Why didn't they do a HST2?

[HYPODERMIC]

Back in the early '00s, when the TOCs/Govt first started buying the replacements for HSTs (ie. Pendolinos and Voyagers onto the WCML, Meridians onto the MML), why did they commission all-new designs?

Instead of all that expense, why wasn't a "HST2" programme considered? they could have updated the existing design with newer engines, disabled toilets and electronic sliding doors, and so on? Or, more radically, an electric/bi-mode HST or new Class 91s?

Yes, this questions comes a little bit from the perspective of an enthusiast, but even casting my bias aside, why was an updated HST ruled out? It seems a bit bizarre as the trains we have ended up with don't seem a whole lot superior, as far as the passenger is concerned?

 

[Platform 1]

I couldn't agree more.

Thre was the Intercity 250 project which was dropped in 1992.

I suppose the simple answer is the end of BREL and privatisation.

There was an HST2 suggestion but it was rejected in 2005.

 

[Eagle]

I couldn't agree more.

Thre was the Intercity 250 project which was dropped in 1992.

I suppose the simple answer is the end of BREL and privatisation.

And because trains built on the continent were cheaper.

 

[yorksrob]

Someone would have had to make the executive decision that it needed to be built - then someone would have to design it - then someone would have to build it.

 

[Zoe]

At the end of the day an HST2 would most likely be based around power cars/locomotives and stock which is no longer needed as MUs can be used. Why waste space with power cars or locomotives when you can have the engines underfloor?

 

[Wyvern]

What? Admit a nationalised industry produced something good?

 

[Platform 1]

Making decicions is not something that we're good at anymore. :roll: Shame.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

At the end of the day an HST2 would most likely be based around power cars/locomotives and stock which is no longer needed as MUs can be used. Why waste space with power cars or locomotives when you can have the engines underfloor?

I think there is allways room for the comfort of a loco hauled service here. Chiltern Railways seem to have got the idea.

 

[Penmorfa]

Design a train that's fit for purpose ? Ridiculous

 

[HST Power]

They didn't do a HST2 because they realised that if they did my username would be finished!

 

[Zoe]

I think there is allways room for the comfort of a loco hauled service here. Chiltern Railways seem to have got the idea.

There's a time penalty with loco hauled services though as they lack the acceleration of MUs. If the plan is indeed to get people out of their cars then reducing journey times is quite important.

 

[Platform 1]

I'm well aware of the downsides of locos but I think most people on here would agree there is something nice about them.

 

[Zoe]

I'm well aware of the downsides of locos but I think most people on here would agree there is something nice about them.

People on here may well think that but I doubt the general public could care less. People on here are also more likely to use public transport and I think the people that would need to be convinced to switch to rail would want fast journey times.

 

[Ivo]

I'm well aware of the downsides of locos but I think most people on here would agree there is something nice about them.

True - but the crucial part of this post is "on here". Would the average fare-paying passenger or TOC agree on that? Quite possibly not...

I don't think an HST2 would have been worthwhile once the 91s turned up. What would have been the point in making another diesel-powered high speed locomotive unit? It would have been seen as a backward step.

EDIT: Too slow. AGAIN. Merci Madame Zoe...

 

[HSTEd]

What? Admit a nationalised industry produced something good?

This is one of the major factors I think.

Also HSTs have pretty impressive acceleration, either way they could have done something like some TGV sets have with the two power cars providing power to powered axles on adjacent vehicles, or throughout the train in the style of the Class 210.

This gives you the best of both worlds, no diesel engines underfloor but Multiple Unit acceleration.

 

[Yew]

There's a time penalty with loco hauled services though as they lack the acceleration of MUs. If the plan is indeed to get people out of their cars then reducing journey times is quite important.

However on long distance services the acceleration penalties are minimal to overall journey time, and If you used a powerful engine in a HST formation, acceleration could be further increased. Also EMU's could be used for stoppers.

 

[Platform 1]

It does depend on the journey really. I'm only thinking of long distance ones. I would think that a modern loco hauled set wouldn't do too badly really.

 

[Zoe]

True - but the crucial part of this post is "on here". Would the average fare-paying passenger or TOC agree on that? Quite possibly not...

There are quite a few people on here that dislike Voyagers but when you look at the comments from the general public there doesn't seem to be the same dislike. For example I once read a post about how much things had improved on XC since the introduction of the Voyagers and how bad it was back in the days of Class 47s and Mark 2 coaches.

 

[Platform 1]

Of course I could complicate things by saying that an HST is a MU and loco hauled.

 

[ainsworth74]

Of course I could complicate things by saying that an HST is a MU and loco hauled.

Perhaps but it certainly doesn't have totally distributed traction like MUs normally do.

 

[bnm]

I think there is always room for the comfort of a loco hauled service here. Chiltern Railways seem to have got the idea.

Chiltern's decision was surely based on what rolling stock was available. What would they have done if their paymasters (ie Duetsche Bahn) had decided that WSMR was to be a going concern? Or for that matter what if WSMR had not been taken over by DB? Chiltern would not then have had the luxury of picking up the redundant WSMR stock. Yes, there was still some off lease MkIII's they could have used, but enough for their 'Silver Trains'......?

 

[Zoe]

However on long distance services the acceleration penalties are minimal to overall journey time, and If you used a powerful engine in a HST formation, acceleration could be further increased. Also EMU's could be used for stoppers.

Compare a 390 though to a 91 and Mark 4 coaches. The 390 will get the 125 mph much quicker than the 91.

 

[Platform 1]

Perhaps but it certainly doesn't have totally distributed traction like MUs normally do.

That's the key thing - something could be build with traction in say 3 or 4 places e.g. the buffet car.

 

[HSTEd]

Compare a 390 though to a 91 and Mark 4 coaches. The 390 will get the 125 mph much quicker than the 91.

I imagine a 373 (which is as much a multiple unit as a Cl91+Mk 4 set really) can match a 390 at 0-125mph.

Tractive effort stops mattering above low to moderate speeds and then what matters is simply horsepower.

I seem to recall Regional EUrostar sets running the "White Rose" managing 225 timings using only one power car.

 

[Platform 1]

Chiltern's decision was surely based on what rolling stock was available. What would they have done if their paymasters (ie Duetsche Bahn) had decided that WSMR was to be a going concern? Or for that matter what if WSMR had not been taken over by DB? Chiltern would not then have had the luxury of picking up the redundant WSMR stock. Yes, there was still some off lease MkIII's they could have used, but enough for their 'Silver Trains'......?

I'm sure I saw a quote on here from the manager of CH saying they've "introduced more loco-hauled services because passengers tell us they like these".

 

[Yew]

Compare a 390 though to a 91 and Mark 4 coaches. The 390 will get the 125 mph much quicker than the 91.

When I was at newark, I was suprised how slow off the mark 91's are.

 

[HSTEd]

Im sure you lose quite a bit of time in a Cl390 because the doors dont open fast enough, they crawl open, I seem to remember the doors on Mark IVs moving quite a bit faster than that.

 

[starrymarkb]

Back in the early '00s, when the TOCs/Govt first started buying the replacements for HSTs (ie. Pendolinos and Voyagers onto the WCML, Meridians onto the MML), why did they commission all-new designs?

Instead of all that expense, why wasn't a "HST2" programme considered? they could have updated the existing design with newer engines, disabled toilets and electronic sliding doors, and so on? Or, more radically, an electric/bi-mode HST or new Class 91s?

Yes, this questions comes a little bit from the perspective of an enthusiast, but even casting my bias aside, why was an updated HST ruled out? It seems a bit bizarre as the trains we have ended up with don't seem a whole lot superior, as far as the passenger is concerned?

By the time you've updated the design to meet modern standards you are not very far off the cost of a new build.

Mind you about 10 years ago. FGW and Siemens were working on an HST2 based around the MTU engined Eurorunner and the Class 444. Then the DfT decided it would rather lead the procurement. Of course that would have killed GW Electrification!

Something also to bear in mind is that in some cases it's down to how the TOC specifies the stock. A common complaint on one site I frequent is of narrowbody aircraft on transatlantic runs and that a widebody would always be superior. Then someone asked if the complainer would rather fly a BA A318 or a Thomson B767. OK while business to charter comparisons may not be fair it shows that operator spec makes a difference. (Rail equivalent would be FGW Native 150/2s vs Northern 150/2s!)

 

[Zoe]

Of course that would have killed GW Electrification!

I'm not sure about that. With the current climate change/peak oil concerns there may have been little choice but to electrify. I would have thought that the HST2 would be diesel electric so at least could have been converted to run on electric power.

 

[Platform 1]

Jeremy Clarkson: "Where does the power come from Boris?"

Boris Johnson: "It comes from the plug."

 

[yorksrob]

I find it interesting that when talking about HST2 most people assume carriages and power cars.

When I saw the phrase HST2 I was thinking of a co-ordinated efford to design and build a standard diesel Inter-City train to replace HST1 in time for the end of its design lifespan. Of course, that could be carriages and power cars or a traditional MU or even loco and carriages.