Scotrail HST alternatives?

[chuff chuff]

Nothing has been heard for ages on rolling stock.

Yeah I've got ten years tops before i retire wouldn't surprise me if i didn't get too long on the new rolling stock.

 

[PG]

Yeah I've got ten years tops before i retire wouldn't surprise me if i didn't get too long on the new rolling stock.

It wouldn't surprise me if you don't have any new traction to sign before handing back your key!

 

[jagardner1984]

Given the length of time it took from HST (an existing train), programme announcement to full HST service with all routes and drivers trained, one might be a little sceptical unless an announcement is made extremely soon (which seems highly unlikely) that full service of the new stock will be designed, constructed, tested and all staff trained and accepted into service by 2030.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Who knows, there has certainly been very little said all year but it could well be because they have nothing to say or because it's all because it's been overshadowed by the ongoing farcical situation with water transport but given that there are several areas now we've rolling stock challenges for one reason or another you'd think they'd be keen to inform us of their plans

 

[Rhydgaled]

There's only one. Perhaps you also saw the Polish built "cheap imitation", the PESA DART?

Not sure, but I suspect I also saw various other FLIRTs in addition to Polish and IC ones.

No reason a bi-mode version couldn't run on diesel throughout to start.

Depending on the fuel capacity and off-wire performance, yes; but I was talking about an EMU which would need at least one fully-wired route to use it on.

Thus, a bi-mode is needed. With Stadler you could have the power modules and take them out once no longer needed.

A straight EMU would be a better medium-term solution for I7C though, since putting the engines (or fuel cells) under the floor adds weight, makes the interior noisy and complicates removal and the power pack solution costs you some platform space. Hence my suggestion of making the bi-modes for the Far North and Kyle etc. similar enough to Inter7City EMUs that the regional bi-modes could be used on three of the five I7C routes* in the interim with the remaining two being wired by 2030 and receiving the first batch of I7C EMUs.

* I think there's five routes in total aren't there - ie.:

1. Aberdeen-Edinburgh
2. Aberdeen-Glasgow
3. Aberdeen-Inverness
4. Inverness-Edinburgh
5. Inverness-Glasgow

Level boarding is VERY clear cut - it provides the ability for wheelchair users to board unassisted. This is such a major gain that I think it should be legally mandated for all new stock even if it does mean stepped/ramped interiors.

The standard UK platform is 915mm, the FLIRTs have a 960mm floor, the difference is to allow for the "slot" the step goes in - it's impossible to do perfectly level, what you get is a couple of slight steps up of 2cm each, roughly, which a standard wheelchair can easily be navigated over.

Does it potentially allow wheelchair users to board unassisted at every station (if the stations were all modified to the standard height) or are curves an issue? And can the doors be over a bogie with the floor height at 960mm (addmittedly a shared bogie will be under the inter-carriage gangway but I'm also thinking whether Stadler's competition could make their designs (eg. Aventra) low-floor)?

I guess you're fairly short?

Nope; I'm at least 6ft 2in. The TfW class 150s and 153s, while they have a nicer seat in terms of padding than modern stock, are even worse for me for long journeys than the Sophias because the legroom is so poor (I avoid 150s and 153s on journeys over 60 minutes because of the lack of legroom, and Sophias (and most other new seats) on journeys over 90 minutes because they are too hard).

The advantage of the new seat is that it adds a couple of inches of legroom without reducing capacity by way of a sensible back design recognising that (a) it's generally men that are tall, and (b) most men can't comfortably sit with their knees jammed together - basically very similar to the Class 175/180 seat in most ways.

Is the 'new seat' you are describing the Avanti/Lumo one or the 'new' TfW version of the Sophia? In any case, those do seem like some sensible design choices - just a pitty they feel like they have been carved out of a lump of rock.

Nothing has been heard for ages on rolling stock.

I've not been able to pick up anything on the ScotRail 'National Conversation' (which I assume is a fancy name for a public consultation on the next 'franchise' period) announced over a year ago either. Has the cabinet reshuffle as a result of the change of first minister impacted this?

 

[snowball]

I've not been able to pick up anything on the ScotRail 'National Conversation' (which I assume is a fancy name for a public consultation on the next 'franchise' period) announced over a year ago either. Has the cabinet reshuffle as a result of the change of first minister impacted this?

I'm imagine it probably contributed to the delay. Then in Yousaf's first list of ministers it wasn't clear who was responsible for transport. Then Kevin Stewart was appointed, then he resigned!

I'd guess the financial situation was an even bigger problem, both directly in affecting the cost of rolling stock, and indirectly in forcing changes to the decarbonisation plan, which in turn affected the rolling stock.

However, 380101 has intriguingly posted this in the "GW 769s to Scotrail?" thread:

Expect an announcement in the very near future for procurement of new trains for ScotRail - all via the Scottish government procurement process.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I'm not holding my breath, especially if the procurement process is a big a success as the recent farse with ferrys

 

[greyman42]

I'm not holding my breath, especially if the procurement process is a big a success as the recent farse with ferrys

If the ferry farce is anything to go by, then any new trains would be built at Brodies.

 

[cf111]

If the ferry farce is anything to go by, then any new trains would be built at Brodies.

Only if Brodies is owned by a big SNP donor...

 

[Blindtraveler]

Gratified to see that several of us in here are cynical as each other

 

[Rhydgaled]

I'm not holding my breath, especially if the procurement process is a big a success as the recent farse with ferrys

Well, if they are indeed about to annouce a new train order then there will at the very least be the farse of committing to new trains of a given specification before the consultation that presumably was supposed to ensure the specification met passengers' needs.

 

[jagardner1984]

One thing that has always intrigued me is the division of the different bits of Scotrail. Obviously there are the short hop commuter services around the central belt. But beyond that, are the needs of the passenger on a 4 hour trip on the WHL so different to the needs on the HML ? Rather than yet more fleets of a dozen of X train and a dozen of Y train; it seems like for the non electrified long distance services, there is an opportunity to simplify around one central product (maybe some train length variations) that covers the desire to respond to rolling electrification, to showcase the scenery, to give a resilient experience in the harshness of winter (door placement), to respond to high numbers of cyclists / onward tourism, to give a decent catering offer on journeys plus 2 hours. It doesn’t seem like such a train would be out of place on most / all of the routes outside the central belt, not just the current HST routes.

 

[Blindtraveler]

This is exactly the model I've been advocating for for some time now but nice to have another voice speaking broadly the same words

 

[John Bishop]

This is exactly the model I've been advocating for for some time now but nice to have another voice speaking broadly the same words

It’s common sense, so therefore it won’t happen on the railway!

 

[Vectron383]

This is exactly the model I've been advocating for for some time now but nice to have another voice speaking broadly the same words

Something like a Stadler flirt with Intercity-style 1-piece doors would work very well. Internal doors could also be added if needed.

 

[takno]

One thing that has always intrigued me is the division of the different bits of Scotrail. Obviously there are the short hop commuter services around the central belt. But beyond that, are the needs of the passenger on a 4 hour trip on the WHL so different to the needs on the HML ? Rather than yet more fleets of a dozen of X train and a dozen of Y train; it seems like for the non electrified long distance services, there is an opportunity to simplify around one central product (maybe some train length variations) that covers the desire to respond to rolling electrification, to showcase the scenery, to give a resilient experience in the harshness of winter (door placement), to respond to high numbers of cyclists / onward tourism, to give a decent catering offer on journeys plus 2 hours. It doesn’t seem like such a train would be out of place on most / all of the routes outside the central belt, not just the current HST routes.

Key differences would be the proportion of electrification on the line, and the type of usage. The HML and Aberdeen routes are (supposed to be) time competitive with other forms of transport, are credible for non-daily commutes, and go along quite long distances of fairly high speed electrified line. The far north line goes a meandering and slow route through some of the most boring countryside in Scotland to arrive at a couple of small towns hours after the bus. The west highland line meanwhile goes through some of the nicest scenery in Scotland, and is consequently full of tourists, many with bikes, but also goes quite slowly, and in places appears to be floated across a bog on mud and straw.

I'd agree that most of this (with the possible exception of the west highland) calls for end doors, but I'm not really sure anything else wants to be the same

 

[jagardner1984]

Key differences would be the proportion of electrification on the line, and the type of usage. The HML and Aberdeen routes are (supposed to be) time competitive with other forms of transport, are credible for non-daily commutes, and go along quite long distances of fairly high speed electrified line. The far north line goes a meandering and slow route through some of the most boring countryside in Scotland to arrive at a couple of small towns hours after the bus. The west highland line meanwhile goes through some of the nicest scenery in Scotland, and is consequently full of tourists, many with bikes, but also goes quite slowly, and in places appears to be floated across a bog on mud and straw.

I'd agree that most of this (with the possible exception of the west highland) calls for end doors, but I'm not really sure anything else wants to be the same

But if the stock on both the WHL, Kyle Line and Far North Line is also approaching end of useful life - and given most of the Aberdeen and Inverness routes are not anything like 125mph for much of the journey, isn't there some (maybe not currently existing) median product which will perform well on the main lines, boost performance on the branch lines, and massively simplify the maintenance operation. Presumably anything new will likely be at least bimode, to maximise even the shortest bits of relevant electification (I've often wondered how many litres of diesel are burned annually just in the Queen Street tunnel, or between Waverley and Edinburgh Park, on short stretches of fully wired line, with high acceleration demands.) Presumably as a side note in these cash strapped times Scotrail would get a better price if, like the 385, it ordered a lot of one product than tiny amounts of 5 different ones. From a variety of perspectives it has been pointed out the HSTs, 170s before them and 158s before them have all had their flaws on the routes they have been used on, so it is not like we are replacing perfect here.....

 

[Killingworth]

But if the stock on both the WHL, Kyle Line and Far North Line is also approaching end of useful life - and given most of the Aberdeen and Inverness routes are not anything like 125mph for much of the journey, isn't there some (maybe not currently existing) median product which will perform well on the main lines, boost performance on the branch lines, and massively simplify the maintenance operation. Presumably anything new will likely be at least bimode, to maximise even the shortest bits of relevant electification (I've often wondered how many litres of diesel are burned annually just in the Queen Street tunnel, or between Waverley and Edinburgh Park, on short stretches of fully wired line, with high acceleration demands.) Presumably as a side note in these cash strapped times Scotrail would get a better price if, like the 385, it ordered a lot of one product than tiny amounts of 5 different ones. From a variety of perspectives it has been pointed out the HSTs, 170s before them and 158s before them have all had their flaws on the routes they have been used on, so it is not like we are replacing perfect here.....

Of course if all our TOCs were to order compatible trains, like the 15x units from good old British Rail, they could be redeployed around the country far more easily over their planned service life of 30-40 years.

Maybe working with Northern and their big potential order recently going to tender; https://www.find-tender.service.gov...ToMTIYgIiM260dBHGFE8q0eCLdb_B7as2hUWKGlGgZCeI

 

[jagardner1984]

Of course if all our TOCs were to order compatible trains, like the 15x units from good old British Rail, they could be redeployed around the country far more easily over their planned service life of 30-40 years.

Maybe working with Northern and their big potential order recently going to tender; https://www.find-tender.service.gov...ToMTIYgIiM260dBHGFE8q0eCLdb_B7as2hUWKGlGgZCeI

That would seem infinitely more logical.

You would have thought the ROSCOs would push this more, given it is presumably easier to push several hundred of a “go pretty much anywhere” product - eg the sprinter, than a cavalcade of tiny micro fleets, which you will inevitably have slightly the wrong number of; all with different maintenance and training quirks to overcome in each application; and of course, zero interoperability. This can surely only bring additional costs the industry can ill afford to bear currently.

 

[boabt]

Politically the only thing that matters is that there are trains that run, or a good excuse for why the trains are not running. Whether the trains are HSTs, 158s, or little hand-carts that the passengers have to pump themselves doesn't really matter to a lot of people.

The train I get to and from work every day is a HST (apart from when it's cancelled - say 1 in 20) and a 170 shows up. I grumble.

If I'm late the local service is a 158.

I'm never late.

 

[Jjules]

Don't see the HSTs making it to 2035, but maybe some Voyagers might become available as other Intercity operaters upgrade there fleets? With some refurbishments, I'd see them as a good compromise between hst and 170.
That way the a big new investment could purely go into EMU's. While it is not ideal using ancient diesel locomotives from the 70's it would also seem a shame to invest in new diesel trains that would serve less than a decade before electrification.

 

[380101]

Don't see the HSTs making it to 2035, but maybe some Voyagers might become available as other Intercity operaters upgrade there fleets? With some refurbishments, I'd see them as a good compromise between hst and 170.
That way the a big new investment could purely go into EMU's. While it is not ideal using ancient diesel locomotives from the 70's it would also seem a shame to invest in new diesel trains that would serve less than a decade before electrification.

You're a bit late to the debate on this one!

The Voyagers are and won't be available for ScotRail, as they are committed to Cross Country and Grand Central for the forseeable future.

The only suitable intercity diesel units that will be available to replace the ScotRail HSTs are the soon to be retired Class 222 units from East Midlands.

If you trawl back through this thread you'll find lots of chat about 222s to ScotRail.

All procurement for ScotRail now has to go through the Scottish Government procurement process, which slows things up slightly, but there will be an announcement coming soon on orders for new fleets for ScotRail and possible interim replacement of the HSTs.

 

[47550]

Bit late to the thread, but as I understand it the Voyagers are still up for grabs other than a couple that have gone to Grand Central. 27x 222's and 18x 221s would be more than enough to see off the HSTs.

 

[swt_passenger]

Bit late to the thread, but as I understand it the Voyagers are still up for grabs other than a couple that have gone to Grand Central. 27x 222's and 18x 221s would be more than enough to see off the HSTs.

You must have missed the announcements that 7 x 221s ex WCML are definitely going to XC?

 

[cf111]

One thing that has always intrigued me is the division of the different bits of Scotrail. Obviously there are the short hop commuter services around the central belt. But beyond that, are the needs of the passenger on a 4 hour trip on the WHL so different to the needs on the HML ? Rather than yet more fleets of a dozen of X train and a dozen of Y train; it seems like for the non electrified long distance services, there is an opportunity to simplify around one central product (maybe some train length variations) that covers the desire to respond to rolling electrification, to showcase the scenery, to give a resilient experience in the harshness of winter (door placement), to respond to high numbers of cyclists / onward tourism, to give a decent catering offer on journeys plus 2 hours. It doesn’t seem like such a train would be out of place on most / all of the routes outside the central belt, not just the current HST routes.

This would absolutely be the way forward in the medium-term. Some kind of Turbostar 2.0 in three or four car sets. I've always felt the door arrangement complaints re. the 170s overblown - it's Scotland, it's cold sometimes, there is a button to close the door if you really want to before it closes automatically when you're stuck at Pitlochry waiting for a train to clear the single line.

Three car sets for Oban/Mallaig- Glasgow, Kyle and Wick/Thurso-Inverness. That's the same six car split for Crianlarich, admittedly you'll lose a car for the Fort William portions in the summer so it's not perfect. It would be a capacity boost for Kyle/Far North and this is something required for the tourist season. The Cromarty Firth cruise terminal at Invergordon is getting busier every year and the 158s (and I do like the Express Sprinters) just don't have the room.

Four cars (but interworked with the three cars which are effectively identical sans a car) for the Highland Mainline, Aberdeen-Inverness and Aberdeen-Glasgow/Edinburgh. Corridor connections and trolley provision, or maybe a wee buffet with the option to order to your seat. One day we won't need the diesel engines but I'm still not entirely sure there is a workable solution for the West Highland, Kyle and Far North lines yet. You could write what I know about railway infrastructure on the back of a stamp and still have room for the address, but is wiring those lines a complete non-starter? I travel on all three regularly so I am acutely aware of how remote parts are, but it's not the moon!

 

[jagardner1984]

One thing that has always intrigued me (and seems relevant here to the specification of replacement on lines which may be some way from traditional electrification), is the balance of battery technology, weight and range and charging time.

The challenge that the natural response to increase range is to add more battery capacity, but this also decreases efficiency and increases charging time.

I remember in the early days of the Nissan Leaf watching a documentary about essentially a “petrol station” which you drove into, a battery pack was then mechanically removed from the underside of the vehicle (for static charging) and a replacement fitted for a departure seconds later.

It would seem in the years since the technology has moved more towards faster charging of permanently fixed batteries, but nonetheless, on low speed lines with limited turnaround times, it seems like charging time will be a barrier to the deployment of battery technology.

Perhaps there is something in that initial technology, which would dispense with the need for “all day running” that would allow for a switchover at Inverness or Aberdeen of smaller battery units which would do a “there and back” run to Perth or on the Kyle, Far North etc.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I agree that we probably need to come on a bit in battery technology before we specify it to widely. I also agree with a lot of the logic posted above about fleet commonality but must point out that four coaches is totally inadequate for the Highland service these days, going forward these are going to have to be fixed six car formations which could if necessary into work to and from Aberdeen and whilst I appreciate these may carry fresh air some of the time we really cannot introduce a new train fleet with the default position that every service between April and October will have either standing passengers or have to reject passengers at intermediate points. Within this six coaches there would be adequate K2 in provision, generous luggage storage and lots of space for bikes, if you insist on unnecessary mid carriage door positions then internal doors must be specified. It's not just the cold that comes in while you're sat at dunkeld for 20 minutes it's the wind and the wet as well, don't also forget that battery technology on road coaches is several generations ahead of anything rail has yet managed and on road coaches nobody stands, there is ample space for luggage and only the first one or two rows of passengers are affected by the outside coming inside when the door is open, none of these advantages are currently available on your typical turbo star service between the Highlands and central Scotland for stop based on all this as well as price and journey time, something the coach companies are doing interesting things with and you are simply going to set yourself and your new trained fleet up to fail from day one unless you get it right. Any other country would treat this as a longest distanced train and the mentality a failing to do so which is prevalent even now by transport Scotland's total lack of commitment to using the HST fleet to its full advantage is a dangerous mindset that we need to get out of and now

 

[takno]

This would absolutely be the way forward in the medium-term. Some kind of Turbostar 2.0 in three or four car sets. I've always felt the door arrangement complaints re. the 170s overblown - it's Scotland, it's cold sometimes, there is a button to close the door if you really want to before it closes automatically when you're stuck at Pitlochry waiting for a train to clear the single line.

It's not just about Pitlochry - it's cold at every station when the doors open and the wind comes rushing in. The time it takes one or two passengers to get off or on is plenty, even if you can be bothered to get up every 10 minutes to operate the door. Quite apart from anything else, it's a waste of energy on the heating to let the entire train get cold so regularly and then heat it back up, and let's face it that energy is something the 170s could do with putting into the motors so that they stagger into movement a bit faster..

 

[ShadowKnight]

Then perhaps having stock with doors between the passenger compartment and the external doors can reduce heat loss when at the station

 

[JamesT]

One thing that has always intrigued me (and seems relevant here to the specification of replacement on lines which may be some way from traditional electrification), is the balance of battery technology, weight and range and charging time.

The challenge that the natural response to increase range is to add more battery capacity, but this also decreases efficiency and increases charging time.

I remember in the early days of the Nissan Leaf watching a documentary about essentially a “petrol station” which you drove into, a battery pack was then mechanically removed from the underside of the vehicle (for static charging) and a replacement fitted for a departure seconds later.

It would seem in the years since the technology has moved more towards faster charging of permanently fixed batteries, but nonetheless, on low speed lines with limited turnaround times, it seems like charging time will be a barrier to the deployment of battery technology.

Perhaps there is something in that initial technology, which would dispense with the need for “all day running” that would allow for a switchover at Inverness or Aberdeen of smaller battery units which would do a “there and back” run to Perth or on the Kyle, Far North etc.

I’m not sure it’s that convenient. With electric cars, permanent batteries become part of the structure of the car. You save on the weight of additional packaging as the battery cells are never exposed other than in a garage environment.
If the batteries are in the most logical place, underneath the train, you’re not going to be able to do the swap in a station environment. It’s going to need the train to be unloaded and shunt to some sort of sidings where the swap can take place. That might be a barrier if you’re looking at services with tight turnarounds.