HST - Why Never Replicated?

[Masbroughlad]

I saw that the designer of the iconic Intercity 125 sadly passed recently. It got me thinking.

The HST was undoubtedly a ground-breaker. It's longevity, re-engineering and finally export, indicate that it was/is pretty special.

Why, when new trains were being considered, was a rake of coaches with two power cars never considered? ie a modern, updates version of a classic?

Rather than Voyagers for example, why wasn't there a commission of a train of unpowered vehicles with a (diesel) power car on each end?

It was tried and tested. We'd have kept uncpowered, quieter coaches - which I assume would be cheaper to produce?

Will that be an option going forwards? Intercity 140? HST2?

 

[signed]

Will that be an option going forwards? Intercity 140? HST2?

Very unlikely, the trend everywhere is distributed traction (so *MU)

I would guess that *MUs are much more efficient in their use of space, and probably power.

The main users in Europe of loco-hauled stock are ÖBB and SBB, but ÖBB made their last order of coaches to be fixed formation, and SBB seem to treat their racks as EMUs as well

 

[43096]

Very unlikely, the trend everywhere is distributed traction (so *MU)

I would guess that *MUs are much more efficient in their use of space, and probably power.

Best not mention TGV-M at this point!

 

[Clarence Yard]

FirstGroup proposed an HST2 but the DfT went for the IEP.

Distributed traction is the thing these days and the depots are configured for it.

 

[JamesT]

I saw that the designer of the iconic Intercity 125 sadly passed recently. It got me thinking.

The HST was undoubtedly a ground-breaker. It's longevity, re-engineering and finally export, indicate that it was/is pretty special.

Why, when new trains were being considered, was a rake of coaches with two power cars never considered? ie a modern, updates version of a classic?

Rather than Voyagers for example, why wasn't there a commission of a train of unpowered vehicles with a (diesel) power car on each end?

It was tried and tested. We'd have kept uncpowered, quieter coaches - which I assume would be cheaper to produce?

Will that be an option going forwards? Intercity 140? HST2?

It sort of was considered. The original proposal from Hitachi had the diesel engines or transformers in the end coaches. This later changed to engines under most coaches.
However it was always distributed traction, which has various advantages which make it unlikely there would be a reversion to locomotive hauling. Not least the lower track wear from having your motors spread across many axles.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Continental railways were not interested in top-and-tail diesel operation, as nearly all main lines were electrified.
It's easy to double the electric power at one end, as for RailJets, and use a simpler driving car at the other.
We also have a thing about corridor connections, which works against locos in the middle of trains.

 

[30907]

I saw that the designer of the iconic Intercity 125 sadly passed recently. It got me thinking.

The HST was undoubtedly a ground-breaker. It's longevity, re-engineering and finally export, indicate that it was/is pretty special.

Why, when new trains were being considered, was a rake of coaches with two power cars never considered? ie a modern, updates version of a classic?

Rather than Voyagers for example, why wasn't there a commission of a train of unpowered vehicles with a (diesel) power car on each end?

It was tried and tested. We'd have kept uncpowered, quieter coaches - which I assume would be cheaper to produce?

Fairly certain one of the options for XC at privatisation was loco+stock in some configuration (driving trailer not 2x power car though), but I don't recall the detail.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fairly certain one of the options for XC at privatisation was loco+stock in some configuration (driving trailer not 2x power car though), but I don't recall the detail.

It was basically a single ended 4 car non tilt Voyager with a 67 on the other end. Very similar in concept to the ex TPE Mk5 sets.

 

[stevieinselby]

I saw that the designer of the iconic Intercity 125 sadly passed recently. It got me thinking.

The HST was undoubtedly a ground-breaker. It's longevity, re-engineering and finally export, indicate that it was/is pretty special.

Why, when new trains were being considered, was a rake of coaches with two power cars never considered? ie a modern, updates version of a classic?

Rather than Voyagers for example, why wasn't there a commission of a train of unpowered vehicles with a (diesel) power car on each end?

It was tried and tested. We'd have kept uncpowered, quieter coaches - which I assume would be cheaper to produce?

Will that be an option going forwards? Intercity 140? HST2?

Although the HST with 2 power cars was a more flexible design than traditional loco-hauled stock, by the time further intercity trains were in the pipeline things had moved on.

• On a 2+7 HST set, you've only got passengers filling 7 of the 9 vehicles. On a full MU set, you get passengers filling all carriages. That's more cost-effective, and gets better use out of platform capacity.
• Improvements in crashworthiness meant that the previous prohibition on having passengers in the leading vehicle at 125mph was no longer considered necessary.
• Distributed power is more efficient, gives better performance and reduces track wear compared with having a rake of unpowered carriages and a honkin' big loco up front (or two honkin' big locos topping and tailing).

 

[popeter45]

the closest to anything like the HST's i would say are the Hungarian BVmot that was a basicly a locomotive with seats and a driving car with standard carriages in the middle so could be viewed as a EMU with motors only in the forward driving carriage

if not for the rules at the time nothing to stop class 43's having a small seated section that instead ended up as bike storage

 

[Transilien]

In the 1980s there was a plan for an electric HST known as 'HST-E' for use on the ECML electrification, however the IC225 was picked over that. You could say that the IC225 was the spiritual successor of the HST.

 

[43096]

In the 1980s there was a plan for an electric HST known as 'HST-E' for use on the ECML electrification, however the IC225 was picked over that. You could say that the IC225 was the spiritual successor of the HST.

HST-E was not originally intended for the ECML. It was a risk reduction strategy for the West Coast as part of the APT project.

 

[signed]

Best not mention TGV-M at this point!

The TGV-M is quite different, it's a much different product (and it's quite ugly as well) to anything else on the market. I'm pretty sure it's the only High-Speed Train in production to be still real loco-hauled, with the Talgo AVRIL but that is an horrible product.

Technically, Alstom proposed a AGV-like traction system on those, but, probably for continuity neither Amtrak nor SNCF took them up on the offer.

 

[HSTEd]

Technically, Alstom proposed a AGV-like traction system on those, but, probably for continuity neither Amtrak nor SNCF took them up on the offer.

I believe there are serious cost implications from trying to fit a suitable traction pack into a double deck GB+ gauge multiple unit.

It is probably possible but it will be pricey.
Probably involving very expensive SiC semiconductors and a high frequency transformer. Given that one of the TGV's main selling points is its low cost, they may have baulked at this.

 

[Helvellyn]

I've wondered if BR ever considered a Mark 4 version of the HST in the late 1980s to work alongside the IC225s on the East Coast to standardise the passenger experience. That's probably the last opportunity that such a concept would have been looked at by BR.

 

[popeter45]

I've wondered if BR ever considered a Mark 4 version of the HST in the late 1980s to work alongside the IC225s on the East Coast to standardise the passenger experience. That's probably the last opportunity that such a concept would have been looked at by BR.

as the 91's were designed to be multi use i suspect all it would need is a multi purpose high speed diesel loco like the 67's,pretty much what we are seeing now with the TfW mark 4 sets

 

[Helvellyn]

as the 91's were designed to be multi use i suspect all it would need is a multi purpose high speed diesel loco like the 67's,pretty much what we are seeing now with the TfW mark 4 sets

I was thinking more two power cars still for resilience, and lower operating weights. I recall EWS/GM tried to licence the Class 89 bogie design from Brush so that the Class 67s could be a Co-Co but they couldn't reach agreement and they ended up a Bo-Bo design.

 

[HSTEd]

as the 91's were designed to be multi use i suspect all it would need is a multi purpose high speed diesel loco like the 67's,pretty much what we are seeing now with the TfW mark 4 sets

I doubt anything like the Class 67 would be built without privatisation.
It turned into a pretty big failure for the railway in economic terms, and was a major break from previous British practice for passenger locomotives.

A repeat of the HST model or a Class 210 style passenger vehicle with engine seems far more likely.
That's assuming they don't just order more Sprinters instead.

 

[Transilien]

I doubt anything like the Class 67 would be built without privatisation.

Things were changing in the 1990's, so I can imagine even without privatisation BR could order locomotives like the class 67 or even the IÉ 201 class considering how badly newer British built locomotives had been for reliability and the need to replace modernisation plan locomotives from freight and passenger duties. The class 59 was proof of how foreign built locos could out preform the British ones. The only reason that BR still ordered British built locomotives by the 80s and 90s was to keep British industry going which by the 1990s had been in the process of privatisation and at the end of a slow decline to death. I don't think they would have went for full multiple unit operation though and instead procured coaches like the mark 4 with a DVT as it was already proven.

 

[43096]

Things were changing in the 1990's, so I can imagine even without privatisation BR could order locomotives like the class 67 or even the IÉ 201 class considering how badly newer British built locomotives had been for reliability and the need to replace modernisation plan locomotives from freight and passenger duties. The class 59 was proof of how foreign built locos could out preform the British ones. The only reason that BR still ordered British built locomotives by the 80s and 90s was to keep British industry going which by the 1990s had been in the process of privatisation and at the end of a slow decline to death. I don't think they would have went for full multiple unit operation though and instead procured coaches like the mark 4 with a DVT as it was already proven.

There was a suggestion that BR ordered the Class 60s from Brush under political pressure to "buy British" after the AWACS early warning aircraft order went to Boeing. What BR really wanted was Class 59s...

 

[778]

Why, when new trains were being considered, was a rake of coaches with two power cars never considered? ie a modern, updates version of a classic?

The New South Wales XPT was based on the HST.

The Eurostar trains are a rake of coaches with a power car at each end, instead of being EMUs

 

[JamesT]

The New South Wales XPT was based on the HST.

The Eurostar trains are a rake of coaches with a power car at each end, instead of being EMUs

Was there much of an alternative in 1980 for a relatively high speed diesel train than the HST? I note the replacement for those trains will also be a MU with underfloor engines.

The original Eurostar trains are power cars at each end, as they were derivatives of the French TGV of the time. The more recent e320 units are versions of the Siemens Velaro and have distributed traction.

So I don't think they provide much evidence for people considering new power car trainsets.

 

[HSTEd]

There was a suggestion that BR ordered the Class 60s from Brush under political pressure to "buy British" after the AWACS early warning aircraft order went to Boeing. What BR really wanted was Class 59s...

I believe that BR personnel did claim at the time that the Class 60 did outright win the competition though, although that was a post on this forum that I vaguely remember from years ago.
Whilst the EMD two stroke did prove to work well on the Class 59 and 66, the Class 67 was an utter disaster.
The engine is likely simply too heavy to be serviceable in a European Bo-Bo, and possibly too heavy for European passenger use outright.

I don't think they would have went for full multiple unit operation though and instead procured coaches like the mark 4 with a DVT as it was already proven.

The Mark 4 was hardly trouble-free in service, especially in the early years.
Next to messing around with those, Express Sprinters or Networker Turbos look pretty low cost and efficient.

I don't recall the last time BR ordered hauled passenger stock not as part of functionally fixed formation trainsets (like the 91+Mk 4s). I assume the Mark 3 sleepers? When was the last day stock?
By the start of the 1990s BR is pretty clearly envisaging a future of multiple units almost everywhere.

 

[randyrippley]

I was thinking more two power cars still for resilience, and lower operating weights. I recall EWS/GM tried to licence the Class 89 bogie design from Brush so that the Class 67s could be a Co-Co but they couldn't reach agreement and they ended up a Bo-Bo design.

My understanding was the 67 was intentionally designed as a Bo-Bo because BR civil engineers put a block on high speed Co-Co designs due to supposed higher rates of track damage due to oscillating bogies. That's also why the 91 was Bo-Bo. That's what was reported in the rail press at the time.
This tale of the failed licencing agreement is often repeated but I've never seen an authoritative source for it reported.

 

[43096]

I don't recall the last time BR ordered hauled passenger stock not as part of functionally fixed formation trainsets (like the 91+Mk 4s). I assume the Mark 3 sleepers? When was the last day stock?

The Mark 3B order for FOs and BFOs.

 

[43096]

My understanding was the 67 was intentionally designed as a Bo-Bo because BR civil engineers put a block on high speed Co-Co designs due to supposed higher rates of track damage due to oscillating bogies. That's also why the 91 was Bo-Bo. That's what was reported in the rail press at the time.
This tale of the failed licencing agreement is often repeated but I've never seen an authoritative source for it reported.

Your story sounds like a tale, too… BR didn’t own the infrastructure by the time “BR engineers” put a block on a Co-Co 67.

 

[778]

Was there much of an alternative in 1980 for a relatively high speed diesel train than the HST? I note the replacement for those trains will also be a MU with underfloor engines.

The original Eurostar trains are power cars at each end, as they were derivatives of the French TGV of the time. The more recent e320 units are versions of the Siemens Velaro and have distributed traction.

So I don't think they provide much evidence for people considering new power car trainsets.

The queensland diesel tilt train is a more modern power car trainset.