Maintenace compared to nomral trains yes) and for low floor design. Then you might as well have the entire consist to be sharing bogey why did they not do that here??? And the space use is just not for intecity. The layout just screw everything up and it does not look right at all.

745

yes. more specifically half articulated ones and trains looking like trams.

It really seems like you’re trying to find any reason at all to talk down the FLIRT family of trains. The fact that the 745s have some powered bogies which aren’t articulated? That they ‘look like trams’? I’m starting to think that your immense dislike for these units doesn’t have any actual reasoning behind it.

 

[nwales58]

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.

Again, plenty of successful long distance designs with a single mid-vehicle door, just not in Britain (ancient curved platforms might be why), both on long vehicles: RENFE's s.120, Sweden X55s, Norway class 73, SBB Girunos ... as well as on shorter articulated vehicles that seem to be hated. Articulation gives a better ride at speed, albeit with higher axle loadings, try a ride on a TGV or a Talgo on crap non high-speed track, it's a tradeoff.

Stadler build, exquisitely, what the customer wants and can afford.

Is the FLIRT allergy real or a troll?

 

[43096]

I have for one actually tried out class 700 and 80Xs. Those are not trains. i am not going to suffer on these trains unless its up most necessary and my only option.
I am only saying about a single big/wide sliding door. How is that not good at all?? This is so biased against the FLIRTs.

its not a bad thing, but can we just not design something that isnt like the FLIRTs? Seriously not all carriages even share the bogey even if its a selling point. If they are going to do sharing bogeys (which reduce the amount of bogey for Maintenace compared to nomral trains yes) and for low floor design. Then you might as well have the entire consist to be sharing bogey why did they not do that here??? And the space use is just not for intecity. The layout just screw everything up and it does not look right at all.

Both 756, 231 and the GA variants have full Jacobs Bogey. You of course need both ends to have a bogey themselves, but I don't see your point

It's a bogie!

 

[skyhigh]

I’m starting to think that your immense dislike for these units doesn’t have any actual reasoning behind it.

The reasoning is simple.

@LudwigTails is a spotter with a preference for old stock. Therefore, anything that replaces the old stock is bad. Simple as that, and happened time and time again over the years. See - those who hated HSTs because they replaced Deltics. Those who hate IETs because they replaced HSTs.

"Plastics" and "trams" are commonly used derogatory terms by certain sections of the 'enthusiast community'.

 

[43096]

Any existing train that uses less fuel than the HST would qualify - this would cover pretty much every re-use of existing stock option!

Existing stock with working lives beyond 2030 also helps with the Scottish budget crunch and needing to delay electrification.

New Bi-modes are horrifically expensive and transport soctland aim to to get rid of any need for them to run on diesel...

Hence stop gap till electrification.

But taking second-hand stock (more "English cast offs") before 2029/30 is only going to make the Scottish budget issues worse.

 

[nwales58]

Back on topic, I predict ScotRail will go out to tender, the usual suspects will submit bids, the range of in-production designs is obvious, and the cheapest compliant whole-life bid will win.

 

[Davester50]

Back on topic, I predict ScotRail will go out to tender, the usual suspects will submit bids, the range of in-production designs is obvious, and the cheapest compliant whole-life bid will win.

Aww, come on now. This is the speculation thread - there's no place for sensible realthink!

 

[800001]

Back on topic, I predict ScotRail will go out to tender, the usual suspects will submit bids, the range of in-production designs is obvious, and the cheapest compliant whole-life bid will win.

I wonder though with all recent publicity with Tanni Grey-Thompson and the issues at Kings Cross will push level boarding to the forefront of the bid.

How many suppliers would have level boarding models ready for uk production?

 

[LudwigTails]

the trams i am really just talking about, are ones that are similar to ones in east croydon. Or whatever types of trams that only have one pair of doors in the middle, the small bogeys are shared between carriages and the carriages are utterly short. Thats a tram and thats what a FLIRT is.

It really seems like you’re trying to find any reason at all to talk down the FLIRT family of trains. The fact that the 745s have some powered bogies which aren’t articulated? That they ‘look like trams’? I’m starting to think that your immense dislike for these units doesn’t have any actual reasoning behind it.

the trams i am really just talking about, are ones that are similar to ones in east croydon. Or whatever types of trams that only have one pair of doors in the middle, the small bogeys are shared between carriages and the carriages are utterly short. Thats a tram and thats what a FLIRT is.

 

[Vectron383]

According to you, France’s TGV High speed trains are trams:



Image source: https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/190473-set-40518-duplex-bogie-modifiction/

 

[800001]

the trams i am really just talking about, are ones that are similar to ones in east croydon. Or whatever types of trams that only have one pair of doors in the middle, the small bogeys are shared between carriages and the carriages are utterly short. Thats a tram and thats what a FLIRT is.


the trams i am really just talking about, are ones that are similar to ones in east croydon. Or whatever types of trams that only have one pair of doors in the middle, the small bogeys are shared between carriages and the carriages are utterly short. Thats a tram and thats what a FLIRT is.

So because a flirt has articulated bogies you think that makes it a tram?

 

[ld0595]

yes. more specifically half articulated ones and trains looking like trams.

Ah of course, the Class 373, APT, TGV and Amtrak Avelia units are well known for looking remarkably tram like...

 

[LudwigTails]

So because a flirt has articulated bogies you think that makes it a tram?

Its an EMU.

Ah of course, the Class 373, APT, TGV and Amtrak Avelia units are well known for looking remarkably tram like...

And unlike these, at least these actually have power cars and are proper high speed. Jacob bogeys were used in these design for safety reasons. (Something related to crashing).

 

[800001]

Its an EMU.

And unlike these, at least these actually have power cars and are proper high speed. Jacob bogeys were used in these design for safety reasons. (Something related to crashing).

But according to you trains with articulated bogies are trams.

So are the EMUs or Trams? They can only be one or the other, make your mind up.

 

[Vectron383]

Its an EMU.

And unlike these, at least these actually have power cars and are proper high speed. Jacob bogeys were used in these design for safety reasons. (Something related to crashing

As you’ve said, one of the biggest advantages of Jacobs bogies are their improved crashworthiness. So why do you think Stadler chose them?

 

[Sorcerer]

And unlike these, at least these actually have power cars and are proper high speed. Jacob bogeys were used in these design for safety reasons. (Something related to crashing).

Bi-Mode FLIRTs have power packs in the middle which work like power cars in a way. I don't see how power cars and proper high-speed somehow make a difference though. I understand everyone has preferences for their favourite stock, I for one prefer InterCity units with end doors rather than middle and I love tilting trains like the Pendolino.

However, for a modern railway where functionality and efficiency are the most important aspects of rolling stock orders, aesthetics such as those should not be prioritised over things such as accesibility and better passenger flow. I know for a fact that Transport Scotland won't be looking at the rolling stock options and having visual appearance as part of the equation.

 

[LudwigTails]

Bi-Mode FLIRTs have power packs in the middle which work like power cars in a way. I don't see how power cars and proper high-speed somehow make a difference though. I understand everyone has preferences for their favourite stock, I for one prefer InterCity units with end doors rather than middle and I love tilting trains like the Pendolino.

However, for a modern railway where functionality and efficiency are the most important aspects of rolling stock orders, aesthetics such as those should not be prioritised over things such as accesibility and better passenger flow. I know for a fact that Transport Scotland won't be looking at the rolling stock options and having visual appearance as part of the equation.

i am just going to say it will be a mistake. I am done with this convo. FLIRT sucks. Proper trains are better.