Would DMUs have been a better choice for Scotrail than HSTs?

[GaryBrown156]

Moderator note: Split from Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/scotrail-hst-introduction-updates-discussion.137911

Yesterday I had my first ever trip on a ScotRail HST (the delayed 17.48 from Stirling to Glasgow Queen Street). I have been hearing mixed views about the HST's (some love them, some think they where a big mistake) but as I had never travelled on a ScotRail HST I wanted to try for myself before judging. I was traveling with a relative who is a non rail enthusiast so it was good to get the views of "the ordinary punter".
When the train approached the station the first thing my relative said was "thats a really old looking train". The fact that it didn't have a front destination display also caused some confusion as to whether or not it was the Glasgow or Edinburgh train as we had missed the previous one due a combination sitting in the waiting room and an incorrect tannoy announcement.

Boarding the train was not the most user friendly experience (especially for those with limited mobility), the entrance is not level as is the case on all other ScotRail trains and my relative required assistance to board, I myself also nearly slipped on the "half step" into the carrage.
Onboard, the train was spotless clean and the refurb is pretty decent, however as a person who suffers from severe anxiety I did find the high backed airline seats rather claustrophobic so we opted for a table seat (there aren't many of t
hese and it may be difficult to get one on busier services post pandemic), the toilet facilities where also spotless clean and up to modern standards.
Upon arriving at Queen Street my relative also had similar difficulties alighting so again required assistance.
As we walked down the platform we couldn't help but notice that the train was absolutely filthy (whoever decided to paint the carrages light grey definitely made a poor choice as it really shows the dirt and does the train no favours). Our final experience of the HST before leaving the station was choking on the strong diesel fumes when passing the power car. We are used to travelling on Class 156 and 170 DMU's and strong fumes have never been an issue. I don't know if this particular pc had a fault or this is common on HST's but it was extremely unpleasant (especially for someone with asthma).

So to sum up, our impressions of the HST where a mixed bag. Not by any means the worst train i have ever travelled on but it certainly felt like a 50 year old train which had been "tarted up" as opposed to a new train and wasn't up to the same standard as any other class of train in the ScotRail fleet.
Other than a speed advantage it doesn't offer any improvement over its predecessor (The class 170) in terms of comfort or for people with visible or hidden disabilities.
I am now firmly of the view that a double Class 170, another class of DMU such as double 185's (had they been available for lease), or 6 car 158's would have been a better stop-gap choice until new purpose built trains could be procured.

 

[Goldromans]

I am now firmly of the view that a double Class 170, another class of DMU such as double 185's (had they been available for lease), or 6 car 158's would have been a better stop-gap choice until new purpose built trains could be procured.

Without wanting to re-open the HST vs 170 debate, it might be worth remembering that your experience wasn't typical due to COVID. The HSTs offer a huge improvement in on-board catering and first class, both of which aren't currently available. I'm also surprised you say there weren't many table seats, as the HST's have a roughly 50/50 split between airline and table seats.

I would certainly agree with you about the exterior looking incredibly dirty. Though I believe this is because of the vinyl stickers collecting dirt?

 

[najaB]

...had they been available for lease...

And there is your answer right there. It came down to what was available.

 

[GaryBrown156]

Without wanting to re-open the HST vs 170 debate, it might be worth remembering that your experience wasn't typical due to COVID. The HSTs offer a huge improvement in on-board catering and first class, both of which aren't currently available. I'm also surprised you say there weren't many table seats, as the HST's have a roughly 50/50 split between airline and table seats.

I would certainly agree with you about the exterior looking incredibly dirty. Though I believe this is because of the vinyl stickers collecting dirt?

I wasn't wishing to re-open any debate/argument i was merely providing some feedback and giving an opinion. I have read a lot of differing view on here and on other forums but wanted to try for myself before forming deciding.
I accept that I never had the full "HST experience" yesterday due to no onboard catering ect. however, we where more displeased at the difficulty in boarding/alighting due to the step than we where at not being able to get a cup of coffee. Whilst issues such as no front destination display could be easily resolved i really don't see how you can make the carrages easier to access for those with reduced mobility?. If that was an easy fix then surely that would have been done at Wabtec?.
The strong diesel fumes where also rather concerning, as I said previously I can't say whether this is a common trate amongst HST powercars but the fumes coming off it where much stronger than off any DMU we had travelled on and necessitated me to use my inhaler.
I also can't speak for the other carrages but the one that we where sitting in didn't appear to have many table seats.

The cosmetics are are just my own opinion (beauty is in the eye of the beholder) but to me and my travelling companion the train looked rather dated compared with everything else in the fleet, the poor choice to use a little grey livery on the coaches didn't help with that though.
I accept that the decision to introduce HST's has long since been made (be it right or wrong) and we are stuck with them for the foreseeable. I would travel on them again if I had to, however I disagree that they are an improvement on what preceeded them (other than their extra carrage and higher top speed).

 

[samuelmorris]

I wasn't wishing to re-open any debate/argument i was merely providing some feedback and giving an opinion. I have read a lot of differing view on here and on other forums but wanted to try for myself before forming deciding.
I accept that I never had the full "HST experience" yesterday due to no onboard catering ect. however, we where more displeased at the difficulty in boarding/alighting due to the step than we where at not being able to get a cup of coffee. Whilst issues such as no front destination display could be easily resolved i really don't see how you can make the carrages easier to access for those with reduced mobility?. If that was an easy fix then surely that would have been done at Wabtec?.
The strong diesel fumes where also rather concerning, as I said previously I can't say whether this is a common trate amongst HST powercars but the fumes coming off it where much stronger than off any DMU we had travelled on and necessitated me to use my inhaler.
I also can't speak for the other carrages but the one that we where sitting in didn't appear to have many table seats.

The cosmetics are are just my own opinion (beauty is in the eye of the beholder) but to me and my travelling companion the train looked rather dated compared with everything else in the fleet, the poor choice to use a little grey livery on the coaches didn't help with that though.
I accept that the decision to introduce HST's has long since been made (be it right or wrong) and we are stuck with them for the foreseeable. I would travel on them again if I had to, however I disagree that they are an improvement on what preceeded them (other than their extra carrage and higher top speed).

Honestly it's not something I remember from travelling on HSTs. I usually find DMUs just as bad for it, but it depends on the station you board at, wind direction and so on. If the station is very enclosed, or if the wind is blowing the fumes directly towards you, any diesel powered stock can be a bit overwhelming.

 

[Goldromans]

I wasn't wishing to re-open any debate/argument i was merely providing some feedback and giving an opinion.

Apologies, it was more a warning to myself. I think you raise some important issues, especially regarding accessibility. Indeed the pros and cons of the HSTs are clear and it’s for each person to decide if they’re an upgrade or not. I personally think they were the right choice as a stop-gap, as they’re proper long-distance trains and the new-builds we get in the 2030s will have to meet the HST standard as a minimum. It wouldn’t have surprised me if we’d stuck with 170s, the new-builds would have been similarly designed inter-urban units.

 

[scotraildriver]

Given the seats are exactly the same as those fitted to the majority of the 158s and the step again is no different to a 158 and a lesser extent a 170 I'm not sure why you find the HST so different. The power car at the buffers would be shut down soon after arrival unless it was leaving again quickly. The 156s and 158s are far smokier than a power car in general.

 

[GaryBrown156]

And there is your answer right there. It came down to what was available.

Yes I fully understand that and I agree.
The reason I mentioned double 170's was because I believe that was the proposed alternative to HST's being introduced. And the reason why I mentioned 185's is because there was a period when it looked likely that they may have been available for lease when TPE acquired their new rolling stock.

 

[hexagon789]

Given the seats are exactly the same as those fitted to the majority of the 158s and the step again is no different to a 158 and a lesser extent a 170 I'm not sure why you find the HST so different. The power car at the buffers would be shut down soon after arrival unless it was leaving again quickly. The 156s and 158s are far smokier than a power car in general.

You definitely notice the fumes onboard 156s under full power and load inside the train, you at least don't get that on an HST.

I also can't speak for the other carrages but the one that we where sitting in didn't appear to have many table seats.

Every Standard Class trailer is over half table bays

Yes I fully understand that and I agree.
The reason I mentioned double 170's was because I believe that was the proposed alternative to HST's being introduced. And the reason why I mentioned 185's is because there was a period when it looked likely that they may have been available for lease when TPE acquired their new rolling stock.

There was also that 170 reconfiguration plan, making some sets 4-car for instance, adding more first class etc

 

[GaryBrown156]

Given the seats are exactly the same as those fitted to the majority of the 158s and the step again is no different to a 158 and a lesser extent a 170 I'm not sure why you find the HST so different. The power car at the buffers would be shut down soon after arrival unless it was leaving again quickly. The 156s and 158s are far smokier than a power car in general.

I am not a frequent traveller on 158's but from my past traveling experiences I have found the seats on those rather claustrophobic as well. If they are the same as those fitted to the HST's that would explain why. I am a fairly frequent traveller on the WHL and G&SW 156's and have honestly never found them to be that smokey, perhaps it was a quick turnaround as you say but the fumes where noticeably strong. No doubt the train shed in Queen Street Station as apposed to an open platform may have been a contributing factor.

 

[Northhighland]

As a frequent traveller from Inverness to Edinburgh and Glasgow the OP needs to understand that a wee jaunt from Stirling to Glasgow is in no way a representative experience of the routes the HST’s are running on.

The 170’s have for a start the doors inside the passenger area. Sit on in of these going across the Cairngorms every station you are subjected to a ferocious blast of very cold air. That alone made the 170 unsuitable for the Highland main line.

Secondly for 3 and a bit hours the whining noise inside a 170 gets quite tedious.

That along with the fact there were no more 17”’s to hire made the HST a decent choice. I would also point out that to go from Stirling to Glasgow you have a choice of a number of different trains. From Inverness you don’t. The HST is fairly well received in the Highlands as a huge improvement.

 

[peteb]

Its a no brainer. I travelled once (before the derailment) on a day trip Montrose to Aberdeen. Out via HST, quite busy but very comfy and quiet: good aircon. Back by DMU, more reminiscent of the Birmingham rush hour, packed like sardines despite double unit, hot, noisy engines..........you can guess what I preferred.

 

[37424]

I wasn't wishing to re-open any debate/argument i was merely providing some feedback and giving an opinion. I have read a lot of differing view on here and on other forums but wanted to try for myself before forming deciding.
I accept that I never had the full "HST experience" yesterday due to no onboard catering ect. however, we where more displeased at the difficulty in boarding/alighting due to the step than we where at not being able to get a cup of coffee. Whilst issues such as no front destination display could be easily resolved i really don't see how you can make the carrages easier to access for those with reduced mobility?. If that was an easy fix then surely that would have been done at Wabtec?.
The strong diesel fumes where also rather concerning, as I said previously I can't say whether this is a common trate amongst HST powercars but the fumes coming off it where much stronger than off any DMU we had travelled on and necessitated me to use my inhaler.
I also can't speak for the other carrages but the one that we where sitting in didn't appear to have many table seats.

The cosmetics are are just my own opinion (beauty is in the eye of the beholder) but to me and my travelling companion the train looked rather dated compared with everything else in the fleet, the poor choice to use a little grey livery on the coaches didn't help with that though.
I accept that the decision to introduce HST's has long since been made (be it right or wrong) and we are stuck with them for the foreseeable. I would travel on them again if I had to, however I disagree that they are an improvement on what preceeded them (other than their extra carrage and higher top speed).

But about the only trains that could offer level boarding would be the Stadler Bi-modes which would also have the advantage of being able to go into Glasgow in electric mode so no diesel fumes, other new trains such as an IET version could offer no diesel fumes but wouldn't offer level boarding either, while such the new CAF Loco Hauled carriages or CAF DMU wouldn't offer level boarding either although the diesel fumes would presumably be less with latest emission standards diesel's rather than an aging MTU lump.

 

[Wynd]

IMO an HST to a 170 or 158 is like comparing a Rolls Royce to a Donkey. Its no contest here. The key reason for me is noise. As I often work on the train, underfloor engines are abhorrent.

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

Personally, yes, despite multiple issues with getting them into service. It's obvious the First Class accommodation is much more worth paying to travel in (when there's no social distancing) than First Class on the 170's!

 

[37424]

IMO an HST to a 170 or 158 is like comparing a Rolls Royce to a Donkey. Its no contest here. The key reason for me is noise. As I often work on the train, underfloor engines are abhorrent.

+
158's are noisy especially if you sit near the engines, I don't find 170's too bad, and the latest generation's of DMU with a ZF gearbox are fairly quiet as you don't have the engine on high revs a lot of the time like 1st gen sprinters. For me the supposed benefits of a 40 year old HST over a much younger 170 are over rated. The main issue of running the 170's in pairs is a lack of corridor connection.

 

[delt1c]

I wasn't wishing to re-open any debate/argument i was merely providing some feedback and giving an opinion. I have read a lot of differing view on here and on other forums but wanted to try for myself before forming deciding.
I accept that I never had the full "HST experience" yesterday due to no onboard catering ect. however, we where more displeased at the difficulty in boarding/alighting due to the step than we where at not being able to get a cup of coffee. Whilst issues such as no front destination display could be easily resolved i really don't see how you can make the carrages easier to access for those with reduced mobility?. If that was an easy fix then surely that would have been done at Wabtec?.
The strong diesel fumes where also rather concerning, as I said previously I can't say whether this is a common trate amongst HST powercars but the fumes coming off it where much stronger than off any DMU we had travelled on and necessitated me to use my inhaler.
I also can't speak for the other carrages but the one that we where sitting in didn't appear to have many table seats.

The cosmetics are are just my own opinion (beauty is in the eye of the beholder) but to me and my travelling companion the train looked rather dated compared with everything else in the fleet, the poor choice to use a little grey livery on the coaches didn't help with that though.
I accept that the decision to introduce HST's has long since been made (be it right or wrong) and we are stuck with them for the foreseeable. I would travel on them again if I had to, however I disagree that they are an improvement on what preceeded them (other than their extra carrage and higher top speed).

You can please some of the people some of the time, but you cant please all of the people all of the time. There are plus and minus points for all stock. Had Scotrail managed to secure DMU's there wouyld have been posts on here complaining about the them.

 

[Scotrail314209]

+
158's are noisy especially if you sit near the engines, I don't find 170's too bad, and the latest generation's of DMU with a ZF gearbox are fairly quiet as you don't have the engine on high revs a lot of the time like 1st gen sprinters. For me the supposed benefits of a 40 year old HST over a much younger 170 are over rated. The main issue of running the 170's in pairs is a lack of corridor connection.

I will say, the WHL could do with a new build of DMUs. Five hours of a loud 156 engine isn’t a peaceful way to enjoy the scenery

 

[hexagon789]

I will say, the WHL could do with a new build of DMUs. Five hours of a loud 156 engine isn’t a peaceful way to enjoy the scenery

Was supposed to be getting cascaded 158s but of course that hasn't happened.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I will say, the WHL could do with a new build of DMUs. Five hours of a loud 156 engine isn’t a peaceful way to enjoy the scenery

The downside is that any new build won't have opening windows. It's nice to breathe the fresh air up there.

158s have a horrid whine that hurts my ears after a few hours. But then actually modern DMUs, even CAF ones, are pretty quiet.

 

[Clansman]

But about the only trains that could offer level boarding would be the Stadler Bi-modes which would also have the advantage of being able to go into Glasgow in electric mode so no diesel fumes, other new trains such as an IET version could offer no diesel fumes but wouldn't offer level boarding either, while such the new CAF Loco Hauled carriages or CAF DMU wouldn't offer level boarding either although the diesel fumes would presumably be less with latest emission standards diesel's rather than an aging MTU lump.

That's assuming that the only available rolling stock to procure or newly build are existing models. There's nothing stopping anybody requesting level boarding from any of the major manufacturing companies.

Level boarding would be interesting, especially at Dunkeld and Perth!

 

[DB]

That's assuming that the only available rolling stock to procure or newly build are existing models. There's nothing stopping anybody reqiestomg level boarding from any of the major manufacturing companies.

Level boarding would be interesting, especially at Dunkeld and Perth!

In practice, that's going to mean articulated units, which many manufacturers don't offer. That's not to say they couldn't, but a completely new design wouldn't be cheap or quick.

 

[HSTEd]

Long Stadler electrodiesels are probably the optimum choice.

 

[37424]

That's assuming that the only available rolling stock to procure or newly build are existing models. There's nothing stopping anybody reqiestomg level boarding from any of the major manufacturing companies.

Level boarding would be interesting, especially at Dunkeld and Perth!

True but in practice it would mean taking a European design and modifying it for the UK as Stadler has done or a substancially new design, rather than existing UK designs especially ones with underfloor mounted engines, I guess the only alternative might be to raise part of the platform where at least the wheelchair access is, but that needs predictable train types and lengths and the hump not causing problems for other types of train that might use the line.

We have had discussion before swings and roundabouts I'm not a massive fan of non flat floors in trains I would rather have the step to the platform, but obviously for a wheel chair user a flat entrance is better and probably better for a limited mobility person providing they get a seat in the non step area and don't want to move about the train. It also essentially rules out trains with underfloor mounted engines, and probably carriages with end doors.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We have had discussion before swings and roundabouts I'm not a massive fan of non flat floors in trains I would rather have the step to the platform, but obviously for a wheel chair user a flat entrance is better and probably better for a limited mobility person providing they get a seat in the non step area and don't want to move about the train. It also essentially rules out trains with underfloor mounted engines, and probably carriages with end doors.

With regard to end doors, a single pair of doors mounted somewhere near the middle of an articulated vehicle (it's not usually right in the middle for reasons of throw on curved platforms meaning too large a gap) gives you pretty much the same feel, indeed in some ways a superior one as you have two small saloons instead of one big one. Give the GA Stadlers a go.

 

[XAM2175]

Surely an option for partial level boarding without extensive modifications - to existing designs or stations - would be to have at least one trailer in the formation with a low-floor saloon between the bogies? You put the wheelchair spaces, accessible lavatory, etc, in that low-floor space and then the rest of the train can be a standard DMU with engines underfloor.

SBB have done a similar thing to add level-boarding to some of their 'NPZ' commuter EMUs: a new low-floor trailer built by Bombardier was inserted into existing high-floor sets, so other than performance issues arising from the unpowered vehicle it shouldn't be challenging at all for a new-build unit.

File:SBB CFF FFS Domino RBDe 560 (16485442922).jpg - Wikimedia Commons

commons.wikimedia.org

 

[37424]

With regard to end doors, a single pair of doors mounted somewhere near the middle of an articulated vehicle (it's not usually right in the middle for reasons of throw on curved platforms meaning too large a gap) gives you pretty much the same feel, indeed in some ways a superior one as you have two small saloons instead of one big one. Give the GA Stadlers a go.

Well I would prefer something built in the UK given the number of manufacturers that we now have or are building plants here, I'm not a massive fan of the Stadler units they have the look and feel of a glorified tram, in any case I expect it will be a few years yet before Scotland looks at a HST replacement whatever the opinion on here. Given the Talgo Plant in Scotland (i assume that's still happening) maybe we can expect some Talgo concoction eventually.

 

[hexagon789]

Given the Talgo Plant in Scotland (i assume that's still happening) maybe we can expect some Talgo concoction eventually.

I hope not, the ride on those things is atrocious.

 

[dm1]

Surely an option for partial level boarding without extensive modifications - to existing designs or stations - would be to have at least one trailer in the formation with a low-floor saloon between the bogies? You put the wheelchair spaces, accessible lavatory, etc, in that low-floor space and then the rest of the train can be a standard DMU with engines underfloor.

SBB have done a similar thing to add level-boarding to some of their 'NPZ' commuter EMUs: a new low-floor trailer built by Bombardier was inserted into existing high-floor sets, so other than performance issues arising from the unpowered vehicle it shouldn't be challenging at all for a new-build unit.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:sBB_CFF_FFS_Domino_RBDe_560_(16485442922).jpg

That has been quite a common approach in Switzerland in general. The same was done for the loco-hauled trains on the Zürich S-Bahn (the DPZ) which had a new carriage with level boarding added replacing a high floor car. The excess "high-floor" carriages were then used to form additional trains used in peak times only (and hauled by an old, refurbished Re 420 at each end!).

I think given the amount of new rolling stock without level boarding ordered in recent years such an approach is the only viable one - the hard part would be convincing Hitachi/Bombardier/Siemens/CAF to build such trailers, and the problems where platforms have been built to a higher height than the standard on parts of a route (Thameslink core or Heathrow Branch for example). There you would need a trailer with doors at both heights with a ramp inside (not impossible, but it adds complexity).

 

[HSTEd]

That has been quite a common approach in Switzerland in general. The same was done for the loco-hauled trains on the Zürich S-Bahn (the DPZ) which had a new carriage with level boarding added replacing a high floor car. The excess "high-floor" carriages were then used to form additional trains used in peak times only (and hauled by an old, refurbished Re 420 at each end!).

I think given the amount of new rolling stock without level boarding ordered in recent years such an approach is the only viable one - the hard part would be convincing Hitachi/Bombardier/Siemens/CAF to build such trailers, and the problems where platforms have been built to a higher height than the standard on parts of a route (Thameslink core or Heathrow Branch for example). There you would need a trailer with doors at both heights with a ramp inside (not impossible, but it adds complexity).

Now if only we had some sort of common electrical and mechanical specification for connections between vehicles.........
That's a novel idea.