• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Scotrail Class 385 Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

380gk

Member
Joined
19 Oct 2014
Messages
141
It’s stabling space that’s probably the issue, scotrail don’t just need more trains but they will also need more depot capacity for the new trains.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

SC318250

Member
Joined
4 Jun 2011
Messages
612
Stabling space...

Take over Glasgow Works and use for stabling HST in Glasgow and also 156/158 from Corkerhill

EMUs could then stable at Eastfield and Corkerhill rather than in Central
 

alangla

Member
Joined
11 Apr 2018
Messages
1,178
Location
Glasgow
I’ve said it before- massive EMU heavy maintenance depot at Ravenscraig is the answer. Sweep away the various sidings in the Motherwell area and stop sending ECS from Yoker and Shields (on topic, it’s empty 385s!!) to start service from Motherwell. A few 7-12 car ECS runs up the WCML in the morning to start at Central or via Stepps to Queen Street shouldn’t be an issue.

Glasgow works, IIRC, is an awkward reversing move from the Springburn to Robroyston line, not sure if there’s scope to install a Springburn facing connection.
 

NotATrainspott

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2013
Messages
3,223
Most of Ravenscraig is already allocated for housing and other sorts of developments.

However, the notion that more stabling capacity is required is a fairly sound one. It's the less sexy but somewhat important part of ScotRail train fleet expansion. During the EGIP works Eastfield was expanded further, and the A-B project added Bathgate.

I think Glasgow Works is less likely as a site because it points the wrong way. It could be made to work but a stabling site which requires a headshunt to access won't have great capacity at the times it is needed the most.

Typically the easiest place to get a new depot built is somewhere already in former or current railway use. A stabling depot (especially for electric trains) is typically not that intrusive on the surrounding environment, so it may make housing or other developments nearby less infeasible too. Cadder Yard would presumably work for a small amount of stabling but it getting paths to and from it might be challenging with the E&G timetable.

Somewhere around Eurocentral might not be a bad shout since it would then be accessible from most directions. There's pre-existing railway use but the surrounding area is meant for commercial and industry rather than residential. From there you can get to pretty much anywhere in the Central Belt rail network, including the Airdrie line via Sunnyside Junction.
 

InOban

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
4,208
There was meant to be stabling at Stirling, but the neighbourhood housing objected about the increased traffic late at night and in the early morning.
 

Carntyne

Member
Joined
8 Jul 2015
Messages
882
Another Yoker is needed somewhere, entry and exit in both directions. Mossend / Eurocentral is a great idea.
 

snookertam

Member
Joined
22 Sep 2018
Messages
774
Another Yoker is needed somewhere, entry and exit in both directions. Mossend / Eurocentral is a great idea.

Yes this is probably the most logical answer. Given that there's units now being stabled at so many out locations (Lanark, Wemyss Bay) it is clear that stabling space is an issue now, far more so than previously. Mossend area means relatively easy access onto the Lanarkshire based network and you could probably set up a driver depot there and move the Motherwell based drivers. 385 units stabled here could also access the Queen Street/Edinburgh/Stirling based network with Motherwell drivers already having knowledge to Cumbernauld - this could maybe be extended to Stirling perhaps to bring a unit into service there, or round the Garnqueen chord to Springburn.

Another option would be to begin using Smith Lye sidings outside of Glasgow Central. There are swaithes of disused lines still there and could relatively easily be brought back into use. It would need to be converted for modern usage with clear walking routes for drivers with well lit access routes etc, but its closer proximity to a main terminus would make it an attractive option as it wouldn't be a long taxi journey for a driver to go pick up a unit to bring into service. Given that 385s aren't Shields based units they probably wouldn't mind rarely having to ever take them on depot, so sticking them in a new Smithy Lye facility would probably suit them too.
 

Speed43125

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2019
Messages
1,131
Location
Dunblane
There was meant to be stabling at Stirling, but the neighbourhood housing objected about the increased traffic late at night and in the early morning.
Platforms 4&5 are in use of for just that, And I'd have thought there's plenty of space between the lines of from platform 2/3 and 6/9 just north of the station where you could keep stuff, and relatively far from housing, but that's not particularly useful anyway given the distance all of that is from the suburban Glasgow stuff, so you'd just be storing Alloa/Dunblane stock there, which lets face it isn't a lot of stock, maybe 10 carriages or so which is not a big dent in space elsewhere.
 

InOban

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
4,208
As far as I can see from the timetable, there are three trains which start from dunblane, three from alloa and one from Stirling all before the arrival of the first timetabled trains from Edinburgh or Glasgow. So even assuming these are all single units, that's 21 coaches.
One factor which must be taken into account is where traincrew are likely to live and their ease of travel at the start of early shifts or the end of late ones.
 

anthannan

Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
113
I’m a real fan of the Class 385s, I think Hitachi have did a good job with these units. I do find them to be very similar to the Class 380s although I do like Siemens. I like the design of the Class 707s and 717s. I don’t imagine, given the problems, they will go back to Hitachi. Most modern EMU’s come with their problems. Let’s not forget the delays to service with the 334s (delay of the 303 withdrawal), 380s (major unit shortage as 334s could not cascade to operate on A-B) and 385s (Class 365s had to be brought from down south and 380s had to be brought from Ayrshire/Inverclyde causing major shortages and withdrawal of 314s) - it’s almost inevitable these days.

Whatever they go with I hope they consider suitability to routes such as Cathcart/Newton/Neilston and perhaps East Kilbride (if/when it’s electrified).
In the long term, doesn't it make more sense to have more units from one manufacturer. The 385's are proving very reliable, the issues have been overcome and from a maintenance and training point of view it would be more efficient.
 

JumpinTrainz

Established Member
Joined
30 Jul 2018
Messages
1,654
In the long term, doesn't it make more sense to have more units from one manufacturer. The 385's are proving very reliable, the issues have been overcome and from a maintenance and training point of view it would be more efficient.

I agree. The AT100 design looks very efficient imo. Having Siemens wouldn’t be too difficult either considering there are 38 Class 380 units already.
 

InOban

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
4,208
But Siemens no longer make the emu on which the 380 is based. So new Siemens emus would be an entirely novel technology.
 
Joined
4 Jul 2019
Messages
47
Indeed 385s are now stored in Lanark, during weekdays they are there overnight and during the weekends they are there all day also is there any other stations except the bigger ones where 385s or any other trains are stored overnight? IMG_20191215_101605.jpg
 

jagardner1984

Member
Joined
11 May 2008
Messages
666
Logically if all that is happening to them overnight is a clean and a basic check (do Scotrail send engineers round to do this ?) then isn’t that arguably a lot more efficient than more ECS moves at the end / start of service ? Presumably when VMIs etc are required the units rotate to get them to an appropriate depot ...
 

InOban

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
4,208
I meant novel to ScotRail. It wouldn't be adding to an existing fleet with which the depots were familiar.
 

380gk

Member
Joined
19 Oct 2014
Messages
141
The dream would be the 318/320 fleet being replaced by fixed 5 car desiro city units with wide gangways and more standing room. They would be ideal for the south side, north Clyde and argyle line and for peak gourocks too.
 
Last edited:

CM

Member
Joined
28 Dec 2010
Messages
667
The dream would be the 318/320 fleet being replaced by fixed 5 car desiro city units with wide gangways and more standing room. They would be ideal for the south side, north Clyde and argyle line and for peak gourocks too.

Why would you replace units that these days mostly run around in 2x 3 car formation (6 cars) with fixed formation 5 car units?
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,538
Why would you replace units that these days mostly run around in 2x 3 car formation (6 cars) with fixed formation 5 car units?

I suspect the OP is suggesting five 24m coaches rather than six 20m ones and assumes there are no clearance problems for that idea.
 

JumpinTrainz

Established Member
Joined
30 Jul 2018
Messages
1,654
I suspect the OP I suggesting five 24m coaches rather than six 20m ones and assumes there are no clearance problems for that idea.

23m trains seem to be the future so I can’t see the Class 320/318 replacements being 20m. Of course that brings its own problems with extending platforms etc to accommodate. Like with the 380s there may be stations which can not accommodate and therefore the rear coaches can’t open.

It’s a massive issue which has to be addressed. The population is only getting larger and Scotland has to be able to accommodate bigger trains with larger platforms. We aren’t in the 20th century anymore.
 

380gk

Member
Joined
19 Oct 2014
Messages
141
I suspect the OP is suggesting five 24m coaches rather than six 20m ones and assumes there are no clearance problems for that idea.
Correct.
Fixed formations - no attaching or detaching, 23/24m vehicles, more standing capacity on board.
318/320s have a lot of dead space inside them.
Fixed 5 car formations would also avoid the need for expansive platform extensions.
 

anthannan

Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
113
The dream would be the 318/320 fleet being replaced by fixed 5 car desiro city units with wide gangways and more standing room. They would be ideal for the south side, north Clyde and argyle line and for peak gourocks too.
Why Siemens?
 

Peter Bonner

Member
Joined
7 Nov 2019
Messages
170
Location
BEVERLEY
Why not? Could be anyone - just there’s a whole bunch of 707s coming off lease - could be a good opportunity.

Good chance they will end up on Southern Railway. Their dmus seemingly destined for East Midlands. Talk of Southern 377s to be battery fitted to replace these and also replace 313s on Brighton Coastline service. Gap filled by third rail 707s.

Cant see them going north!!
 

CM

Member
Joined
28 Dec 2010
Messages
667
Correct.
Fixed formations - no attaching or detaching, 23/24m vehicles, more standing capacity on board.
318/320s have a lot of dead space inside them.
Fixed 5 car formations would also avoid the need for expansive platform extensions.

Fixed formation units at 6x 20m coaches would also avoid the need for platform extensions. I very much doubt that we'll ever see extended platforms on the North Clyde/Argyle lines as the cost of doing so would be beyond astronomical, especially in stations like Central Low Level etc.
 

JumpinTrainz

Established Member
Joined
30 Jul 2018
Messages
1,654
Fixed formation units at 6x 20m coaches would also avoid the need for platform extensions. I very much doubt that we'll ever see extended platforms on the North Clyde/Argyle lines as the cost of doing so would be beyond astronomical, especially in stations like Central Low Level etc.

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.
 

InOban

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2017
Messages
4,208
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.
 

Altnabreac

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2013
Messages
2,414
Location
Salt & Vinegar
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.
 

anthannan

Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
113
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.
It all makes sense, standardise carriage length and ensure that different trains can be used with each other for flexibility. Definitely a case for a different layout in places, the AT100 or AT200 with a urban setup. Standardisation helping with driver training and maintenance. The 385 is proving very reliable, take advantage of it by extending the fleet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top