Class 318/320 Withdrawal

[JumpinTrainz]

With the 314s finally away for good, Scotrail said goodbye to their 40 year old units. Within the next upcoming decade the Class 318s will turn 40 themselves. It’s hard to ignore that the 318s received far more investment than the 314s ever did (ie refurbishment programmes, fitted plug sockets, WiFi). The 318s and 320s run together in many instances given they are very similar especially after the 320s were refurbished. However what do people think will happen when they are due for withdrawal. Can we see them lasting the full 40 years like the 314s? Given how well they’ve been looked after could they last 40+? Or do we think they’ll be replaced sooner in favour of a more modern economical fleet? It will be interesting to see if the 318s and 320s will be replaced altogether or if the 320/3s and 320/4s will stay around a few years longer.

I think it would be interesting to see longer trains like the 380s and 385s with variations of 3 and 4 car for the Argyle Line and North Clyde. It will also be interesting to see what the plans will be for the Class 334s - whether they’ll be kept on A-B services or if they’ll moved on to other services to allow new units to operate that line. Perhaps more 4 cars on the A-B. The 318s and 320s take up so much of the fleet with more than 40 units now so it’ll be quite a huge move when they go I imagine like with the 303s.

 

[snookertam]

I think they'll get the best part of this decade - we're a bit early for this thread.

When it does happen logic would suggest that 334s will go south of the river and new units for A-B will be procured. They will likely be on similar specification to current units - ASDO would not be appropriate for Glasgow city centre stations.

 

[Speed43125]

If it's length you want, there are plenty of 321s going off lease that could either be further converted to 320s, or donate trailers to lengthen existing 320s, options are open. 320s in particular look modern enough that I feel you could get away with them, especially if their sister units get scrapped leaving us with an ample supply of spares.

 

[gingertom]

With the 314s finally away for good, Scotrail said goodbye to their 40 year old units. Within the next upcoming decade the Class 318s will turn 40 themselves. It’s hard to ignore that the 318s received far more investment than the 314s ever did (ie refurbishment programmes, fitted plug sockets, WiFi). The 318s and 320s run together in many instances given they are very similar especially after the 320s were refurbished. However what do people think will happen when they are due for withdrawal. Can we see them lasting the full 40 years like the 314s? Given how well they’ve been looked after could they last 40+? Or do we think they’ll be replaced sooner in favour of a more modern economical fleet? It will be interesting to see if the 318s and 320s will be replaced altogether or if the 320/3s and 320/4s will stay around a few years longer.

I think it would be interesting to see longer trains like the 380s and 385s with variations of 3 and 4 car for the Argyle Line and North Clyde. It will also be interesting to see what the plans will be for the Class 334s - whether they’ll be kept on A-B services or if they’ll moved on to other services to allow new units to operate that line. Perhaps more 4 cars on the A-B. The 318s and 320s take up so much of the fleet with more than 40 units now so it’ll be quite a huge move when they go I imagine like with the 303s.

the vast majority of services on the A-B line are pairs of 334s. I envisage a fleet of 6-car trains being ordered to cover these diagrams, with the 334s going south of the river to displace the 318/320s. 6-car sets would have 2 less cabs, releasing space for additional seating. Whether 334s would be happy on the Cathcart circle services (potential overheating issues?) remains to be seen.

 

[JonathanH]

the vast majority of services on the A-B line are pairs of 334s. I envisage a fleet of 6-car trains being ordered to cover these diagrams, with the 334s going south of the river to displace the 318/320s. 6-car sets would have 2 less cabs, releasing space for additional seating. Whether 334s would be happy on the Cathcart circle services (potential overheating issues?) remains to be seen.

Not one for one though - 40 334s vs 55 318/320 - so you would need some of the replacement fleet working on the services currently run by 318/320 - indeed not all of the 334s operate Edinburgh to Milngavie / Helensburgh with diagrams for 334s on Balloch to Airdrie, Dumbarton to Springburn and via Glasgow Central mixed in with 318/320. Not sure whether you would go 6-car only with the whole replacement fleet.

Where would 6-car units without centre cabs have the most beneficial impact on capacity in the Central Belt network? You could leave 334s where they are and replace the 318/320 fleet directly.

 

[JumpinTrainz]

Not one for one though - 40 334s vs 55 318/320 - so you would need some of the replacement fleet working on the services currently run by 318/320 - indeed not all of the 334s operate Edinburgh to Milngavie / Helensburgh with diagrams for 334s on Balloch to Airdrie, Dumbarton to Springburn and via Glasgow Central mixed in with 318/320. Not sure whether you would go 6-car only with the whole replacement fleet.

Where would 6-car units without centre cabs have the most beneficial impact on capacity in the Central Belt network? You could leave 334s where they are and replace the 318/320 fleet directly.

I agree wouldn’t it work better to just replace the 318s and 320s outright and leave the 334s be. Or simply have the new units equipped to operate the A-B too in order to have 2 separate units able to work on any of the lines.

I’m pretty sure most modern EMUs struggle on the Cathcart Circle lines as there are too many stops and they cause overheating that includes the 334s as well as the 380s and 385s. I think they would be unsuitable for these services they need a metro style unit specifically for that. The 334s should stay where they are North Clyde and Argyle Line services.

 

[156478]

My humble opinion on this one-

Brand New 6 car trains to totally replace 318, 320 and 334 to achieve that hallowed common fleet for everything through Partick, consistent experience etc. The costs of extending the platforms across the entire network for 380/385 length units more would be through the roof so it would have to be 20m car units. Significant investment at Yoker, Motherwell, Bathgate and Airdrie carriage sidings and doubling of the single lead junctions, Milngavie, Helensburgh and Balloch branches and Haughhead would be needed. Majority of this work is all investment that will need to be done at some point anyway.

318s and 320s to the Paisley Canal, Cathcart Circle, Newton and Neilston allowing them an easier life to their retirement with plenty of capacity for Hampden and Bellahouston Strengthening. Releasing the 380s and 385s in turn to oust 318s and 320s to Inverclyde with a solid 380 service and totally eradicate 318s and 320s to Lanark for a solid 100mph capable 385 service. No traincrew training issues here.

334s for the inevitable electrification of East Kilbride, Barrhead and Kilmarnock. Maybe light refurb to have them 2x2 seating in the middle coaches as the EK, Barrhead and Kilmarnock routes have enjoyed Class 156s for decades and 3x2 seats in the middle coaches and lack of tables might not go down well. Significant training issues here, but there's no gain without pain.

And then there's the inevitable electrification of the Anniesland/Maryhill-Glasgow route, 318s or 320/4s with reinstated guard panels to keep the RMT happy.

All the 318s and 320s have had a ton of money spent on them, and I would recon you would get another 10 years life out of them. They are DDA compliant, however its the components under the floor that will be the ultimate factor if they can live as long as the 314s and I would recon they will manage it.

 

[43096]

I agree wouldn’t it work better to just replace the 318s and 320s outright and leave the 334s be. Or simply have the new units equipped to operate the A-B too in order to have 2 separate units able to work on any of the lines.

I’m pretty sure most modern EMUs struggle on the Cathcart Circle lines as there are too many stops and they cause overheating that includes the 334s as well as the 380s and 385s. I think they would be unsuitable for these services they need a metro style unit specifically for that. The 334s should stay where they are North Clyde and Argyle Line services.

Presumably the problem is similar to that faced by Porterbrook when they proposed the Class 458/5 project where modelling showed the 100mph-geared 458s would overheat on the all-stations Windsor lines services. The solution was to re-gear for 75mph as that makes the motor run faster at any given speed than a 100mph-geared unit. It sounds counter-intuitive, as you'd think that would cause more overheating, but because the motor is running faster it draws more cooling air into the motor and so keeps it cooler.

 

[Clansman]

For starters 334s replacing 156s would be a downgrade on capacity, so not sure how much good that's do to be honest.

In an ideal world you'd have enough 4 car 380s to cover all the ex 156 Central high level jobs including Killie and EK when they get wired. Something of similar spec would do just fine.

 

[JumpinTrainz]

My humble opinion on this one-

Brand New 6 car trains to totally replace 318, 320 and 334 to achieve that hallowed common fleet for everything through Partick, consistent experience etc. The costs of extending the platforms across the entire network for 380/385 length units more would be through the roof so it would have to be 20m car units. Significant investment at Yoker, Motherwell, Bathgate and Airdrie carriage sidings and doubling of the single lead junctions, Milngavie, Helensburgh and Balloch branches and Haughhead would be needed. Majority of this work is all investment that will need to be done at some point anyway.

318s and 320s to the Paisley Canal, Cathcart Circle, Newton and Neilston allowing them an easier life to their retirement with plenty of capacity for Hampden and Bellahouston Strengthening. Releasing the 380s and 385s in turn to oust 318s and 320s to Inverclyde with a solid 380 service and totally eradicate 318s and 320s to Lanark for a solid 100mph capable 385 service. No traincrew training issues here.

334s for the inevitable electrification of East Kilbride, Barrhead and Kilmarnock. Maybe light refurb to have them 2x2 seating in the middle coaches as the EK, Barrhead and Kilmarnock routes have enjoyed Class 156s for decades and 3x2 seats in the middle coaches and lack of tables might not go down well. Significant training issues here, but there's no gain without pain.

And then there's the inevitable electrification of the Anniesland/Maryhill-Glasgow route, 318s or 320/4s with reinstated guard panels to keep the RMT happy.

All the 318s and 320s have had a ton of money spent on them, and I would recon you would get another 10 years life out of them. They are DDA compliant, however its the components under the floor that will be the ultimate factor if they can live as long as the 314s and I would recon they will manage it.

I’m not really sure how much the A-B line really requires 6 car trains all the time. It does get busy don’t get me wrong but I’m pretty sure they only strengthen the line should anything go wrong with the High Level more direct Edinburgh services. I’d say longer units with the option of 4 car trains would be ideal for this route. The 334s do well and are quite suited to the route. Given they don’t have tables I doubt there are many people who require them for laptop use etc. Most people probably use the direct routes operated by the 385s.

Your plan seems to have an awful lot of units for such minimal services I don’t think all the 320s and 318s will be required for ex-314 routes. Not to mention 40 unit 334s on East Kilbride, Barrhead and Kilmarnock.

I really do think replacing the 318s and 320s with a more modern emu to run alongside the 334s makes more sense. The 380s are good for the routes they operate, likewise with the 334s and 385s.

 

[156478]

I’m not really sure how much the A-B line really requires 6 car trains all the time. It does get busy don’t get me wrong but I’m pretty sure they only strengthen the line should anything go wrong with the High Level more direct Edinburgh services. I’d say longer units with the option of 4 car trains would be ideal for this route. The 334s do well and are quite suited to the route. Given they don’t have tables I doubt there are many people who require them for laptop use etc. Most people probably use the direct routes operated by the 385s.

Your plan seems to have an awful lot of units for such minimal services I don’t think all the 320s and 318s will be required for ex-314 routes. Not to mention 40 unit 334s on East Kilbride, Barrhead and Kilmarnock.

I really do think replacing the 318s and 320s with a more modern emu to run alongside the 334s makes more sense. The 380s are good for the routes they operate, likewise with the 334s and 385s.

If you have 4 car in operation you most definetly won’t be able to run them in multiple. Unless you can find a ton of money you will end up with 8 car trains where only 6 cars will open at the majority of stations. You will end up like so many times in the railway adding one coach when the demand is only continuing to grow and end up with buyers remorse you didn’t go for six.

 

[route101]

EK and Barrhead wiring (if it happens ) might feature new units. Hopefully a capacity increase on 156s .

 

[NotATrainspott]

The big unknown which would override all of these plans is still the outcome of the Glasgow Connectivity Commission. The fastest way to get a metro system rolling in Glasgow would be to take over some of the current electric ScotRail services. The intention would be to deliver a step change, not just the fairly minimal change we've seen with more recent electrification works. It'd be more like a new version of the Blue Train scheme, or the 1979 works to reopen the Argyle line, than EGIP.

The most likely consequence is that the remaining self-contained services within Glasgow and in its immediate suburban areas would be removed from the ScotRail network. That would still leave many ScotRail lines in the city (e.g. the North Clyde) which could then work alongside the new metro system as the NR network in London does with the various TfL rail systems.

 

[adrock1976]

The big unknown which would override all of these plans is still the outcome of the Glasgow Connectivity Commission. The fastest way to get a metro system rolling in Glasgow would be to take over some of the current electric ScotRail services. The intention would be to deliver a step change, not just the fairly minimal change we've seen with more recent electrification works. It'd be more like a new version of the Blue Train scheme, or the 1979 works to reopen the Argyle line, than EGIP.

The most likely consequence is that the remaining self-contained services within Glasgow and in its immediate suburban areas would be removed from the ScotRail network. That would still leave many ScotRail lines in the city (e.g. the North Clyde) which could then work alongside the new metro system as the NR network in London does with the various TfL rail systems.

I feel that there would not have to be so many direct replacement of the 318s/320s if the Cathcart/Newton/Neilston routes had their own specially dedicated fleet designed for those routes. Ideally, this is where Glasgow City Council and Strathclyde PTE could lead the way for Glasgow to bring back trams, with the Cathcart/Newton/Neilston routes converted to trams and running on street to Queen Street station from Central. This should have ideally been done in time for the 2014 Commonwealth Games.

This could be done as Phase II of a tram project as most of the electrification dates back to 1960 and is due for replacement in the near future. Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham, Croydon, and Nottingham have been successful in bringing back trams in recent years and as Glasgow was at one time the Second City of the former British Empire, Glasgow can be successful in bringing back trams (as long as there is involvement from Manchester being as they are the experts in how to design, convert, construct, and implement a tram system).

 

[156478]

I feel that there would not have to be so many direct replacement of the 318s/320s if the Cathcart/Newton/Neilston routes had their own specially dedicated fleet designed for those routes. Ideally, this is where Glasgow City Council and Strathclyde PTE could lead the way for Glasgow to bring back trams, with the Cathcart/Newton/Neilston routes converted to trams and running on street to Queen Street station from Central. This should have ideally been done in time for the 2014 Commonwealth Games.

This could be done as Phase II of a tram project as most of the electrification dates back to 1960 and is due for replacement in the near future. Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham, Croydon, and Nottingham have been successful in bringing back trams in recent years and as Glasgow was at one time the Second City of the former British Empire, Glasgow can be successful in bringing back trams (as long as there is involvement from Manchester being as they are the experts in how to design, convert, construct, and implement a tram system).

Trams would be fantastic for the Barrhead, East Kilbride, Newton, Neilston and Cathcart services! Newton and Neilston branches would easily justify 20 minute frequencies via Mount Florida combining to every 10 minutes and you would eradicate the expensive football/event specials. Other side of the Circle is not as busy however as houses are more spaced out on the leafy suburbs on that bit of the route so a 20 minute service would suffice.

Another possibility is resurrecting that radical idea that was had of the shotgun wedding of the East Kilbride and Neilston services at Williamwood and Clarkston but this time overlaying it on the existing services so that two East Kilbride services would run via Mount Florida and two would run via Crossmyloof and Neilston services could remain half hourly for Whitecraigs, Patterton and Neilston but would be less crowded as loads for Glasgow to Muirend and inbetween would be shared with the EK services.

Demand for intermediate journeys on the Circles is minimal- mainly kids going to the School at Crosshill from Pollokshaws East, Langside and Shawlands mainly. The only downpoint is if you were to put Trams into the City Centre streets what would be the consquences for late running at places where the lines interact with the existing trains at Muirhouse Junctions (Pollokshields East and West converging onto the lines from East Kilbride and Barrhead) unless even better you take them off the Network Rail totally just before the junctions, but then you would have to think about consequential journey time disadvantages. You wouldnt be wanting to import and exacerbate delays on what is already very tightly operated routes.

The current biggest inefficiency is the layovers at Neilston, it works fine just now as it means the trains are not clogging up Glasgow Central and it does help with reliability having the long layovers out there but getting shot of it would save so much time and money.

As long as everyone has given up on that Glasgow Crossrail pipe dream. Running such complicated through services over already creaking infrastructure, slowing down journeys for foik going into Glasgow and exporting delays from one side of the city to another is the exact reason why the real powers that be have never shown an interest in it.

 

[JumpinTrainz]

Slightly off topic but the EK line if it is wired needs work on location etc so trams could be a good option. As with Cathcart/Newton/Neilston a tram link could connect these without the need for actual EMU rolling stock. As it seems Scotrail don’t want to purchase units specifically for these routes and would rather either send cast offs or have more modern units which are clearly unsuitable and are overheating. I think the 380s and 385s are an overkill on these short routes given their spec and size.

That would be the ideal. However failing that I think a metro style unit is required for these routes with more standing spaces and a speed capability or 75mph to prevent overheating.

Then there is always the idea of extending the subway.......

 

[Scotrail314209]

I like the tram idea, but Glasgow’s streets are already really congested, is there room for trams down Union Street and Hope Street?

 

[hexagon789]

As with the last time this was suggested, I expect both 318 and 320s to be replaced at the same time. I'm not so sure the 334s will be cascaded to replace them on Cathcart/Newton/Neilston services though.

 

[156478]

I like the tram idea, but Glasgow’s streets are already really congested, is there room for trams down Union Street and Hope Street?

That’s the biggest hurdle to overcome. The town is so unpredictable at the best of times without trams being added to the daily disaster that is The city centre around Central station.

 

[JumpinTrainz]

That’s the biggest hurdle to overcome. The town is so unpredictable at the best of times without trams being added to the daily disaster that is The city centre around Central station.

Glasgow CC is such a maze. Too many twists and turns. They should reopen Argyle Street as a road in order for buses to proceed straight through. Especially core routes. This may give people an incentive to use the buses. There should be more priority lanes throughout the city centre for buses only. Union Street can be a nightmare with so many buses coming down alongside cars and taxis.

 

[Rick1984]

Really they're shouldn't be any cars within the City Centre within the M8-Clyde-High St.-Cowcaddens road, circle other than access, but that's another topic

 

[route101]

Slightly off topic but the EK line if it is wired needs work on location etc so trams could be a good option. As with Cathcart/Newton/Neilston a tram link could connect these without the need for actual EMU rolling stock. As it seems Scotrail don’t want to purchase units specifically for these routes and would rather either send cast offs or have more modern units which are clearly unsuitable and are overheating. I think the 380s and 385s are an overkill on these short routes given their spec and size.

That would be the ideal. However failing that I think a metro style unit is required for these routes with more standing spaces and a speed capability or 75mph to prevent overheating.

Then there is always the idea of extending the subway.......

Concern with Tram is how long will journey times will be to and from Glasgow from EK.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Trams would be fantastic for the Barrhead, East Kilbride, Newton, Neilston and Cathcart services!

...

As long as everyone has given up on that Glasgow Crossrail pipe dream. Running such complicated through services over already creaking infrastructure, slowing down journeys for foik going into Glasgow and exporting delays from one side of the city to another is the exact reason why the real powers that be have never shown an interest in it.

Connectivity Commision Final Report

The report outcome was high level but it did cover the possibility of reopened and new railed transport routes in Glasgow alongside a wider re-organisation of the road network to improve public transport and liveability. This is quite fundamental: it's not possible to properly prepare a plan for public transport without considering the wider consequences and benefits it could have. If you're planning to massively change the road layout (i.e. the network of one way roads, parking restrictions etc rather than tearing down the Victorian street grid) then you can make way for public transport corridors which would be far more effective than what we have today.

It is my very firm opinion that the cost-benefit of a street-running metro system will be far superior to any other form of metro, other than a cross-city tunnel designed for regional heavy rail services (e.g. Cumbernauld to Ayr).

If you look at the map on PDF page 29 you can see that they have explicitly included the Cathcart Circle network, with the existing branches to Newton and Neilston, alongside new street-running branches to Newton Mearns and Castlemilk. I think the map is more focussed on the radial routes rather than the way they would run through the city centre, as this would be very much dependent on the way the road network was restructured. It's possible, for instance, that one north-south road could be made dedicated to pedestrians and the street running metro. All the applicable routes to the north and south would be funnelled towards it.

Going back to the 318/320 fleet replacement question: if you were a civil servant working for Transport Scotland or indeed any professional working in the industry to supply new trains (manufacturers, ROSCOs etc) would you seriously not work on the assumption that the metro is going to change the nature of the ScotRail network? A manufacturer like Stadler would be salivating at the prospect of building a huge fleet of new tram-train vehicles like the ones planned for South Wales.