Hornby new ScotRail HST , is the coach formation correct?

[Legend]

Thinking of placing an order for the forthcoming ScotRail 7 Cities HST and associated coaches . I saw one at Eastfield today . A little unsure of the formation and i’ve Looked at Hattons formation guide as well as the Hornby catalogue . From observation it looks like first class and buffet coaches are combined .  However looking st the Hornby catalogue it lists R4907/A as TGFB which is based on the old TGS . it looks to me that this is wrong and instead it should be based on a FO , as there is no guards compartment at the end, certainly not the double doors section at the end of the TGS . So I’m confused . Are there different rakes or has Hornby got it wrong ?

[Merfyn Jones]

According to Platform 5, the Scotrail refurbished sets have a former TF with a buffet counter and 3 x TS.

My question is , where does the guard travel ?

[Legend]

He is in this coach I think . I believe he has an office somewhere on this coach, but it is not a TGS derivative as shown by Hornby

[phil-b259]

This page gives the low-down https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/scotrail-hst-introduction-updates-discussion.137911/

 

Basically the Guards office and the Catering facility have both been moved into the first class coach. As such a TGS is not required for the refurbished sets (but will obviously need to be included for those shortened sets running round in ex GWR condition as a temporary measure).

 

[Legend]

13 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

This page gives the low-down https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/scotrail-hst-introduction-updates-discussion.137911/

 

Basically the Guards office and the Catering facility have both been moved into the first class coach. As such a TGS is not required for the refurbished sets (but will obviously need to be included for those shortened sets running round in ex GWR condition as a temporary measure).

 

 

Thanks for explaining. So its probably changed from when Hornby decided to model the units .  Does anyone know if Hornby will change its offer?   Shouldn't be too hard to get a FO or one of their new TSOs and add yellow/ red lines for first class buffet ?  Does mean that the TGFB will be incorrect for formations if they continue?

 

Might just buy 3 TSOs and a TSO-D

Edited April 29, 2019 by Legend

[royaloak]

The GWR slidey door sets are 2xTS, a TSD and a TGS, that is the formation end of and is not in any way shape or form temporary hence the TGS being fitted with slidey doors at the passenger end.

Edited April 29, 2019 by royaloak

[Legend]

Yep that’s the GWR Castle set but the ScotRail ones seem to be different

Edited April 29, 2019 by Legend

[royaloak]

They are but it was mentioned that the GWR sets are only formed as they are temporarily which is incorrect.

 

Edit-

Oh no it wasnt mentioned (blind old git that I am), closer inspection reveals they meant the EX GWR slam door sets running around in Scotlandshire which need a TGS in the formation.

Edited April 29, 2019 by royaloak

[darrel]

The guards office is between the buffet counter and the first class area 

[43055]

On 28/04/2019 at 19:26, Legend said:

Thinking of placing an order for the forthcoming ScotRail 7 Cities HST and associated coaches . I saw one at Eastfield today . A little unsure of the formation and i’ve Looked at Hattons formation guide as well as the Hornby catalogue . From observation it looks like first class and buffet coaches are combined .  However looking st the Hornby catalogue it lists R4907/A as TGFB which is based on the old TGS . it looks to me that this is wrong and instead it should be based on a FO , as there is no guards compartment at the end, certainly not the double doors section at the end of the TGS . So I’m confused . Are there different rakes or has Hornby got it wrong ?

I think it is just a very early representation of the designs for the coach. Looking at the catalog the TSD, TSL and TS pictures look the same as the TGFB just with one half without the livery and a very faint first class line on them. The Hattons diagram does look correct from what I can tell.