GW 769s to Scotrail?

[m79900]

I saw this in another thread, thought it might be worth discussion.

 

[JonathanH]

I saw this in another thread, thought it might be worth discussion.

First thought would be component recovery for 318 / 320 but the wrong ownership for that as 769 are Porterbrook, 318 and 320 are Eversholt, so that can probably be discounted as a theory.

 

[Rail Quest]

Assuming this is to do with the two units on their way to Kilmarnock ATM?

Realtime Trains | 5Q08 1342 Long Marston to Kilmarnock Bonnyton Depot | 25/09/2023

Real-time train running information for 5Q08 1342 departure from Long Marston to Kilmarnock Bonnyton Depot on 25/09/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[JonathanH]

Reply on twitter says they're replacing the hsts and 156s.

I doubt they'll replace hst's imagine travelling on these long distance...

Well I guess that some sort of 769 > 156 > 158 > 170 > HST cascade could send the HSTs to the bin but it is a bit of a long shot and would require 156s, 158s and 170s to run on routes they aren't best suited to.

A 769 on the Maryhill service would make good use of electrification in the tunnel out of Queen Street.

 

[Anonymous10]

Well I guess that some sort of 769 > 156 > 158 > 170 > HST cascade could send the HSTs to the bin but it is a bit of a long shot and would require 156s, 158s and 170s to run on routes they aren't best suited to.

A 769 on the Maryhill service would make good use of electrification in the tunnel out of Queen Street.

I'd almost prefer a 769 introduction on suburban routes with a internal cascade releasing 158s for the hst replacement given they are the best suited to that.

I think a new thread is in order.

 

[Rail Quest]

Tbf I was assume the original twitter response was a joke. Giving it a second thought - it saying they'd assist replacing both hsts and 156s is an instant giveaway - scotrail have about 40 156s I believe and a number of HST sets. There's only 20 769s ex GWR. Even then - the 769s are hardly an upgrade to 156s (they're worse in many aspects, particularly performance). Finally, its been mentioned in other threads ScotRail's rolling stock strategy includes the replacing of 320s and 318s so why introduce very similar units to displace better trains haha. Im convinced they're just going up for spare parts or something like that

 

[Meerkat]

Tbf I was assume the original twitter response was a joke. Giving it a second thought - it saying they'd assist replacing both hsts and 156s is an instant giveaway - scotrail have about 40 156s I believe and a number of HST sets. There's only 20 769s ex GWR. Even then - the 769s are hardly an upgrade to 156s (they're worse in many aspects, particularly performance). Finally, its been mentioned in other threads ScotRail's rolling stock strategy includes the replacing of 320s and 318s so why introduce very similar units to displace better trains haha. Im convinced they're just going up for spare parts or something like that

They are running out of money and time for their decarbonisation targets. If 769's can cover some lines then they can reprioritise.

 

[Kite159]

Breaking out the crayons, could they work the Glasgow Central - Kilmarnock services, assuming the diagrams can work to keep them away from the more long distance Glasgow - Carlisle services. Running under wires away from Glasgow Central to Barrhead?

Or as a short term measure run to East Kilbride so they can make use of the wires when they process?

 

[Falcon1200]

Breaking out the crayons, could they work the Glasgow Central - Kilmarnock services, assuming the diagrams can work to keep them away from the more long distance Glasgow - Carlisle services.

That would be a reasonable suggestion, and would make better use of the new overhead wires to Barrhead, although I do wonder how they would perform on the climb from Barrhead up to Shillford.....

 

[Clansman]

It's somewhat amusing that the thread on Twitter discussing it is citing this forum as a source, and in turn members here are citing the Twitter discussion as a source. Shows how speculation can run away with itself!

Brodies have already confirmed the purpose of the movement...

 

[Peter0124]

What exactly is wrong with the HST sets? I think they are really good to travel on especially compared to 170 or 158.

 

[m79900]

What exactly is wrong with the HST sets? I think they are really good to travel on especially compared to 170 or 158.

The DfT breathing down their necks about post-Carmont mk3 safety concerns.

 

[JonathanH]

The DfT breathing down their necks about post-Carmont mk3 safety concerns.

The DfT don't really have any jurisdiction over what happens on the railways in Scotland. It is a devolved matter.

 

[Chester1]

What exactly is wrong with the HST sets? I think they are really good to travel on especially compared to 170 or 158.

Their cabs are much less safe than newer trains, even 225s. In theory they could keep the Mark IIIs only but there are insufficient spare DVTs and suitable locos.

The DfT breathing down their necks about post-Carmont mk3 safety concerns.

The DfT don't really have any jurisdiction over what happens on the railways in Scotland. It is a devolved matter.

Its much more ASLEF than the DfT. However, removing the HSTs from XC and starting the removal of the mini GWR HSTs does leave the Scottish government very exposed, especially one that likes to portray itself as much more modern and caring than the evil Tory UK government. If there is another Carmont between May 2024 and 2030 questions will be asked why they are still running trains that were deemed too old for continued service in England and Wales.

I very much doubt Scotrail are interested in chronically unreliable units. The conversion project has been a huge failure!

 

[Speed43125]

Their cabs are much less safe than newer trains, even 225s. In theory they could keep the Mark IIIs only but there are insufficient spare DVTs and suitable locos.





Its much more ASLEF than the DfT. However, removing the HSTs from XC and starting the removal of the mini GWR HSTs does leave the Scottish government very exposed, especially one that likes to portray itself as much more modern and caring than the evil Tory UK government. If there is another Carmont between May 2024 and 2030 questions will be asked why they are still running trains that were deemed too old for continued service in England and Wales.

I very much doubt Scotrail are interested in chronically unreliable units. The conversion project has been a huge failure!

In fairness by the time the last couple of GWR ones are withdrawn in May 2025, they should be reasonably far advanced in the procurement of HST replacements and could point to that.

 

[Bill57p9]

Breaking out the crayons, could they work the Glasgow Central - Kilmarnock services, assuming the diagrams can work to keep them away from the more long distance Glasgow - Carlisle services. Running under wires away from Glasgow Central to Barrhead?

Or as a short term measure run to East Kilbride so they can make use of the wires when they process?

Plus Kilmarnock to Girvan as could run pan up between Troon and Ayr.
I doubt they would make the climb out of Girvan towards Pinwherry/Barrhill!

Of course some bi-mode FLIRTs would be a far better and more welcome answer.


Regarding the HSTs, whilst I am aware of the lease commitments on them, given their withdrawal elsewhere, showing of their age, thirst and somewhat questionable environmental credentials against the variety of vastly more modern InterCity diesel stock coming available (Voyagers, Meridians and preferably Nova 3s) I am struggling to see their days as anything but numbered.

 

[SC318250]

If they went to Scotrail would they struggle up the hill from Barrhead?

Also would they struggle up to East Kilbride or is it not to bad a climb

No chance on Anniesland services as where to pan up until on main line coming from Anniesland as far as I know

 

[snowball]

In fairness by the time the last couple of GWR ones are withdrawn in May 2025, they should be reasonably far advanced in the procurement of HST replacements and could point to that.

I haven't seen much to justify that. According to the most recent available published information (more than a year ago now), replacement inter-city trains were due to be covered by the third phase of the Great Scottish Train Procurement, following suburban EMUs and BEMUs in phase 1, and trains for "rural" lines (Far North etc) in phase 2. But since then there has been no visible progress even on phase 1.

Maybe the proposed sequence has been changed since then but nothing has been said in public as far as I know.

 

[Trainbike46]

The DfT don't really have any jurisdiction over what happens on the railways in Scotland. It is a devolved matter.

Their cabs are much less safe than newer trains, even 225s. In theory they could keep the Mark IIIs only but there are insufficient spare DVTs and suitable locos.





Its much more ASLEF than the DfT. However, removing the HSTs from XC and starting the removal of the mini GWR HSTs does leave the Scottish government very exposed, especially one that likes to portray itself as much more modern and caring than the evil Tory UK government. If there is another Carmont between May 2024 and 2030 questions will be asked why they are still running trains that were deemed too old for continued service in England and Wales.

I very much doubt Scotrail are interested in chronically unreliable units. The conversion project has been a huge failure!

A few things that speak to HSTs remaining on scotrail for a little while yet:
- The Scottish government has guaranteed the lease until 2030 - meaning replacing them significantly before then will be expensive
- During the railnatter with Alex Hynes, he said that Scotrail was making modifications to the cabs to improve safety
- During the same railnatter he also mentioned that they were starting to think about replacing the IC-fleet (including HSTs), around 2030-2035

I haven't seen much to justify that. According to the most recent available published information (more than a year ago now), replacement inter-city trains were due to be covered by the third phase of the Great Scottish Train Procurement, following suburban EMUs and BEMUs in phase 1, and trains for "rural" lines (Far North etc) in phase 2. But since then there has been no visible progress even on phase 1.

Maybe the proposed sequence has been changed since then but nothing has been said in public as far as I know.

Nothing firm was set in public, but Alex Hynes did make some comments on scotrail fleet strategy during the railnatter recently

 

[Falcon1200]

Brodies have already confirmed the purpose of the movement...

Given that GWR have no intention to use the sets, one would have to ask why they need scheduled, or indeed any, maintenance, especially at a location several hundred miles from their home?!!

 

[snowball]

Nothing firm was set in public, but Alex Hynes did make some comments on scotrail fleet strategy during the railnatter recently

I watched that when it was first posted but don't remember anything earth-shattering being said about train procurement. I think for any information we'll have to wait for documents that come out as part of the next budget process over the next few months, which should include the promised decarbonisation refresh.

 

[Failed Unit]

A few things that speak to HSTs remaining on scotrail for a little while yet:
- The Scottish government has guaranteed the lease until 2030 - meaning replacing them significantly before then will be expensive
- During the railnatter with Alex Hynes, he said that Scotrail was making modifications to the cabs to improve safety
- During the same railnatter he also mentioned that they were starting to think about replacing the IC-fleet (including HSTs), around 2030-2035


Nothing firm was set in public, but Alex Hynes did make some comments on scotrail fleet strategy during the railnatter recently

I shall say "about right for the 222's to leave EMR and replace them" - Someone will shout bingo

I don't really see what problem the 769s are really going to solve. I get the logic mentioned above about bridging gaps on no-electrified routes. But they are hardly reliable.

 

[Trainbike46]

I watched that when it was first posted but don't remember anything earth-shattering being said about train procurement. I think for any information we'll have to wait for documents that come out as part of the next budget process over the next few months, which should include the promised decarbonisation refresh.

nothing earth shattering, just:
- that it is still going ahead
- that all new trains will be required to offer level boarding throughout
- the indications that the current intention is for HSTs to remain untill 2030ish

 

[fisher2511]

Could they be used on the Largs branch in poor weather when the juice has to be turned off at Saltcoats to prevent arcing?

 

[DelW]

Given that GWR have no intention to use the sets, one would have to ask why they need scheduled, or indeed any, maintenance, especially at a location several hundred miles from their home?!!

They're off lease from GWR so it's nothing to do with them, it'll be Porterbrook's decision to have done whatever is actually intended. At a guess it'll be to run the engines up, blow out condensation, change the filters and maybe dehumidify the saloons, in case they can persuade someone to lease them again.

 

[skyhigh]

Love the fact that this speculation is based on an enthusiasts guessing game on Twitter which they're passing around as fact. It's a complete stab in the dark and if they end up with ScotRail it's a fluke rather than any genuine knowledge.

They've posted plenty of things before which either haven't happened or are impossible.

 

[92002]

I'd almost prefer a 769 introduction on suburban routes with a internal cascade releasing 158s for the hst replacement given they are the best suited to that.

I think a new thread is in order.

Could be a stop gap replacement on the Easy Kilbride trains. Certainly better than 156s.

 

[JonathanH]

Could be a stop gap replacement on the Easy Kilbride trains. Certainly better than 156s.

Stop gap involves training staff for short term use. That doesn't sound cheap to do.

Are the 769s better than 156s? There would no doubt be a period when the 769s lead to an unreliable service.

 

[92002]

Stop gap involves training staff for short term use. That doesn't sound cheap to do.

Are the 769s better than 156s? There would no doubt be a period when the 769s lead to an unreliable service.

For 769 read 319. Part of the same family 318/320s. Probably just a conversion course

Stop gap involves training staff for short term use. That doesn't sound cheap to do.

Are the 769s better than 156s? There would no doubt be a period when the 769s lead to an unreliable service.

For 769 read 319. Part of the same family of 318/320. So probably just a quick upgrade of training.

 

[D365]

Love the fact that this speculation is based on an enthusiasts guessing game on Twitter which they're passing around as fact. It's a complete stab in the dark and if they end up with ScotRail it's a fluke rather than any genuine knowledge.

The bread-and-butter of this subforum!