Scotrail rolling stock strategy discussion

[gsnedders]

Moderator note: Split from

Scottish Electrification updates & discussion

There have been a few threads recently which have mentioned various different lines and dates for electrification in Scotland. I thought Id try and bring together all the different sources for electrification and do a timeline of what has happened, is happening and is likely to happen in...

www.railforums.co.uk

Which will be why Hitachi are making much battery EMU noise at the moment. I don't usually go in for trainset fantasy talk, but anything other than a follow on Class 385 order would be madness when you see the reliability statistics in Roger Ford's section of Modern Railways.

I wonder how those who were decrying their reliability as "unreliable junk" when they were introduced feel now…

The Forth and Tay Bridges don't present a particular problem to electrify, beyond listed building consent. The viewing platform plan for the Forth Bridge navigated that despite proposing a frankly hideous structure be bolted to the side of the bridge (though I did hear a whisper that despite currently being out to tender, it's not going ahead).

The primary concerns were the electrification of the route at Edinburgh Airport and the Kinghorn Tunnel which did need track lowering (slab track and rigid overhead conductor was the assumed plan as per other projects in Scotland).

The Scotland Route Study seemed broader than that, mentioning "challenging structures such as the Forth Bridge, North Queensferry Tunnel, Kinghorn Tunnel and the Tay Bridge" looking up to Aberdeen. That said, I can easily believe it's not so challenging (at least insofar as not being too invasive) as Kinghorn Tunnel.

Do you know (and can disclose!) what the plan would be if they're looking at bimodes (of any kind!)? What discontinuities are being looked at? Just the airport and Kinghorn?

PS: good to have you back around here!

 

[Philip Phlopp]

The Scotland Route Study seemed broader than that, mentioning "challenging structures such as the Forth Bridge, North Queensferry Tunnel, Kinghorn Tunnel and the Tay Bridge" looking up to Aberdeen. That said, I can easily believe it's not so challenging (at least insofar as not being too invasive) as Kinghorn Tunnel.

Do you know (and can disclose!) what the plan would be if they're looking at bimodes (of any kind!)? What discontinuities are being looked at? Just the airport and Kinghorn?

PS: good to have you back around here!

I've no knowledge on what is being planned at this stage - and can only provide a (hopefully) semi-useful technical viewpoint.

I must confess to being completely baffled by the Transport Scotland rolling stock strategy though - those HSTs now make no sense if they're going to push forward with a decarbonisation strategy that has battery EMUs running around the Fife Circle whilst electrification is undertaken. I don't understand why they didn't order an AT300 product for the long-distance services.

2022 sounds very tight for introduction of services too, though with the next franchise or concession commencing in March 2022 any point thereafter makes contractual sense. If the rolling stock ITT is to be published in October, responses will be received in early 2021, the announcement of the winning bidder and contractual details surrounding funding arrangements will take things through to mid to late 2021. The first rolling stock would be arriving sometime in 2023 I would suggest, looking at the 12 to 18 month lead time from contract signing to initial build and delivery. There will be much testing needed too for battery EMU operation.

 

[alangla]

I must confess to being completely baffled by the Transport Scotland rolling stock strategy though - those HSTs now make no sense if they're going to push forward with a decarbonisation strategy that has battery EMUs running around the Fife Circle whilst electrification is undertaken. I don't understand why they didn't order an AT300 product for the long-distance services.

I never understood the HST introduction. Still don’t.
If, and obviously given economic circumstances it’s a big if, suitable class 802 type stock could be obtained, does the current power supply arrangement allow for 100% of trains south of Dunblane to be electrically operated or will it be like the ECML with bi-modes running on diesel pending a power upgrade?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I never understood the HST introduction. Still don’t.
If, and obviously given economic circumstances it’s a big if, suitable class 802 type stock could be obtained, does the current power supply arrangement allow for 100% of trains south of Dunblane to be electrically operated or will it be like the ECML with bi-modes running on diesel pending a power upgrade?

There should be sufficient power available, but it may be desirable to upgrade the supply as further extensions are undertaken.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I think the idea of TS getting some IEP-derivatives was discussed a decade ago alongside other possible follow-on orders (which have largely happened, in some way or another). The biggest problem with the idea is probably the fact that there's no >100mph running on any of the HST routes in Scotland! Why bother with a heavier and more expensive train than is necessary? Stadler could have probably brought out their bi-mode design a bit earlier and that would have worked just fine on the ScotRail network.

The HSTs were cheap (in theory!) and can improve the quality of the service without committing anyone to a long-term rolling stock plan. All they need to do is bridge the time until there's certainty about how they should be replaced. Bi-modes make a lot of sense but a lot will depend on the plans for electrification north of Edinburgh and Dunblane.

With the Forth and Tay bridges I imagine there are a few people in NR who have gone and done some basic analysis of how they could be electrified but no one has been told to go and give the definitive answer about if and how it would really be implemented. 25kV AC OHLE has been around in Scotland now for more than half a century and it's never exactly been a bold idea to suggest it'll continue to spread across the rail network. If there were glaring and unavoidable problems, then I'm sure we would have probably heard about them.

Hydrogen's only advantage over batteries is fast refuelling. It's not cheaper or more efficient. The fast refuelling angle is negated by the way that you can relatively easily recharge when the train is stopped at stations. On the WHL you can basically guarantee that every train will stop at suitable recharging points because it is a single track line with passing loops. It's not as if you'll be running trains non-stop to Fort William.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

No reason TS can’t use cascaded bimodes if we assume routes in the rest of the UK get electrified and make them surplus. Then when routes in Scotland do get fully electrified buy new electric only trains

 

[Speed43125]

No reason TS can’t use cascaded bimodes if we assume routes in the rest of the UK get electrified and make them surplus. Then when routes in Scotland do get fully electrified by new electric only trains

Is there any desirability to replacing Bimodes when and if (big if given the dft, but anyway) electrification is done? For example, I can't think of any Bi-mode not designed with future conversion to pure EMU in mind (AT300, FLIRT etc).
Assuming Great Western got a little more electrified I doubt they'd order 801s and cascade the 800s unless they can perhaps also replace the excess 5 cars with more 9 cars?, but the lease arrangements there may prove troublesome as well.
Unless I'm confusing your timeframe? I'm assuming around 2027, but that may be overly optimistic.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I assumed around 2027-2030 yes

 

[edwin_m]

I must confess to being completely baffled by the Transport Scotland rolling stock strategy though - those HSTs now make no sense if they're going to push forward with a decarbonisation strategy that has battery EMUs running around the Fife Circle whilst electrification is undertaken. I don't understand why they didn't order an AT300 product for the long-distance services.

Weren't the HSTs Abellio's idea as part of the franchise bid? TS couldn't have picked and chosen bits out of different bids so even if they didn't like the HSTs there may have been other parts of the package that made it best overall. At the time it probably wasn't clear either when Hitachi could deliver a bi-mode or how reliable it would be.

Having said that, I agree with previous posts that said the HST was a sensible stopgap considering the very little running they do under the wires and the small likelihood of that extending much during a remaining life of 10 years or so from when they were introduced to these services.

Hydrogen's only advantage over batteries is fast refuelling. It's not cheaper or more efficient. The fast refuelling angle is negated by the way that you can relatively easily recharge when the train is stopped at stations. On the WHL you can basically guarantee that every train will stop at suitable recharging points because it is a single track line with passing loops. It's not as if you'll be running trains non-stop to Fort William.

I don't think the refueling speed is an advantage for hydrogen in any rail application. A battery can be re-charged while unattended at a platform but a hydrogen train would have to go off to the depot for refuelling, which would take longer overall and be more inconvenient as it needs staff.

However hydrogen does have a benefit of longer range if refueling on the way isn't possible. I agree non-stop journeys aren't relevant here but I do wonder about the feasibility and cost of installing relatively high-power charging points in deep rural areas. Extra cost might be needed to boost the local power supply or provide something based on trickle-charging of lineside batteries, and the number of these facilities would be considerably more than the number of trains. So the practicalities and economics might still favour hydrogen for these routes - the emerging views on the NR decarbonization strategy certainly seem to suggest that.

 

[hwl]

I've no knowledge on what is being planned at this stage - and can only provide a (hopefully) semi-useful technical viewpoint.

I must confess to being completely baffled by the Transport Scotland rolling stock strategy though - those HSTs now make no sense if they're going to push forward with a decarbonisation strategy that has battery EMUs running around the Fife Circle whilst electrification is undertaken. I don't understand why they didn't order an AT300 product for the long-distance services.

2022 sounds very tight for introduction of services too, though with the next franchise or concession commencing in March 2022 any point thereafter makes contractual sense. If the rolling stock ITT is to be published in October, responses will be received in early 2021, the announcement of the winning bidder and contractual details surrounding funding arrangements will take things through to mid to late 2021. The first rolling stock would be arriving sometime in 2023 I would suggest, looking at the 12 to 18 month lead time from contract signing to initial build and delivery. There will be much testing needed too for battery EMU operation.

The HSTs were about providing a big uplift in capacity with easy options to add more coaches or change internal layout options. The idea was to establish what an unconstrained demand level looked like inorder to inform bi-mode etc unit length and fleet size. Everyone knew demand assumptions based on the 170s wasn't a good starting point.
It basically gave TS a decade before their replacements needed delivering.

 

[gsnedders]

The bridge itself will need a bespoke OLE system making use of (probably all) those components and technologies. I would expect the biggest issue will be split between testing such a system (laboratory time is inevitable for this) and agreeing on the aesthetics of such a system such that it is acceptable to the planning authorities and UNESCO.

My expectation is that politically the hard part will always be the approach viaducts: on the main span there's so much metalwork already the OLE is relatively insignificant to the view. The viaducts will have the tension between aesthetic minimalism and dealing with the winds up and down the firth, but that again is far from unique.

Weren't the HSTs Abellio's idea as part of the franchise bid? TS couldn't have picked and chosen bits out of different bids so even if they didn't like the HSTs there may have been other parts of the package that made it best overall. At the time it probably wasn't clear either when Hitachi could deliver a bi-mode or how reliable it would be.

Having said that, I agree with previous posts that said the HST was a sensible stopgap considering the very little running they do under the wires and the small likelihood of that extending much during a remaining life of 10 years or so from when they were introduced to these services.

Yes, the rolling stock was specified by the franchisee, though obviously the tender could've required a bi-mode, but it was prior to any non-IEP orders. (Relatedly: are the I7C routes physically cleared—regardless of whether the paperwork has been done—for 26m stock? Clearly those which LNER run over are, but Aberdeen–Inverness?)

I think the idea of TS getting some IEP-derivatives was discussed a decade ago alongside other possible follow-on orders (which have largely happened, in some way or another). The biggest problem with the idea is probably the fact that there's no >100mph running on any of the HST routes in Scotland! Why bother with a heavier and more expensive train than is necessary? Stadler could have probably brought out their bi-mode design a bit earlier and that would have worked just fine on the ScotRail network.

Obviously it would need to be a longer formation of the bi-mode Stadler FLIRT (a six-car, I guess?) to be a reasonable length, and that probably gets into questions about power output of the generator? While Stadler obviously have a history of small-run units, the price difference versus something similar to the Class 810 would be interesting.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, the rolling stock was specified by the franchisee, though obviously the tender could've required a bi-mode, but it was prior to any non-IEP orders. (Relatedly: are the I7C routes physically cleared—regardless of whether the paperwork has been done—for 26m stock? Clearly those which LNER run over are, but Aberdeen–Inverness?)

Not sure, but the route upgrade provided an opportunity to do that.

 

[najaB]

I never understood the HST introduction. Still don’t.

Today's reality can't inform yesterday's decisions. When the decision was made to go with HSTs, electrification was further away than it turned out to be.

 

[66C]

Personally I'd rather travel in an HST than a 170 struggling up the hills. Rumour has it they use twice as much diesel as the 170s. I understand they were supposed to reduce timings but as it turns out they are unable to take advantage of the DMU speed differentials. TS have asked for line speed improvements to take advantage of their potential performance.

 

[Energy]

Obviously it would need to be a longer formation of the bi-mode Stadler FLIRT (a six-car, I guess?) to be a reasonable length, and that probably gets into questions about power output of the generator? While Stadler obviously have a history of small-run units, the price difference versus something similar to the Class 810 would be interesting.

The 3 car units have 2 engines with space for 2 more so you could run a 6 car unit with 4 engines. Remember that the middle coaches of them is smaller. A 6 car Flirt is available, the 12 car sets are just 2 6 cars put together.

 

[gsnedders]

The 3 car units have 2 engines with space for 2 more so you could run a 6 car unit with 4 engines. Remember that the middle coaches of them is smaller. A 6 car Flirt is available, the 12 car sets are just 2 6 cars put together.

Ah, I'd forgotten that there was space for more engines in the existing module! Yeah, that makes a big difference.

 

[gingertom]

Ah, I'd forgotten that there was space for more engines in the existing module! Yeah, that makes a big difference.

if only we could be sure the power pack wouldn't get wedged in the Kinghorn and Killiecrankie tunnels.

 

[Clansman]

Removing the perspective of hindsight, what problem do people have with the rolling stock strategy exactly?

HSTs? Wanted by passengers, and ScotRail wanted a proper IC experience. Proven track record of popularity and easy conversion programme promised
No IC7 Mk5s? CAF hadn't entered UK market by that point and Mk5s don't meet what TS was after anyway
No IC7 BiModes? Technology hadn't been utilised by any TOC at the point of the tender being issued and only ~5% of all IC7 routes were electrified by 2019
385s on Cathcart? Stop gap to allow 314s to go off lease without binning recently refurbished & retractioned EMUs that still have another decade to live
170s going off-lease? 3 x 158s have more capacity at peak times and 158s are the more flexible fleet of the two, additional 170s weren't initially needed on paper

Aside from one or two decisions regarding the specifications of the rolling stock ScotRail have since procured, what is the major issue?

 

[adrock1976]

I believe that the discussion regarding the Scotrail fleet will be focused on replacing the 156s and 158s as well in the near future, as they were built in 1987 (156s) and 1989 (158s).

This would need to be tied in with electrification projects such as East Kilbride (as is presently happening), Barrhead, Kilmarnock, Gretna Junction - Dumfries, Cowlairs - Anniesland/Westerton, and Craigendoran Junction - Helensburgh Upper.

The last two areas of electrification projects in the paragraph above would allow new bimode scenic trains to run on the West Highland route, with their home depot being Eastfield (as I believe it has diesel tanks there) so as to save going south of the Clyde to Corkerhill.

Also, as the Cathcart routes were electrified in 1960 and the overhead equipment being designed to last for 60 years, the replacement of the kit will be due in the near future. This would be an ideal time to convert this route to trams with on street running to Queen Street beyond Central. Being as Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham, Nottingham, and Croydon have brought back trams in recent years, it should be time for Glasgow to do the same too, with the experts being brought in from Manchester to plan, design, and construct the network so as it is done properly.

 

[edwin_m]

I believe that the discussion regarding the Scotrail fleet will be focused on replacing the 156s and 158s as well in the near future, as they were built in 1987 (156s) and 1989 (158s).

This would need to be tied in with electrification projects such as East Kilbride (as is presently happening), Barrhead, Kilmarnock, Gretna Junction - Dumfries, Cowlairs - Anniesland/Westerton, and Craigendoran Junction - Helensburgh Upper.

The last two areas of electrification projects in the paragraph above would allow new bimode scenic trains to run on the West Highland route, with their home depot being Eastfield (as I believe it has diesel tanks there) so as to save going south of the Clyde to Corkerhill.

With decarbonization coming onto the agenda I can't see these being diesel bi-modes. Continuing the rolling electrification will take care of the shorter and busier routes, but the "scenic" routes in Scotland are mostly too lightly used for electrification ever to be viable. So the choice falls between hydrogen and a battery unit with "opportunity charging" at intermediate stops on the non-electrified section. I'd say hydrogen was the better bet for these routes, but it really depends how the two technologies evolve. Either type could be a special build with big windows etc - Stadler could probably knock up a variant on the FLIRT without too much difficulty.

 

[gsnedders]

Removing the perspective of hindsight, what problem do people have with the rolling stock strategy exactly?

HSTs? Wanted by passengers, and ScotRail wanted a proper IC experience. Proven track record of popularity and easy conversion programme promised
No IC7 Mk5s? CAF hadn't entered UK market by that point and Mk5s don't meet what TS was after anyway
No IC7 BiModes? Technology hadn't been utilised by any TOC at the point of the tender being issued and only ~5% of all IC7 routes were electrified by 2019
385s on Cathcart? Stop gap to allow 314s to go off lease without binning recently refurbished & retractioned EMUs that still have another decade to live
170s going off-lease? 3 x 158s have more capacity at peak times and 158s are the more flexible fleet of the two, additional 170s weren't initially needed on paper

Aside from one or two decisions regarding the specifications of the rolling stock ScotRail have since procured, what is the major issue?

On the whole I agree. Could've made the first order for some AT300 derivative, but without further committed electrification that probably would've been silly. I think maybe we got rid of slightly too many DMUs, but that's it.

I believe that the discussion regarding the Scotrail fleet will be focused on replacing the 156s and 158s as well in the near future, as they were built in 1987 (156s) and 1989 (158s).

This would need to be tied in with electrification projects such as East Kilbride (as is presently happening), Barrhead, Kilmarnock, Gretna Junction - Dumfries, Cowlairs - Anniesland/Westerton, and Craigendoran Junction - Helensburgh Upper.

The last two areas of electrification projects in the paragraph above would allow new bimode scenic trains to run on the West Highland route, with their home depot being Eastfield (as I believe it has diesel tanks there) so as to save going south of the Clyde to Corkerhill.

Is it really worthwhile electrifying short sections for bimodes? I guess it takes you off the mainline for the switchover, at least… Infill for Anniesland/Westerton is probably justified as we progressively have fewer and fewer DMUs in Queen Street, given we can't use I7C stock for Maryhill services and tying up scenic stock probably doesn't make sense, thereby allowing an EMU to be used between Alloa/Dunblane runs or similar.

 

[Clansman]

I think maybe we got rid of slightly too many DMUs, but that's it.

Perhaps so if Leven wasn't taken into consideration, but if the HSTs and 385s had arrived on schedule I doubt there would be any complaints over the final numbers.

 

[gsnedders]

Perhaps so if Leven wasn't taken into consideration, but if the HSTs and 385s had arrived on schedule I doubt there would be any complaints over the final numbers.

Some of the Fife and Borders services could do with being longer… The only other notable shortage, IMO, is of the North Clyde electrics, a few too many running as rammed 3-cars in the peaks.

 

[Bevan Price]

I assumed around 2027-2030 yes

When the treasury admits that the country is almost bankrupt after several waves of Covid, I think the purse will be closed, and projects like extensive electrification will find themselves in a very long queue. Think more like 2040 than 2030.

 

[adrock1976]

On the whole I agree. Could've made the first order for some AT300 derivative, but without further committed electrification that probably would've been silly. I think maybe we got rid of slightly too many DMUs, but that's it.



Is it really worthwhile electrifying short sections for bimodes? I guess it takes you off the mainline for the switchover, at least… Infill for Anniesland/Westerton is probably justified as we progressively have fewer and fewer DMUs in Queen Street, given we can't use I7C stock for Maryhill services and tying up scenic stock probably doesn't make sense, thereby allowing an EMU to be used between Alloa/Dunblane runs or similar.

Regarding the comment I had made about Craigendoran Junction - Helensburgh Upper, I had in mind that the switchover at Helensburgh Upper could happen there as it will not be on the single track section and also the signalling systems change over there too.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

When the treasury admits that the country is almost bankrupt after several waves of Covid, I think the purse will be closed, and projects like extensive electrification will find themselves in a very long queue. Think more like 2040 than 2030.

So HS2 will not go ahead and there will be even more pressure from Scotland for independence?

 

[MatthewRead]

There are also plans to convert some of the 385's to battery power as a possible alternative to electrification.

 

[gsnedders]

There are also plans to convert some of the 385's to battery power as a possible alternative to electrification.

AIUI there's no plan to convert any: they'd be new-build stock?

 

[MatthewRead]

AIUI there's no plan to convert any: they'd be new-build stock?

I t was in the latest issue of Today's Railways UK but yes I meant they would be another batch of 385's and also Hitachi made plans to convert the Bi-modes to battery power replacing the diesel engines.

 

[Speed43125]

also Hitachi made plans to convert the Bi-modes to battery power replacing the diesel engines.

Sorry, convert what from Diesel to Battery?

Edit: Nevermind, (I think) you mean create a 'bimode' AT200 with Batteries, rather than with diesel engines.