Scotrail announces plan to replace HST fleet.

[woodenhead]

The Hitachi IEP battery prototype unit is apparently now in service on the Trans Pennine route between York, Manchester Airport and Liverpool to test the technology.

[Nova Scotian]

14 hours ago, Cruachan said:

A 4 car Scotrail HST seats 200 standard, 32 first class. A 5 car set seats about 70 more in standard, or just over 300 in total (though I understand that first is little used).

 

A 190 seat class 170 wasn't enough capacity for the busier Scottish internal inter-city services, either pre-Covid or now, I think that anything that further reduces capacity to such a marked degree would be inadvisable.

 

A 6-car Flirt formation would be required as a minimum based on the vital statistics of the current UK Stadler fleets: With a single power pack as a 7th vehicle, that'd represent a worst-case power to weight ratio of around 11hp/tonne, assuming eight motored axles rather than four, against 14.35hp/tonne for a 2+5 HST formation, or 9.5hp/tonne for a class 170.

This is why I said that the power cars don't seem to have enough capacity for longer than 4 cars, so may not be optimal. I also assumed two power cars in a 6 unit would be undesirable

However, the other way to add capacity isn't just the number of seats in a train - it's frequency. Lower operating cost, lower track wear, if there's a case to run more frequent then you add seats overall. If your acceleration and braking is better you can turn the units more often.

 

11 hours ago, Reorte said:

Although surely the reason there density is lower and the dwell times are long on the HSTs are because they provide rather better passenger accommodation. It sounds like another example of speed and efficiency making life more unpleasant, and that isn't something that deserves the title "progress" (well if you ignore the fact that I've come to the conclusion that "progress" is a synonym for "screw up.")

"Rather better accommodation" - unless you're disabled, mobility impaired, have heavy luggage etc.

 

A procurement decision is going to include cost, service standards, reliability etc etc - we've not seen anyone building new rolling stock with mk3 comfort. That's a shame, as to me anything over 2 hours should be more comfortable. The IEPs are fine, but not fantastic. Try three hours (plus always delays at brockenhurst) on a 444. But, I wonder if when it comes down to it, we'd be willing to pay more for tickets for a higher level of comfort. The loading of first class suggests not. So we end up with thinner seats, so more seats, easier to clean, more hard surfaces etc etc. Because ultimately getting a seat, reliability, frequency and other factors are driving our decisions. Not "well, mk1 with commonwealth bogies and deep sprung seats are the only way to travel"

 

I don't know how important dwell time is for Scotrail's services currently using HSTs. Urban it's vital. Suburban it's important. Intercity it wanes. But if you've high volumes of people joining/leaving, cutting dwell time in half or more gives you shorter overall travel time which is attractive, and potentially higher frequency. I was appalled at Kings Cross recently how long it took for us all to board an IEP, and then the 5-6 minutes at each station. The dwell at each station is fine, it's long distance, but if you could get it to 3 minutes, say twelve station stops, you're looking at 24 minutes saved of total travel time. 

Edited September 5 by Nova Scotian

[Bon Accord]

9 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

Plus they've already committed to even more new ferries from the same place (Ferguson).

 

 

No they haven't. The next phase of the ferry replacement plan hasn't even started the tendering process yet.

[KeithMacdonald]

40 minutes ago, Bon Accord said:

No they haven't. The next phase of the ferry replacement plan hasn't even started the tendering process yet.

 

Keep up. It started weeks ago. 

 

Quote

The state-owned shipyard Ferguson Marine has confirmed it is bidding for a contract to build seven electric ferries for CalMac, but it is thought to be up against 12 other companies in the tender process.

 

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/ferguson-marine-among-13-companies-bidding-for-new-ferries-contract

 

What remains is to see how the tendering process can be rigged in favour of Ferguson. Based on past form, probably something like "safeguarding jobs, investing in a sustainable future, world class Scottish technology" etc etc

[Cruachan]

8 hours ago, Nova Scotian said:

This is why I said that the power cars don't seem to have enough capacity for longer than 4 cars, so may not be optimal. I also assumed two power cars in a 6 unit would be undesirable

However, the other way to add capacity isn't just the number of seats in a train - it's frequency. Lower operating cost, lower track wear, if there's a case to run more frequent then you add seats overall. If your acceleration and braking is better you can turn the units more often.

I would have thought that the single track sections of the Highland Mainline would be a limiting factor in increasing frequency. The approaches and platform availability at Glasgow Queen Street and Edinburgh Waverley would be another couple of considerations.

 

I would also think that increasing frequency with shorter trains would result in increased operating cost and track wear overall, compared to longer trains of the same design at the existing frequency: E.g. A 5-car train every half an hour will require more vehicles than a 7-car train hourly, and also requires double the number of traincrew. A 5-car train is still also more likely to be overwhelmed at times of peak demand: Shorter trains, more frequently, has not had a happy outcome in terms of public perception of overcrowding levels on regional/inter-city routes elsewhere in the UK in the past couple of decades, even if the improved clockface, "turn up and go" (if you can get on) capability is a boon.

[Bon Accord]

8 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

Keep up. It started weeks ago. 

 

 

https://news.stv.tv/scotland/ferguson-marine-among-13-companies-bidding-for-new-ferries-contract

 

What remains is to see how the tendering process can be rigged in favour of Ferguson. Based on past form, probably something like "safeguarding jobs, investing in a sustainable future, world class Scottish technology" etc etc

 

You shouldn't say things like "keep up" when you clearly haven't even bothered to read the article you're quoting.

 

The tendering process hasn't begun - it clearly states that in the article, it's merely expressions of interest at the moment.

No contract has been awarded to anyone, that's not expected to occur for at least 6 months - it also clearly states that in the article.

The title of the article also clearly states that no less than 13 different shipbuilders have expressed an interest, so that's FMEL plus 12 others have expressed an interest in bidding.

 

Yet despite that really quite clearly worded article you've somehow managed to come up with "Plus they've already committed to even more new ferries from the same place (Ferguson).".

 

Would you care to explain just how you've arrived at that conclusion?

 

 

[Michael Hodgson]

19 hours ago, woodenhead said:

As has probably always been the case, the railways were a means to join the disparate parts of Scotland and make them more accessible, and why you can still get a train to Wick, Thurso and Kyle of Lochalsh.

Surely the original purpose of the railways in Scotland was the same as in England - to move coal, agricultural produce, fish etc from where it was plentiful to markets where it would fetch a better price even after paying for its transport.  Passengers were usually a secondary concern

[DenysW]

18 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Surely the original purpose of the railways in Scotland was the same as in England - to move coal, agricultural produce, fish etc from where it was plentiful to markets where it would fetch a better price even after paying for its transport.  Passengers were usually a secondary concern

There's a very clear North/South divide in England on the purpose of the railways. Just on the larger ones: LNWR, Midland, NER, GNR, MSL/GCR were about shifting goods, increasingly coal. LYR an exception to this: it started out freight-biased, and ended up passenger-biased. However, GER, LCD, LBSC, SER, LSWR were about shifting people. The GWR is an interesting case: while it still reported its stock as broad gauge/narrow gauge and passenger/goods, Swindon was Southern (mostly passenger) and Wolverton was Northern (mostly freight).

Edited September 6 by DenysW
Forgot LBSC. Shame on me.

[woodenhead]

58 minutes ago, Michael Hodgson said:

Surely the original purpose of the railways in Scotland was the same as in England - to move coal, agricultural produce, fish etc from where it was plentiful to markets where it would fetch a better price even after paying for its transport.  Passengers were usually a secondary concern

I didn't mention passengers 🙂

[Legend]

20 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

Plus they've already committed to even more new ferries from the same place (Ferguson).

 

But have just announced £500 million of cuts.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2y1e4jpz3o

 

So brand-new might be off the menu?

Have been away a couple of weeks , so did I miss something ? As far as I’m aware the Scottish Govt has not committed to place orders for 7 small ferries as yet . Actually Ferguson’s have a good track record on small ferries , including battery electric ones, The Catriona , Hallaig , and Lochinvar . The issue is that Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa are needlessly massively complicated ferries due to inclusion of LNG option and I don’t think we’re even designed fully when building commenced ! 
 

Back to trains . There is a difference in investing in new trains rather than spending money on day to day service . If an argument can be made for lower costs over their useful lives by buying new (including finance costs) then it should still be possible to finance new trains . I would have thought the Hitachi IET in bi mode form with an option to go from diesel to battery in future would be the way to go .
 

As regards electrification costs I think Scotland has shown the way here with a continuous program of electrification enabling costs to be kept under control as opposed to the stop start approach elsewhere . It was the massively over priced GWR electrification scheme that has tainted future schemes , not anything across the border 

Edited September 6 by Legend
Holiday hasnt improved my typing

[Adam1701D]

One solution would be for the DfT to allow LNER to increase the CAF Class 879 order, allowing the undersized 5-Car Azumas to cascade to Scotrail. The horrible lease deal for the Azumas could make this difficult, though.

[KeithMacdonald]

4 hours ago, Bon Accord said:

Would you care to explain just how you've arrived at that conclusion?

 

I will say no more.😬

Mainly because I wouldn't want to be publicly named as the source of leaks from the Scottish Government, the internal manouverings (which are a wonder to behold), and how it manages its tendering process. Which has been initiated by inviting expressions of interest.😉

[jjb1970]

5 hours ago, Legend said:

The issue is that Glen Sannox and Glen Rosa are needlessly massively complicated ferries due to inclusion of LNG option and I don’t think we’re even designed fully when building commenced ! 

 

They shouldn't have been that difficult. A lot of the problems had nothing to do with the LNG system (which was designed for them and to a large extent delivered in modules fabricated by specialist suppliers), it was basic bread and butter stuff such as welding and  piping. The whole program was almost like a text book example of how not to do it.  

[Stoke West]

7 hours ago, DenysW said:

There's a very clear North/South divide in England on the purpose of the railways. Just on the larger ones: LNWR, Midland, NER, GNR, MSL/GCR were about shifting goods, increasingly coal. LYR an exception to this: it started out freight-biased, and ended up passenger-biased. However, GER, LCD, LBSC, SER, LSWR were about shifting people. The GWR is an interesting case: while it still reported its stock as broad gauge/narrow gauge and passenger/goods, Swindon was Southern (mostly passenger) and Wolverton was Northern (mostly freight).

What has Wolverton got to do with the GWR

[woodenhead]

1 minute ago, Stoke West said:

What has Wolverton got to do with the GWR

Halfway between Swindon and Wolverhampton? 😁

[PerthBox]

4 minutes ago, Stoke West said:

What has Wolverton got to do with the GWR

What has 99% of this thread got to do with ScotRail binning the HSTs? 

[Bob-65b]

15 minutes ago, PerthBox said:

What has 99% of this thread got to do with ScotRail binning the HSTs? 

 

Absolutely nothing - including from folks being experts in current (no pun intended) rail traction, and pretend political types talking about ferry procurement.  

 

Bob

[Jeremy Cumberland]

Okay then, an easy question for many, and I suppose I could Google the answer, but what routes does Scotrail actually use HSTs on? Edinburgh to Aberdeen I know about. What else? I don't recall seeing any in Queen Street when I was there earlier this year, but I might not have been there long enough to see an Aberdeen or Inverness service.

 

Also, how much of their routes is electrified, or even likely to be electrified. Does it make sense to talk of bimodal? Battery and alternative fuel sources may well be on the cards in the future, but they aren't really there yet right now, and if the Scottish Parliament is thinking along these lines then a shorter term stop gap might be most suitable.

[nightstar.train]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Cumberland said:

Okay then, an easy question for many, and I suppose I could Google the answer, but what routes does Scotrail actually use HSTs on? Edinburgh to Aberdeen I know about. What else? I don't recall seeing any in Queen Street when I was there earlier this year, but I might not have been there long enough to see an Aberdeen or Inverness service.

 

Also, how much of their routes is electrified, or even likely to be electrified. Does it make sense to talk of bimodal? Battery and alternative fuel sources may well be on the cards in the future, but they aren't really there yet right now, and if the Scottish Parliament is thinking along these lines then a shorter term stop gap might be most suitable.

 

They should do all the Glasgow/Edinburgh to Inverness, Aberdeen, Stirling, Perth and Dundee, linking Scotland's 7 cities, hence the Inter7city branding. I'm not sure of the reasons, but Scotrail has never got all the sets into traffic. They seem to only ever be operating half the fleet, hence the regular replacements with 170s and 158s. 

 

Currently all the routes from Glasgow to Edinburgh are electrified, including via Cumbernauld and then as far north as Dunblane. The Scottish Government goal is to next electrify the Fife circle, then the lines from Edinburgh to Perth and Dundee. Then north of Dunblane to Aberdeen, and maybe eventually the HML to inverness. So bi-mode should definitely be on the cards, and the real question is whether the 2nd mode should be diesel (or maybe HVO), or battery. Given at least a 30 year life span they could well spend the second half of their lives as pure electric units. 

[Hesperus]

I'm not usually a fan of hydrogen but if we are going to use it to power trains I think Inverness would be a good place to start.

   Theres masses of hydro and wind power in the area which could be used at night to create the hydrogen.

 

Two of the most rural branch lines and the most isolated mainline run to it.   Electrification is highly unlikely.

 

If it works great, build the next one in Shrewsbury for the welsh branches.

[DenysW]

1 hour ago, Hesperus said:

I'm not usually a fan of hydrogen but if we are going to use it to power trains I think Inverness would be a good place to start.

   Theres masses of hydro and wind power in the area which could be used at night to create the hydrogen.

What the hydrogen fanatics (and I'm not even implying @Hesperusmight be one) tend to ignore is that storing hydrogen is not a solved problem. The two obvious options (pressure, liquifaction at 20K) are energy hungry. Pressure requires heavy pressure vessels. Liquid hydrogen requires cryogenic storage at modest pressure. Metal hydrides work in theory, but the severe temperature swings on charging/discharging the hydrogen tend to make the materials turn to dust.

 

So hydrogen demonstrations work, but the economics don't.

 

At present, better to store your electricity in batteries.

[Legend]

Surely the cost of electrifying railways must come down if you use discontinuous electrification ? In this way you don’t need to raise bridges and must curtail cost.  The train can use batteries for the unelectrified bit . Wouldn’t that be the way to go? Scotland should have an abundance of hydro and wind power 

[DenysW]

1 hour ago, Legend said:

discontinuous electrification

Is the culture against it? On another thread I've read that diesel to overhead electric and the reverse is always done at station stops even though theoretically it can be done at speed. Overhead to third rail and back (on the Mildmay Line) is done with some clanking at a station stop, come to that.

[Chen Melling]

16 hours ago, DenysW said:

At present, better to store your electricity in batteries.

 

I, for one, still haven't gotten over the failure of the late John Parry's mobile flywheel storage idea.

 

I still don't fully understand why it did not catch, though common wisdom seems to have it that flywheel storage is more economical the bigger the flywheel itself is. Thus a railway vehicle's loading gauge is a very limiting factor.

 

Any thoughts on the success or otherwise of the Class 139s?

[Jeremy Cumberland]

What is the maximum speed can you engage a pantograph on an overhead wire?

 

Discontinuous third rail would have no problems of this sort, but I didn't think the regulator was allowing third rail for new builds.