Scotrail Class 385 Discussion

[anthannan]

Scotrail need some to move towards a standard train length of 8 x 23m in all new infrastructure investments.

SDO can be used in some places but there should be a rolling programme of platform extensions to achieve 190m platforms as standard across the Central Belt commuter and I7C networks.

Won’t necessarily be cheap but in the long term will be better value than trying to run more frequent, shorter trains.

Good point.

 

[Scotrail314209]

Would there not be a possibility to put a couple of 385s on peak time Ayrshire diagrams (presumably the double ones) to release the 380s to double up some Gourock and Largs services. 1630 Largs being a culprit for being absolutely rammed.

 

[380gk]

Would there not be a possibility to put a couple of 385s on peak time Ayrshire diagrams (presumably the double ones) to release the 380s to double up some Gourock and Largs services. 1630 Largs being a culprit for being absolutely rammed.

Think the 385s are already a bit stretched now, with electrification of the SDA and Edinburgh to Glasgow QS - don’t forget that many of these run in multiple (8 cars all day on the Edinburgh to Queen st route)

 

[Scotrail314209]

Think the 385s are already a bit stretched now, with electrification of the SDA and Edinburgh to Glasgow QS - don’t forget that many of these run in multiple (8 cars all day on the Edinburgh to Queen st route)[/QUOTE

You could always take the 385(S) off the Circle diagrams and put them on, as a few lie around Shields all day anyway

Think the 385s are already a bit stretched now, with electrification of the SDA and Edinburgh to Glasgow QS - don’t forget that many of these run in multiple (8 cars all day on the Edinburgh to Queen st route)

You could easily take the 385s off the Cathcart Circle diagrams both during the day and on peak. As they really aren’t suited for that work.

Has anyone else noticed on an Anti-clockwise Circle the 385 PIS says it is approaching Glasgow Central as it passes Pollokshields East heading in the completely opposite direction?

 

[380gk]

You could easily take the 385s off the Cathcart Circle diagrams both during the day and on peak. As they really aren’t suited for that work.

Has anyone else noticed on an Anti-clockwise Circle the 385 PIS says it is approaching Glasgow Central as it passes Pollokshields East heading in the completely opposite direction?

I don’t think any Ayr drivers sign 385s, so you can’t swap 380/385s out very easily if the plan is to swap a 380 onto circles and a 385 onto Ayrshire.

 

[380101]

I don’t think any Ayr drivers sign 385s, so you can’t swap 380/385s out very easily if the plan is to swap a 380 onto circles and a 385 onto Ayrshire.

That may be changing this year. Have heard from several reliable sources that we are due to get trained on them at some point this year.

 

[gsnedders]

I’m wondering if there is much call for carriages to be extended on the North Clyde and Argyle Line services. Perhaps it works well in Ayrshire/Inverclyde as they needed a capacity boost from the 334s and 318s, same with the E-G but does the North Clyde/Argyle line need longer trains?

Rail travel is changing so fixed 6 cars may work.

They're full & standing during the peaks, evening especially. It's not totally unheard of for passengers to fail to board at Queen Street/Central. During the rest of the day a 3-car service would easily suffice (in reality, I think a 1-car service would suffice for much of the day!); especially nowadays most of the services run as 6-car services (to avoid splitting/joining failures around the peaks) it seems fixed formation may well be the approach there.

Because the station boxes at Queen Street LL , Charing cross and Central LL were built for 6 coaches plus a steam engine, they are already long enough. The problem arises with the new stations like Argyll street.

Partick and Hyndland are also problematic, and lie on the incredibly congested section, again being post-electrification stations.

 

[Scotrail314209]

They're full & standing during the peaks, evening especially. It's not totally unheard of for passengers to fail to board at Queen Street/Central. During the rest of the day a 3-car service would easily suffice (in reality, I think a 1-car service would suffice for much of the day!); especially nowadays most of the services run as 6-car services (to avoid splitting/joining failures around the peaks) it seems fixed formation may well be the approach there.


Partick and Hyndland are also problematic, and lie on the incredibly congested section, again being post-electrification stations.

3 cars does not suffice at all. Larkhall and Hamilton are very busy with 3 cars.

 

[Peter0124]

3 cars on weekends on the Argyle line route can be standing room only!

 

[DaStripedCgull]

Apparently the franchise is to end in 2022 meaning there will probably be no extra 385s.

 

[snookertam]

Scotrail need some to move towards a standard train length of 8 x 23m in all new infrastructure investments.

SDO can be used in some places but there should be a rolling programme of platform extensions to achieve 190m platforms as standard across the Central Belt commuter and I7C networks.

Won’t necessarily be cheap but in the long term will be better value than trying to run more frequent, shorter trains.

2 problems with this though:

1) As already pointed out, the stations at Argyle Street, Partick, Hyndland and others on the North Clyde and Argyle Line routes are not suited to 23m units - the level of ASDO required wouldn't be suitable without extending the platforms which would likely be prohibitive. The more sensible option would be for any new units on these routes to be 20m so as to avoid what would be ultimately unneccessary alteration works.

2) Running more frequent (and possibly shorter) trains are far preferable to running fewer trains. A 15 minute frequency will attract more than double the patronage than a 30 minute frequency. People don't want to have to plan part of their day to be at the station for a certain time to catch a train, so they don't miss it. When we are trying to encourage people away from car usage, a 'turn-up-and-go' service of 15 minute (20 min at a push) frequency within the city at least is what is needed as minimum. Obviously this wont work on certain routes due to single line etc, but what can't happen is to use train lengths to decide that we don't need to have more frequent trains - that's the opposite of what should be happening.

 

[alangla]

2 problems with this though:

1) As already pointed out, the stations at Argyle Street, Partick, Hyndland and others on the North Clyde and Argyle Line routes are not suited to 23m units - the level of ASDO required wouldn't be suitable without extending the platforms which would likely be prohibitive. The more sensible option would be for any new units on these routes to be 20m so as to avoid what would be ultimately unneccessary alteration works.

2) Running more frequent (and possibly shorter) trains are far preferable to running fewer trains. A 15 minute frequency will attract more than double the patronage than a 30 minute frequency. People don't want to have to plan part of their day to be at the station for a certain time to catch a train, so they don't miss it. When we are trying to encourage people away from car usage, a 'turn-up-and-go' service of 15 minute (20 min at a push) frequency within the city at least is what is needed as minimum. Obviously this wont work on certain routes due to single line etc, but what can't happen is to use train lengths to decide that we don't need to have more frequent trains - that's the opposite of what should be happening.

On number 1, 5x23m with walkthrough gangways etc might be a more productive use of space than 6x20, I guess it depends on the unit. Agreed that ASDO is unworkable, especially in the city centre

On number 2, the North Clyde east of Queen Street was every 15 mins all stops for decades, but Abellio recently ended it! It’s now 30 mins all stops (Balloch) 30 mins fast to Garrowhill then all stops (Helensburgh) and 30 mins all stops to Shettleston then Sunnyside & Airdrie (Milngavie). The effect is that many stations now have 20/10 minute gaps and the previous trick of taking a Balloch to Airdrie & crossing to a fast Milngavie to get to Edinburgh no longer works, so the effective frequency from the east end/Coatbridge to Edinburgh has halved from every 15 to every 30 mins. It has, however, evened out a lot of the loadings between Helensburgh and Milngavie trains.

 

[RLBH]

Running more frequent (and possibly shorter) trains are far preferable to running fewer trains. A 15 minute frequency will attract more than double the patronage than a 30 minute frequency.

That's as may be - but would require pushing more trains through the Partick-Hyndland section and across the flat junction at Hyndland East. Until a means of reliably doing so can be found, or else a way to terminate trains from the east before they get to Partick, any increase in capacity needs to come from longer trains.

 

[Altnabreac]

2 problems with this though:

1) As already pointed out, the stations at Argyle Street, Partick, Hyndland and others on the North Clyde and Argyle Line routes are not suited to 23m units - the level of ASDO required wouldn't be suitable without extending the platforms which would likely be prohibitive. The more sensible option would be for any new units on these routes to be 20m so as to avoid what would be ultimately unneccessary alteration works.

2) Running more frequent (and possibly shorter) trains are far preferable to running fewer trains. A 15 minute frequency will attract more than double the patronage than a 30 minute frequency. People don't want to have to plan part of their day to be at the station for a certain time to catch a train, so they don't miss it. When we are trying to encourage people away from car usage, a 'turn-up-and-go' service of 15 minute (20 min at a push) frequency within the city at least is what is needed as minimum. Obviously this wont work on certain routes due to single line etc, but what can't happen is to use train lengths to decide that we don't need to have more frequent trains - that's the opposite of what should be happening.

Partick platforms can be extended for a not outrageous (though still substantial) cost.

Hyndland will be getting a full rebuild (probably on a slightly different location) in the next 10 years. Would be criminal if 8 x 23m platforms were not included.

Argyle Street is a trickier prospect. My controversial suggestion would be to close it entirely. It’s too close to Glasgow Central and the leisure centre of gravity in the city centre has moved eastwards in the last 40 years. I’d replace it with a reopened low level station at Glasgow Cross instead to better serve Merchant City/ Fruitmarket etc.

 

[InOban]

Agreed. It was built to serve St. Enoch shopping centre. Reopening the Cross would encourage regeneration of the East End.
And I'll never understand why they spent £millions on installing lifts at Hyndland without relocating it at the same time (and renaming it Gartnavel)

 

[Stopper]

Closing the incredibly busy Argyle Street would be madness if the sole reason was to accommodate 8x23 running on the Argyle line which really isn’t needed.

 

[InOban]

So busy that it closes early on Sundays.
Seriously, this discussion belongs on a different thread.

 

[hexagon789]

That may be changing this year. Have heard from several reliable sources that we are due to get trained on them at some point this year.

That was mentioned months ago, but heard nothing since, that 385s would go down Ayrshire way. Unless it's purely training and they won't actually run to Ayrshire?

 

[Stopper]

So busy that it closes early on Sundays.
Seriously, this discussion belongs on a different thread.

So busy that it’s the 16th busiest station in Scotland with 1.3million passengers a year, yes. What a bizarre post.

 

[380101]

That was mentioned months ago, but heard nothing since, that 385s would go down Ayrshire way. Unless it's purely training and they won't actually run to Ayrshire?

It's definately going to happen and been confirmed by various reliable sources within my work. It's just a case of fitting the training in, which is proving difficult due to the high volume of trainee drivers.

 

[hexagon789]

It's definately going to happen and been confirmed by various reliable sources within my work. It's just a case of fitting the training in, which is proving difficult due to the high volume of trainee drivers.

Thank you for confirming it, interesting to see which services they will end up on

 

[InOban]

So busy that it’s the 16th busiest station in Scotland with 1.3million passengers a year, yes. What a bizarre post.

I stand corrected. But would they be seriously inconvenienced by relocation? Where are the passengers headi?

 

[Stopper]

I stand corrected. But would they be seriously inconvenienced by relocation? Where are the passengers headi?

I doubt the passengers would be greatly inconvenienced by moving the station to Glasgow Cross. However, 1.3million passengers per year use it, so I’m not one to judge for them. It would seem a pretty unnecessary and expensive move just to accommodate 8x23m trains that aren’t needed, though.

 

[alangla]

Thank you for confirming it, interesting to see which services they will end up on

Would have thought the through services to Edinburgh and North Berwick would be obvious candidates- it would allow 380s to be eradicated east of Carstairs and end guard operation meaning 385s would be the only type you’d need to train Edinburgh crews and any guards on.

 

[SC318250]

It would make sense for Ayr to Edinburgh services as well as those 380 operated Shotts services.
380 then on Newton etc

 

[route101]

It would make sense for Ayr to Edinburgh services as well as those 380 operated Shotts services.
380 then on Newton etc

380 set still on the Shotts?

 

[hexagon789]

Would have thought the through services to Edinburgh and North Berwick would be obvious candidates- it would allow 380s to be eradicated east of Carstairs and end guard operation meaning 385s would be the only type you’d need to train Edinburgh crews and any guards on.

Yes I think that was suggested previously as it makes sense given the Edinburgh-North Berwicks are primarily 385s.

 

[jazza374]

380 set still on the Shotts?

Yes one 4 car set all day Mon to Fri at least, always on the 17.2x GLC to EDI for the needed capacity.

 

[route101]

Yes one 4 car set all day Mon to Fri at least, always on the 17.2x GLC to EDI for the needed capacity.

I see , i thought they added a 6 car 385 set

 

[GLC]

Has there been any more work into reworking the Neilston turnback for 6x23m trains?