ScotRail Former SPT Area Rolling Stock Replacement Ideas

[applepie2100]

ScotRail Class 318's are approaching 40 years old and the 320's are not far behind. Class 317's and 321's of similar vintage are in the process of being replaced in the South East so it seems that the time is approaching to consider the replacements for their Scottish cousins. The 318's and 320's have also had several refreshes but never a proper refurbishment and attempts at a full refurbishment of the South East 321's have proven less than successful. What should the options be for replacement?

My first preference would be to see any replacement units being built as fixed formation six or seven car units (probably 20m) depending on what could be done with platform lengths in the former SPT areas with the number of units being procured being equal to or greater than the number of current three car units. This would help ensure that all services are run as six car services at all times. Interior wise seating in a 2+2 layout with mini tables similar to those fitted to the 320's at the moment would be good with wide and clear doorways to allow easy joining and alighting. Folding seats as currently fitted to allow space for cycles and the usual universal toilet along with a modern PIS, preferably with similar levels of info as seen on that fitted to units in Germany, Austria and other such countries.

That leads me to suggest that we'd be looking for something like the Bombardier Aventra Class 720 (and it's ilk) or a Siemens Desiro City (Class 707 or similar) type unit.

I realise most of what I'm suggesting is probably a bit pie in the sky and a well over the budget of what will replace these units time but it would be interesting to see some opinions.

 

[Journeyman]

It would make sense to expand with a fleet type that already exists. I'd imagine Hitachi or Siemens would be pretty high on the list for replacement stock, as those fleets are the newest electrics on ScotRail already.

That said, I don't think the need to replace the 318s and 320s is urgent. They're in good condition and very reliable. They don't need replacing just because another TOC has decided to replace theirs. Circumstances are a bit different elsewhere due to things like capacity constraints and the need for improved performance, but ScotRail don't really have the same issues.

 

[waverley47]

They'll start to be replaced mid decade, when the final plans for the Glasgow metro or otherwise become apparent. No guesses as to what that throws up, but it might be that the cathcart circle gets turned into a light rail, and you need fewer units. However we might end up with new services elsewhere, so you never know. Better to plan all this out beforehand, to save making any mistakes.

The current units aren't unreliable, they're still in okay shape mechanically (much better than the southern ones, having had a rather leisurely life trundling around at max 90mph, and staying away from the main lines).

The current set up works reasonably well. The stations and stock need a refresh, but in all honesty, if nothing changes between now and 2027, it wouldn't be the end of the world.

Also remember, the unit that gets bought might not even exist yet, might be built by talgo to sweeten the factory deal ect.

Stick in the corner of "god knows, it's too far down the line to make reasonable assumptions, so all we're going to achieve is arguing over which units people prefer"

 

[David Goddard]

It's five years since I was last in Scotland and used the BREL EMUs so am not in a position to comment on the current, but I can see the logic in calling for an all six car fleet. This was the right thing for the GN 717s, replacing pairs of 313s, but that was possibly also to save on the number of cabs with the special evac steps.

However the watch out here is whether fixed six car sets will fit in all areas of the depots that service them. iIRC this is why the GA 720s are now all 5 car. If the current pairs are always split on are also at depot because the washer road can only take three then that could dictate that it needs to be threes again. Also gives more flex for use on other routes in time.

 

[Journeyman]

The current units aren't unreliable, they're still in okay shape mechanically (much better than the southern ones, having had a rather leisurely life trundling around at max 90mph, and staying away from the main lines).

Absolutely, they generally work stopping services, and haven't been absolutely thrashed with prolonged 100mph runs like the 317s, 319s and 321s. The 318s and 320s are only 3-car units, but with the same power output as similar 4-car units. The traction equipment therefore doesn't have to work so hard.

 

[applepie2100]

I'd agree that the need to replace them is not super urgent but it possibly being a touch generous to describe them as being in good condition (at least internally) and entirely suited to the services they're now running. Having a modern fixed formation fleet of 6x20m or 5x23m units with better acceleration (possibly even taking the chance to get rid of the godawful 334's!) might even help with timetabling through sections like Hyndland/Partick/Finnieston which I believe is being used well over the capacity for which it was originally designed and frequently the source of delays and poor punctuality.


I agree that we're in the realms of the unknown when it comes to things like the Glasgow Metro although if we look back at the Glasgow Airport Rail Link we got as far as building track and buying extra stock for it still not to happen. I'm certainly not saying we need to run out and order new units tomorrow but we do need make sure we don't leave things until the last minute either.

 

[RobShipway]

I suspect that Scotrail will go down a similar route to TFW, with the purchasing of Tram-trains possibly for some routes where heavy trains are not required. For the services where heavier trains are required, then I suspect as has been mentioned above you have either Siemens or Hitachi build more of the existing newer fleets you are already operating. I suspect that if that is the case, it is more likely going to be the Hitachi fleet as it is newer.

 

[Neptune]

Siemens or Hitachi build more of the existing newer fleets you are already operating. I suspect that if that is the case, it is more likely going to be the Hitachi fleet as it is newer.

The 380 is no longer available however Siemens do offer the Desiro city platform with various internal specs which are 20m vehicles. https://assets.new.siemens.com/siem...7b06bf7/mo-desiro-city-broschuere-preview.pdf

I would guess that SR would eventually look at replacing the 318/320 units with one large order. If deemed necessary this could also include replacing the 334 fleet at the same time to make a single fleet working the low level services.

I wouldn’t imagine it will happen for a few years yet though.

 

[D365]

this discussion would be better suited to take place four years from now. The Class 318/320 fleet is very much planned to continue in service for the time being.

 

[Neptune]

this discussion would be better suited to take place four years from now. The Class 318/320 fleet is very much planned to continue in service for the time being.

Absolutely. They haven’t been hammered like the units down south or even the Neville Hill 321/9 fleet which were hammering up and down to Doncaster regularly throughout their life. A good unit would happily hit the ton downhill between Sandal and Fitzwilliam (cough not 902 cough).

I last travelled on the SR units in 2019 and they were spot on.

 

[Aictos]

If and when it's time to replace the existing Class 318, 320 and 334 fleets then yes a fixed formation train should be considered, could Hitachi introduce 6 car Class 385s?

You only need 45 sets if ordering them as 6 car sets which gives 43 in day to day service and 2 on maintenance/spare plus means all services would formed of 6 coaches.

 

[Neptune]

If and when it's time to replace the existing Class 318, 320 and 334 fleets then yes a fixed formation train should be considered, could Hitachi introduce 6 car Class 385s?

You only need 45 sets if ordering them as 6 car sets which gives 43 in day to day service and 2 on maintenance/spare plus means all services would formed of 6 coaches.

I believe that a 6 car train of 23m vehicles is too long for the routes they serve (principally the low level stations).

 

[43096]

I believe that a 6 car train of 23m vehicles is too long for the routes they serve (principally the low level stations).

5 x 24m might work though, depending on clearances, as it would take the same platform space as 6 x 20m currently.

 

[applepie2100]

5x23m would probably work given that you're loosing the intermediate cabs. A current six car formation of 6x20m is 120m with 6x23 being 138m and 5x23m being 115m.

Does anyone with a better memory than me remember what formation was used when the 380's were used on the North Clyde Line during Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games?

 

[Aictos]

I believe that a 6 car train of 23m vehicles is too long for the routes they serve (principally the low level stations).

You can always A. Extend platforms or B. Use selective door opening where platform extensions are not possible.

Reducing 6 coach formations of 120m with 5 coach formations of 115m isn't helpful as its leading to potential loss of seating.

And it doesn't have to be Hitachi either who could win the tender to replace the Classes 318, 320 and 334 fleets, Siemens offer a modular design with the Siemens Desiro City in formations up to 240m and ScotRail already use Siemens products in the shape of the Class 380s so no reason why ScotRail couldn't mandate a production of Siemens Desiro Cities with a total unit length of 120m.

ScotRail could add the requirement for power sockets, WiFi, fold down seat tables etc and as a single fleet, it would bring immediate benefits as only one fleet to use on those services, meaning every service would be 6 coaches and maintenance would be easier.

 

[Neptune]

, Siemens offer a modular design with the Siemens Desiro City in formations up to 240m and ScotRail already use Siemens products in the shape of the Class 380s so no reason why ScotRail couldn't mandate a production of Siemens Desiro Cities with a total unit length of 120m.

See my post above #8

5 x 24m might work though, depending on clearances, as it would take the same platform space as 6 x 20m currently.

That would be better than 6x20m. Less dead space between vehicles

 

[RobShipway]

See my post above #8


That would be better than 6x20m. Less dead space between vehicles

Apologies for question, but would it be an idea to add to that order maybe bi-mode versions of those trains, which could then replace the HST fleet?

So for instance if you order further Hitachi AT200 class 385 trains to replace the Classes 318, 320 and 334, you then order six car bi-mode versions of the AT200 but have been styled inside more like the MK3's of Inter7City.

 

[swt_passenger]

I’d be cautious about considering all 3 classes in the same timescales, the 334s are really only at half life for an EMU.

 

[Clansman]

The Strathclyde network is a difficult one, as you're dealing with a whole network of routes that serve everything from metro journeys to regional semi-fasts - sometimes in the one service. It stretches as far east as Edinburgh, as far southwest as Ayr, and as far northwest as Balloch and Helensburgh - therefore you'd need to carefully consider how you'd go about introducing a replacement fleet. Not least for the 318/320s, but also you'd want to consider the purpose of the 334s, the remaining 156 diesel routes, and possibly the 380s and 385s.

Do you blanket replace them all with a dedicated fleet? Or do you bit-part replace some of them to off the BREL generation of units and accept rolling stock differentiation but on a lesser extent to what we currently see now? And what about Anniesland? Cumbernauld? North Berwick? East Kilbride? Barrhead? Ayrshire coast? Cathcart?

Do you incorporate those routes into the wider network, or do you segregate them as we see now as a consequence of rolling stock differentiation?

It's a difficult balance to achieve. East Kilbride and Ayrshire have higher peaktime demand than cross-Glasgow suburban services (up to 8 x 23m on the former by the time EK is electrified, vice the 6 x 20m on the latter). So you can't blanket replace with one fleet without major infrastructure upgrades and platform extensions.

Personally, I predict the following:

• 318s/320s/334s wholesale replaced by dedicated fleet of EMUs, which then displaces 380s and 385s on metro routes
• 156s displaced as rolling electrification progresses through Barrhead and East Kilbride by another fleet of EMUs, similar spec to 380s and 385s - as already confirmed by Transport Scotland.
• 385s ousted from all Glasgow Central services (except Glasgow Central to Edinburgh via Shotts and Carstairs) and concentrated through Edinburgh.
• 380s ousted from all Edinburgh services completely and replaced by freed up 385s as per above bullet points, and also replaced on Glasgow regional metro services as per first bullet point
• 380s and new Barrhead/East Kilbride procured EMUs having interoperability on all regional routes through East Kilbride, Barrhead, and Ayrshire.
• Anniesland to remain DMU operated with whatever is rotated through from WHL and Tayside.

I’d be cautious about considering all 3 classes in the same timescales, the 334s are really only at half life for an EMU.

In the current procurement climate we are seeing, the 334s would be another fleet to add to the list of victims of bit-part procurements which has caused the rolling stock mess a lot of TOCs have faced. They're getting to be 20 years old and are showing their age already. Hardly the biggest casualty in the world when talking in terms of wholesale fleet standardisation of the biggest suburban rail network outside London.

 

[applepie2100]

I’d be cautious about considering all 3 classes in the same timescales, the 334s are really only at half life for an EMU.

Unfortunately the 334's were built at a time when Alstom was not producing the finest rolling stock ever seen on rails. They required a huge amount of work to make them even semi-reliable and even now they don't feel like they justify the amount of time and effort that was spent on them. It does also feel like they've been shoehorned onto Helensburgh/Balloch/Milngavie to Airdrie/Edinburgh services because they're what was available at the time rather than being the best tool for the job.

As Clansman has said the idea of replacing the ex-Strathclyde fleet is a big one to be considered hence throwing the question out there.

 

[swt_passenger]

Unfortunately the 334's were built at a time when Alstom was not producing the finest rolling stock ever seen on rails. They required a huge amount of work to make them even semi-reliable and even now they don't feel like they justify the amount of time and effort that was spent on them. It does also feel like they've been shoehorned onto Helensburgh/Balloch/Milngavie to Airdrie/Edinburgh services because they're what was available at the time rather than being the best tool for the job.

As Clansman has said the idea of replacing the ex-Strathclyde fleet is a big one to be considered hence throwing the question out there.

Oh yes I can see that, it‘s only a couple of years ago that was the plan for our local SWR suburban fleet - but suddenly the 458s are the future again…

 

[Clansman]

Oh yes I can see that, it‘s only a couple of years ago that was the plan for our local SWR suburban fleet - but suddenly the 458s are the future again…

Not binning half life rolling stock in today's market due to its age - when doing so is in a TOCs best interest - is tail wagging the dog stuff.

The current climate of replacing usable fleets is nothing more than the result of an ever failing procurement culture in the railway, and emblematic of the flaws of how the railway has been managed for the past few decades.

Only in recent years has this become apparent. Eventually the industry will have to cut its losses and move on with a more efficient robust solution - or be doomed to repeat the cycle of pointless investments which only serve to temporarily patch up recurring problems that tomorrow's management and tomorrow's commuters will have to consequently deal with.

Look no further than Greater Anglia as proof of this.

As the Glasgow network is starting to show, ScotRail is very much next in line for a similarly radical strategy. But not for radical's sake, and not because multiple fleets is a bad thing - but for getting the balance right between what is required for each route, standardisation, and future proofing as much as possible. Hence my prediction above.

 

[D365]

Unfortunately the 334's were built at a time when Alstom was not producing the finest rolling stock ever seen on rails.

A story in itself.

 

[Kite159]

Breaking out the train crayons:

Fixed formation 6x 20metre coach units to replace the 318/320/334s with the 318/320s going to the scrappy with 334s moved to running Gourock/Wembys Bay services alongside the 380s (freeing up the 380s to work East Kilbride/Barrhead electrics)

Something like a 6 coach 700, 2 bogs, although with slightly better seats in a 2+2 mostly airline layout [with spacers between the seats]

Fixed formation with walk-through gangways will assist the TE in doing revenue.

 

[applepie2100]

Breaking out the train crayons:

Fixed formation 6x 20metre coach units to replace the 318/320/334s with the 318/320s going to the scrappy with 334s moved to running Gourock/Wembys Bay services alongside the 380s (freeing up the 380s to work East Kilbride/Barrhead electrics)

Something like a 6 coach 700, 2 bogs, although with slightly better seats in a 2+2 mostly airline layout [with spacers between the seats]

Fixed formation with walk-through gangways will assist the TE in doing revenue.

That sounds like a pretty sensible setup although I'd agree with the comments that the 334's should really be turned into razor blades or baked bean cans too. Either 5x24m or 6x20m with wide doorways and faster opening/closing sliding doors as seen on the 700's. Wide door areas would also create more standing space should we ever return to pre-covid levels and it would also be a great time to look at universal access toilets that don't take up a third of the coach. As much as I hate myself for saying this the good old Fainsa seat with a decent cushion such as those on the 385's or if money were no object a return to the E3000's seen on the 380's.

Walk through gangways would be the biggest improvement up here I feel and would improve both passenger comfort and revenue collection.

 

[gingertom]

just to set the cat amongst the pigeons, the EK route is planned to be upgraded with platform extensions to accommodate 8-car sets of 23m long stock. To cater for future anticipated peak loadings.

 

[Scotrail314209]

5x23m would probably work given that you're loosing the intermediate cabs. A current six car formation of 6x20m is 120m with 6x23 being 138m and 5x23m being 115m.

Does anyone with a better memory than me remember what formation was used when the 380's were used on the North Clyde Line during Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games?

Single units only between Rutherglen and Garscadden. Think it was a special batch of 4 car units as they had their PIS screens covered over on the inside.

 

[warwickshire]

Maybe the 3502 from lnwr.

 

[ScotTrains]

I do hope the 318's stay for a while yet. Their seats are big, well padded and comfy. When the time does come to renew them I really hope they maintain or improve the level of comfort.
The seats in the 385's 156's etc are truly awful. Even the 1st class seats are uncomfortable.

 

[Scotrail314209]

I do hope the 318's stay for a while yet. Their seats are big, well padded and comfy. When the time does come to renew them I really hope they maintain or improve the level of comfort.
The seats in the 385's 156's etc are truly awful. Even the 1st class seats are uncomfortable.

I'd imagine we'd probably get something similar in spec to the 700, small seats with lots of standing room. It's surprising how busy the routes around South Glasgow can get during the peak times, so units with lots of space to stand is required.