'Electrifying' HST's for the modern railway.

[Edwin_m]

Have you considered the multi-layer laminated glass?

 

Yes, but my post referred to structural crashworthiness, the things that can't effectively be retrofitted and therefore make a new vehicle superior to an older one. Most (possibly all) Mk3s now have secondary crashworthiness features such as laminated glass and rounded corners on interior fittings. Incidentally non-laminated "egress windows" are also gradually being eliminated as the risk of passengers being ejected is considered to outweigh any benefit in quicker evacuation.

 

Don't get hung up on write-off's; there's absolutely no holy grail in repairability following a severe accident. Design cost and insurance assessment should balance the risks, with protection of the vastly more expensive "soft cargo" getting the priority.

If the vehicle is designed to bear the brunt of any accident, crumple zones and controlled deformation etc, then the insurance costings should be based on a likely loss of the vehicle versus the potential reduced risk to the "cargo".

 

Indeed so, but my contention is that accidents where crumple zones make any difference are now so rare that the safety benefit may well not justify the extra cost. I've been involved in justification of safety schemes in the rail industry off and on for nearly 20 years so I do have some understanding of this issue!

 

On improved standards; I suppose there's always the risk of being taken to the cleaners in the event of an accident, on the basis of not having up to date standards in place. Especially if in full knowledge of....

1. what is has already been learnt from previous accidents

2. research information that is widely known and accepted.

 

Possibly. But it's always easy to suggest with hindsight what features might have prevented or reduced the severity of a particular accident. It's much harder to see any downsides of those measures, either in cost or in reducing safety in other situations, and to balance these factors and decide whether a particular feature is overall worth having. The comments on seat belts in the Grayrigg report were commendably balanced (sorry if this means you have to read it again!) but possibly less so regading bogie retention. The same report commended the principle of attachment of bogie to body as reducing the severity of Grayrigg, but I have heard it said by someone who was close to the analysis that if the bogies had been less well attached at Great Heck then the train would not have derailed. Making a rational decision is difficult in a tradeoff situation like this when accidents are too rare to be statistically significant.

 

This is probably getting a bit technical and off topic!

[The Stationmaster]

 

I don't regard the 395 as poorly as you seem to. The main fault with the FGW HSTs is not the seat pitch but the claustrophobia and lack of views caused by the enormous headrests. Completely unnecessary. Compare photos of the Mk3s as built to see how much better the internal ambience was (despite the turquoise and tan seat covers).

Regrettably I'm afraid passenger ambience on British trains has been in gradual decline since the Mk 3coach - which was spacious and comfortable as built and in which, over the years, I have probably travelled umpteen thousand miles, being helped by more than 15 years of commuting in them. Regrettably soem of the internal fit reliability that came with the Mk3 seemed to be lost with the Mk4 while the ride quality definitely took a dive.

 

True the FGW refit is very poor creating a claustrophobic interior which is not helped by the 'bus style seat layout and the loss of window views from a number of seats as happened with the 'Voyagers'. Thus - and I'll admit to only having seen photos, I'm not enamoured of the Class 395 and I'm even less enamoured of the IEP which seems to be more of a commuter train than a proper long distance InterCity design which will attract passengers with a spacious and comfortable interior - such as that of the original HST vehicles. (Mind you arguably the biggest downward step on HSTs was the decision to stop the burgers which were served in their early years and which were truly delicious ).

[Satan's Goldfish]

Wow, that's a lot of reading for something i only posted slightly drunk last night!

 

A couple of observations then; firstly on the OT i mentioned about panto's on mk2 or mk3 carriages. Doesn't the network rail HST options have a mk2 or mk3 with a panto? i'm guessing it's for measurements rather than actual power for the train but would it show the point that 1 could be fitted to those carriages and it not be too out of place? I could raise lots of questions as to the cost of adding a HV cable the full length of a train that's basically a fixed unit these days but i'll resist on that! I think the arguements for not updating HSTs like that has been made.

 

It was mentioned earlier on about the difference in passenger comfort between the new trains with their diesel engines mounted on each carriage and the HSTs with their diesel engines away from the passenger carriages. If the passengers would prefer a quieter smoother ride on the mk3 and no power equipment beneath them then would it not be a viable option to design a new intercity diesel train along the same lines as the HST (a mk5 carriage?) but to modern standards. And then incorporate into that design from the outset the addition of running from ohle when available? Or would that require TOCs caring more about passenger comfort and less about profit?

 

I've not regularly travelled by rail for a good few years now, but for a while around the year 2000 i was travelling from Norwich to Wolverhampton most weekends by rail, a journey of several hours. Mostly it was crammed onto 'Central Trains' class 158 DMUs or one of the more modern equivalents. But on some Sundays from Norwich engineering divertions would see the journey start on an 'Anglia Railways' mk2 push-pull set and i can always remember how much more comfortable and spacious they felt than the rest of the trip i had to endure. And by the sounds of it most of the system is heading towards the short distance less comfortable style of train (originating from 1st gen DMUs sometimes doing the longer journeys?) rather than the comfort over long distances of loco hauled stock and HSTs. A year or so ago i went to London for the day from Norwich by train and it was made more enjoyable for me by the fact that it was in a train behind an engine (class 90, push-pull mk3), getting closer to London we had to swap to an EMU, and it just loses the magic then. It worries me that they're now talking of 'upgrading the GE mainline to Norwich for faster train speeds' as it'll probably be the end for loco hauled intercity services here.

 

Growing up there was always a kind of magic and excitement behind knowing we were going to travel by 'Intercity' train or even see an 'Intercity 125', and it wasn't just me being a big geek, it was most of the boys my age at school. I really can't say i can see the same attraction now to the new generation, I don't think my kids would know what i was on about if i just said the word 'Pendolino' or 'Desiro' or 'Turbostar' etc!

 

Edit: forgot to add, thanks to everyone for replying! Good stuff.

[Fat Controller]

Sadly, there's probably not much life left in the Mark 3s- reports that I've read over the last few years suggest severe corrosion problems around the area of the toilets.

The absence of doors that cannot be opened from inside, and of retention toilets, would suggest that only substantial rebuilding would keep them in service much longer- such major works would be difficult to justify if there were already major issues with the integrity of the structure.

They have been superlative vehicles, but their days in first-line service are numbered; it would be nice to think that their replacements were even half as good.

[Ron Ron Ron]

It was mentioned earlier on about the difference in passenger comfort between the new trains with their diesel engines mounted on each carriage and the HSTs with their diesel engines away from the passenger carriages.

If the passengers would prefer a quieter smoother ride on the mk3 and no power equipment beneath them then would it not be a viable option to design a new intercity diesel train along the same lines as the HST (a mk5 carriage?) but to modern standards. And then incorporate into that design from the outset the addition of running from ohle when available?

 

That's exactly where the programme to find a replacement for the HST began - HST 2.

That exercise was widened to look at the future replacement of the other remaining, but younger inter-city trains (class 225 sets), to provide a long term standardised and interchangeable fleet that could be used across the network (except the WCML where the Pendolino fleet was then quite new)..

That is the Inter-City Express Programme, otherwise known as the IEP.

 

Set against uncertainty about future electrification, a Treasury against it (electrification), a complicit DfT and the then (useless) Labour Transport Minister following that line; the IEP specified a train in 3 versions.

1. EMU

2. DMU (considering at the time that the GWML may not be electrified)

3. a Bi-Mode version able to operate both on AC electric and to be "self-powered", i.e. diesel.

 

All were to be 10 car, with a 5 car sub-version of the EMU and Bi-Mode for commuter routes.

 

The 3rd version became very controversial, despite the intention that this version was intended not only to serve routes that required dual power requirements, but to facilitate a rolling electrification programme by being easily converted to all-electric (within a matter of hours). As such, the theory was that when a line became all-electric, all that was needed was to remove the diesel driving vehicle and replace it with an electric driving unit. A matter of a routine workshop visit - instant EMU.

The spare diesel driving vehicle could then be added to a new set for deployment on another part of the network (cascades or bolstering other all-diesel operations elsewhere).

 

The winning "preferred bidder" - Hitachi, proposed a standard set of passenger vehicles, some equipped with traction motors, top and tailed at both ends by driving vehicles that also provided the source of power; electric or diesel.

This design is called by it's project name, the Hitachi Super Express Train (SET) - almost universally mis-described as the IEP.

The Bi-Mode in this guise would have consisted of one diesel and one electric driving cars.

None of the passenger vehicles in the all-diesel or Bi-Mode versions, would have had underfloor diesel engines (apart from the emergency rescue power unit).

 

With such a proposal, we were to get a modern DMU similar to the HST, but with the benefit of distributed traction for better performance and economy. No underfloor engines!

The other benefit was that Hitachi were proposing to install a diesel-hybrid power unit (diesel and battery power) as demonstrated with the Hayabusa HST test train. This proven technology, being deployed elsewhere, was expected to reduce fuel consumption and emissions.

However the decision on electrification of the GWML has killed the all-diesel version off completely, leaving only the Electric and Bi-Mode versions.

 

However, that has all changed and the whole thing has since turned into complete mess.

Without going into the why's and wherefore's, we've ended up with losing the diesel-hybrid power driving car and gaining a shorter 5 car (what is it this week?) train with regular underfloor diesel engines (no Hybrid power).

A completely different train !

 

So going back to your original question; yes they already did what you suggest (a straight HST replacement that was also more than that), but somehow the meddling and interference (DfT and "external sources"), plus political dithering, has caused the programme to take a wrong turn or three, or four and headed straight over a cliff.

In the way of all good government programmes, cost have skyrocketed too, even though no metal has been cut and no trains built yet.

 

 

 

...

[Barry J]

On the contrary, we have had far too much "leadership" from DfT - resulting in 5 years and vast sums of money being wasted on the blind alley that is the hybrid IEP. Apart from West Country services, they are only needed for Scotland where the SNP Govt seems uninterested in through services from Inverness and Aberdeen to London.

 

Simple hi-speed EMUs (Class 395 variant) are all that is needed for Bristol and South Wales services (with Cardiff-Swansea electrified as it so clearly should be). They would also do fine on East Coast to Leeds, York and Hull.

 

Mk3 coaches operated push-pull by a hybrid loco (already available in Europe) is a viable option for West Country services whilst waiting for further electrification.

 

Far from the case, it was Transport Scotland, not the SNP government, who raised the discussion point that it would be in the interest of the Scotrail franchise (which incidentally is defined by Transport Scotland north of the border) if anglo-Scottish services stopped at Edinburgh with through passengers transferring onto internal Scotrail services. More over, it has long since been the desire of East Coast to cease through services north of Edinburgh - simply look at the way in which the northern servies are cancelled & curtailed if there is any disruption in England. This was a discussion project carried out in advance of specifying the new Scotrail franchise due to commence in 2014.

 

Reality is that those of us living in the north of Scotland want more through services, not less. The only practical alternative is domestic aviation, which if you live in Aberdeen as I do, is often an expensive and inconvenient alternative. I would much rather travel internally by train without the inconveninece of check-in, pre-flight waiting, intirusive security checks etc. especially when one considers that the end to end timing is often within 1-2 hours, but i'm now vering more into the argument for HS2

 

Given that HST's and Voyagers running north of Edinburgh currently run for up to 400 miles "under the wires" surely we must have a better engineering concept in order to make use of the OHLE and then continue the journey for those of us beyond the wires.

[Joseph_Pestell]

Given that HST's and Voyagers running north of Edinburgh currently run for up to 400 miles "under the wires" surely we must have a better engineering concept in order to make use of the OHLE and then continue the journey for those of us beyond the wires.

 

Yes, of course there is a better engineering concept. Electrify Aberdeen to Edinburgh and Glasgow.

[Satan's Goldfish]

Thanks Ron Ron Ron that explains it all a lot clearer for me. Common sence was all going well until the government and money counters step in who don't really have a clue.

 

(Kind of off topic, but the company i work for had a new piece of equipment coming into service and there was a meeting about it and one of the topics to discuss was what test equipment would be required to help with it's maintanence. So somebody mentioned that we'd require a multi-meter for the various electrical checks, to which one of the bean counters with no engineering knowledge at all piped up 'Does it have to be a multi-meter? could we not save funds by getting a single-meter?' Which all goes to highlight that folks not trained and knowledgable in a particular area should not be being paid to make decisions for it.)

[Edwin_m]

The NHS managers will be ordering "threeceps" next.

[Rob F]

Regrettably I'm afraid passenger ambience on British trains has been in gradual decline since the Mk 3coach - which was spacious and comfortable as built and in which, over the years, I have probably travelled umpteen thousand miles, being helped by more than 15 years of commuting in them. Regrettably soem of the internal fit reliability that came with the Mk3 seemed to be lost with the Mk4 while the ride quality definitely took a dive.

 

 

I am afraid I would contend that the Mk 3 was the beginning of the decline rather than the last of a golden age. It was the first Intercity vehicle to fail to line up the seats with the windows, due to the decision to use a standard body shell and base it on the first class layout. If the SOs had had nine windows rather than eight (the Mark 2 coaches had 7 in the FO and 8 in the SO) I think it would have truly been a classic design, not just from the engineering but also from the passenger's point of view.

 

ROB

[Jules]

I must be one of the few people who likes the FGW HST sets! That is providing I get one of the priority seats! I guess being 6'8" stops it being claustrophobic. I find just about any other modern train virtually unusable.

[devondynosoar118]

I had a good ride on the WCML in a pendolino, was fun watching it going down the south side of shap through the curves. Though not as tall as Jules I still find the wretched airline seating very uncomfortable and miss the spacious inter city 125 coaches I rode on as a child. Satan's Goldfish, I share your view about the excitement of those early HST rides, we used to complain if we got a loco hauled set of old compartment or saloon stock, which nowadays people pay extra to ride in for rail tours!

[D803Albion]

The 92s (and the 86s & 87s previously mentioned) can't do 125mph....

 

Interesting thread.

 

I'm sure the 87's were more than capable of 125 mph.

 

It was the WCML that wasn't.

[Supaned]

I would ask where these "surplus" Mark 3 coaches are? I think that in reality they are few and far between...

 

As comfortable as mark 3 stock may be (subject to interior fit) , that fact is that nowadays times and standards have moved on , and like it or not , those who pay the bills specify the interior fit , and sadly "they" want more bottoms on seats (of course , "they" travel First Class , so don't have to travel cramped in with the general public in high density seating).

 

Although I still see IEP as a white elephant , I can see an extension of project Thor , whereby the bi-mode Voyagers become the de facto Intercity train (and conveniently provide Derby with a load of work to see them through the next election....)

[jonathan452]

This thread is over twenty-five years behind the times?

 

Do I recall a suggestion in 'Modern Railways' back in the early to mid eighties (following the cancellation of the APT Project) to convert a pair of HST power cars to straight electric operation for evaluation on the WCML?

 

Thereby allowing a Euston to Glasgow journey time of around four hours and forty minutes.

 

Noting that this was only a suggestion in the editorial rather than a firm BR proposal.

[woodenhead]

Do I recall a suggestion in 'Modern Railways' back in the early to mid eighties (following the cancellation of the APT Project) to convert a pair of HST power cars to straight electric operation for evaluation on the WCML?

 

Would still have been limited to 110 without further track enhancements, it was tilt that delivered higher speed on the curving nature of the WCML. HSTs then as they are now were busy beasts taking two out would have dented availability for 125 schedules and the likely changes to the body would have been so extensive as to render the conversion irreversible.

 

They probably toyed with the idea then realised that only one unit would end up with a pantograph as why have two locomotives on services that already got to the maximum possible speed with just one 60's heritage unit hauling the MK3 stock. They would have gone with one electric HST body and one empty driving unit or as the WCML ended up a 110 mph locomotive and a DVT with Mk3 stock in between.

[Glorious NSE]

Well it may not be technically feasible, or desirable, but the NRM has had a go...

 

Check the bottom right hand corner of the second page of the Railfest handout and there's an HST power car with a pantograph.

http://www.nrm.org.u...ailfest2012.pdf

 

(And the one on the bottom left corner is apparently powered by burning small children?)

[jonathan452]

Would still have been limited to 110 without further track enhancements, it was tilt that delivered higher speed on the curving nature of the WCML. HSTs then as they are now were busy beasts taking two out would have dented availability for 125 schedules and the likely changes to the body would have been so extensive as to render the conversion irreversible.

 

They probably toyed with the idea then realised that only one unit would end up with a pantograph as why have two locomotives on services that already got to the maximum possible speed with just one 60's heritage unit hauling the MK3 stock. They would have gone with one electric HST body and one empty driving unit or as the WCML ended up a 110 mph locomotive and a DVT with Mk3 stock in between.

The article did concede that it was unlikely that two power cars could be made avaliable for the reasons stated above.

 

However it did seem to suggest 125mph running (how?) - four hours and fourty minutes to Glasgow (401 miles) being comparable to the then fastest time of four hours and thirty seven minutes from Kings Cross to Edinburgh (393 miles) - there were no dynamic track tampers/stablisers in those days.

 

Also that both power cars would be motored rather than a DVT (or surregate DVT as worked with the first Class 91's).

 

Though it was only a 'think tank' article (like this thread) rather than a definte proposal.