Scotrail should have procured battery EMU trains, instead of electrifying the East Kilbride branch

[Charged up]

Moderator note: Split from

East Kilbride/Barrhead electrification updates

Found this on planning portal. Mentions 8 car EMUS 4X hourly freq. Double tracked https://publicaccess.glasgow.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=map&keyVal=QBCECBEX0WY00

www.railforums.co.uk

The SCOTRAIL GRANT AGREEMENT between The Scottish Ministers and Scottish Rail Holdings and ScotRail Trains Ltd. at June 2022 has the following requirement :

https://railholdings.scot/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/ScotRailGrantAgreement-24June2022_Published.pdf

APPENDIX 1 TO SCHEDULE 1.1 / The Train Fleet

5. Fleet Availability Requirement

Fleet class	Total Fleet [DMUs = 146 units] + [EMUs = 203 units]	Allocated for Passenger Service
C153	5	3
C156 / 2-car	42	39
C158 / 2-car	40	35
C170 / 3-car	34	29
HST / 4-car	8	7
HST / 5-car	17	11
C318 / C320	55	44 [plus 6 pay as you go]
C334	40	36
C380 / 3-car	22	20
C380 / 4-car	16	15
C385 / 3-car	46	42
C385 / 4-car	24	21
TOTAL	349 trains	306 trains

This specific agreement on rolling stock daily availability mirrors a lot of the underwhelming targets placed upon the operator across a range of areas by the Scottish Government via both SRH & TS. This coupled with the weak management of it by SRH + TS ensures that even these unchallenging targets do not attract any meaningful "down side" if they are not met by Scotrail. Given the regular reports of reduced formations & overcrowding across Strathclyde, it is obvious that the lack of investment, elderly fleets and unenthusiastic Scotrail engineering teams are failing regularly to get EMUs out each day in the numbers required.

Unfortunately it would seem that even with the "improved" December 2024 timetable not being fully restored to pre-Covid levels there will still not be enough EMUs to fully operate and maintain seating capacity on all EK services from December 2025 when the wires "go live". With the never ending delay to procurement for a new fleet, it would seem this will be an issue until 2029/30, at least.

The folly of TS to approve spending of over £100M, plus the future annual maintenance costs, to electrify the 6 mile EK branch rather than re-investing that in a new battery EMU fleet or conversion of a number of existing EMUs [C380 or C385s] is another in a long list of TS rail decisions which are blinkered on how to efficiently and quickly decarbonise Scotland's railway.

In addition, if TS & Scotrail had looked to look at options to backfill with off lease EMU fleets [such as C321s or C350/2s] it could have allowed the removal of most of the C156 fleet and some of the c.40 year old C318s, whilst minimising disruption on the East Kilbride branch in 2025, avoiding the loss of revenue during the 5 months of closure and reducing the major impacts on passengers.

 

[EMU303]

Thanks to Hexagon789 and Charged Up for the interesting replies.

Something I don’t understand- IIRC the 380s were ordered for the (subsequently ditched) airport link, or at least a portion of them were. Then a few years ago some second hand 320s were acquired which provided further capacity. The electrification of the lines to Paisley Canal and Whifflet created some additional EMU need, with the Cumbernauld electrification scheme using 385s as part of the wider central belt electrification. So how come SR are short of EMUs for the EK line?

 

[Southsider]

The SCOTRAIL GRANT AGREEMENT between The Scottish Ministers and Scottish Rail Holdings and ScotRail Trains Ltd. at June 2022 has the following requirement :

APPENDIX 1 TO SCHEDULE 1.1 / The Train Fleet

5. Fleet Availability Requirement

Fleet class	Total Fleet [DMUs = 146 units] + [EMUs = 203 units]	Allocated for Passenger Service
C153	5	3
C156 / 2-car	42	39
C158 / 2-car	40	35
C170 / 3-car	34	29
HST / 4-car	8	7
HST / 5-car	17	11
C318 / C320	55	44 [plus 6 pay as you go]
C334	40	36
C380 / 3-car	22	20
C380 / 4-car	16	15
C385 / 3-car	46	42
C385 / 4-car	24	21
TOTAL	349 trains	306 trains

This specific agreement on rolling stock daily availability mirrors a lot of the underwhelming targets placed upon the operator across a range of areas by the Scottish Government via both SRH & TS. This coupled with the weak management of it by SRH + TS ensures that even these unchallenging targets do not attract any meaningful "down side" if they are not met by ScR. Given the regular reports of reduced formations & overcrowding across Strathclyde it is obvious that the lack of investment, elderly fleets and unenthusiastic ScR engineering teams are failing regularly to get EMUs out each day in the numbers required.

Unfortunately it would seem that even with the "improved" December 2024 timetable not being fully restored to pre-Covid levels there will still not be enough EMUs to fully operate and maintain seating capacity on all EK services from December 2025 when the wires "go live". With the never ending delay to procurement for a new fleet it would seem this will be an issue until 2029/30, at least.

The folly of TS to approve spending of over £100M, plus the future annual maintenance costs, to electrify the 6 mile EK branch rather than re-investing that in a new battery EMU fleet or conversion of a number of existing EMUs [C380 or C385s] is another in a long list of TS rail decisions which are blinkered on how to efficiently and quickly de-carbonise Scotland's railway. In addition if TS & ScR had looked to look at options to back fill with off lease EMU fleets [such as C321s or C350/2s] it could have allowed the removal of most of the C156 fleet and some of the c.40 year old C318s, whilst minimising disruption on the East Kilbride branch in 2025, avoiding the loss of revenue during the 5 months of closure and reducing the major impacts on passengers.

Interesting how tight the 156 allocations are given the intention to run peak services as six car (I believe additional sets were retained to cover this). Currently it has reduced to mainly four car but a fair number of two car running so I guess things haven’t worked out as intended. I had expected some of the 321s to be brought north but perhaps the timing is wrong with EK completion over a year away. Perhaps the line with the wrong trains will replace the ferries in the news programmes.

 

[GLC]

The folly of TS to approve spending of over £100M, plus the future annual maintenance costs, to electrify the 6 mile EK branch rather than re-investing that in a new battery EMU fleet or conversion of a number of existing EMUs [C380 or C385s] is another in a long list of TS rail decisions which are blinkered on how to efficiently and quickly de-carbonise Scotland's railway. In addition if TS & ScR had looked to look at options to back fill with off lease EMU fleets [such as C321s or C350/2s] it could have allowed the removal of most of the C156 fleet and some of the c.40 year old C318s, whilst minimising disruption on the East Kilbride branch in 2025, avoiding the loss of revenue during the 5 months of closure and reducing the major impacts on passengers.

If it was a folly to electrify the EK line, and battery units would have been preferable, what use would more EMUs be to replace 156s without that electrification?

 

[InOban]

How would additional emus replace 156s? I thought that the 156 to Barrhead runs through to Kilmarnock.

 

[Charged up]

If it was a folly to electrify the EK line, and battery units would have been preferable, what use would more EMUs be to replace 156s without that electrification?

Both Hitachi & Siemens could have been asked to quote, and given recent statements were willing, to convert some of their existing EMU trains (six 4-car & four 3-cars?) to run with batteries added to these modern trains which are already well known to ScR staff?

C380s altered into BEMUs would allow not only all services on the GLC- EK branch to be switched away from diesels but also the GLC-Kilmarnock/ Barrassie/ Girvan services to free up C156s from there? Likewise if a similar number of C385s were converted this would release the C158s currently allocated to GLQS-Maryhill lines plus some of the Edinburgh/ Borders + Fife/ Levenmouth services. This would be supported by the on-going installation of wires on the Haymarket-Dalmeny branch plus a new charging facility or wires down at Tweedbank. This will give enough C158s to fully operate the WHL line but not sure about the numbers to run down to New Cumnock/ Dumfries /Carlisle & south of Girvan? A small number of "off lease" C158s from elsewhere in GB could be secured to then eliminate all the C156s from the ScotRail fleet to help streamline driver/ staff training and deliver benefits of scale from a more modern and robust fleet of DMUs until their replacement in the early 2030s.

The fleet of thirty Renatus C321s would then back fill for these twenty converted EMU units across south electrics, Barrhead, Inverclyde, Paisley Canal and maybe even the Shotts & Alloa routes if upgrades were undertaken to make them suitable for those routes? The additional 4-car C321s could also replace the majority of the twenty-one C318s which will be 40 years old in 2026 especially if daily availability of some EMUs was increased from the current unambitious targets.

 

[D6130]

This will give enough C158s to fully operate the WHL

I can't now remember on which thread it was, but we've been told in the past that - due to their outward-opening plug doors fouling the curved island platforms - class 158 units cannot be used on the West Highland Line.

 

[3RDGEN]

In the Transport Scotland Zero Emission Energy for Transport Report from 2022 it states for 2025 "Glasgow Central to East Kilbride, Some services use existing EMUs - Class 156 units withdrawn", so it appears they planned to retain some 156's on the route post electrification due to insufficient spare EMU's in the fleet. They should have tendered for the new EMU/BEMU fleets by now so if that had gone to plan once they arrived the last of the 156's on East Kilbride would be replaced I assume.

I can't now remember on which thread it was, but we've been told in the past that - due to their outward-opening plug doors fouling the curved island platforms - class 158 units cannot be used on the West Highland Line.

The "Friends of the West Highlands Lines" group have reported been told by ScotRail the 156's will remain on the line until their replaced with new builds. They just quote "gauging issues/works" as the reason the 158 cascade was cancelled, presumably the cost was too high.

 

[EMU303]

I had expected some of the 321s to be brought north but perhaps the timing is wrong with EK completion over a year away. Perhaps the line with the wrong trains will replace the ferries in the news programmes.

Can’t help thinking there’s going to be a lot of surprised/disappointed passengers turning up at stations to see the same DMUs running most of the journeys after £150m has been spent electrifying the line.

 

[gingertom]

I think SR has missed the boat on acquiring a few more 321s for converting to 320s, but a bunch of those 350/2s would not go amiss. Very similar to the 380, simple conversion course, and could be deployed on some Ayrshire/Inverclyde services, allowing some 3-car 380s to go to EK.

 

[SC318250]

Think the main issue with Scotrail taking the 321 or 350/2 is platform length. Yes they might be ok as a small pool to operate in 8 car lengths on East Kilbride line, but they would bot work on Argyle/North Electric/Cathcart lines. A small batch of maybe 6-8 units would be enough top operate several 3 car diagrams on North Electric and Argyle line as 4 car units, replacing 3 car units to then for these units to replace 380 diagrams on Inverclyde and Cathcarts etcs… that is the only solution I can see unless the 321s were reduced to 3 cars but would the cost involved be worth it for 5 years.

 

[Charged up]

Think the main issue with Scotrail taking the 321 or 350/2 is platform length. Yes they might be ok as a small pool to operate in 8 car lengths on East Kilbride line, but they would bot work on Argyle/North Electric/Cathcart lines. A small batch of maybe 6-8 units would be enough top operate several 3 car diagrams on North Electric and Argyle line as 4 car units, replacing 3 car units to then for these units to replace 380 diagrams on Inverclyde and Cathcarts etcs… that is the only solution I can see unless the 321s were reduced to 3 cars but would the cost involved be worth it for 5 years.

SDO [selective door opening] could be employed to address platform lengths but I doubt 8-car operation of these potential "new" fleets for ScR would be needed unless they ran on some high loaded peak services to/from Ayr or Gourock. East Kilbride services could be operated by a mix of 4-car and 6-car C380s which the C321s could free up from south electrics or Inverclyde services?

4-car fleets could also be used to replace some 6-car formations [mainly c318s] across routes but this may also require a relaxation of the current 10 mins standing rule which was used previously to ensure seating capacity was boosted around Strathclyde.

 

[Falcon1200]

Given that Scotrail already has some ex-321s reduced from 4 cars to 3, it surely would not be difficult, or expensive, to obtain some more, as a stop-gap at least?

 

[d9009alycidon]

Can’t help thinking there’s going to be a lot of surprised/disappointed passengers turning up at stations to see the same DMUs running most of the journeys after £150m has been spent electrifying the line.

Personally I can't see this happening. The SNP administration will not want headlines in the press alleging poor transport planning and wasteful spending if diesel train are running when the line goes live in December 2025, only 5 months before the next Scottish election. They will insist that everything be done to ensure that all trains running on the branch are electric units

 

[Southsider]

Given that Scotrail already has some ex-321s reduced from 4 cars to 3, it surely would not be difficult, or expensive, to obtain some more, as a stop-gap at least?

But, as posted on another thread, they’re heading for the scrapyard. Even the refurbished ones.

 

[Bikeman78]

Unless I've grossly misunderstood, the plan appeared to be:

1 EMU diagram weekdays
2 EMU diagrams weekends

That is ridiculous. There are 321s spare and soon there will be 350s as well. With a bit of shuffling, they could cover all the East Kilbride turns.

The fleet of thirty Renatus C321s would then back fill for these twenty converted EMU units across south electrics, Barrhead, Inverclyde, Paisley Canal and maybe even the Shotts & Alloa routes if upgrades were undertaken to make them suitable for those routes? The additional 4-car C321s could also replace the majority of the twenty-one C318s which will be 40 years old in 2026 especially if daily availability of some EMUs was increased from the current unambitious targets.

It's ironic that you are proposing to replace the fleet that achieved the best availability in post 2185.

 

[waverley47]

I feel this threat is getting a bit off topic.

The line is being wired, and at some point in the not too distant future, there will be EMUs running to East Kilbride.

Granted, not every service might be electric for a while, but realistically, I'd rather have it electrified and used half the time by electrics starting as soon as it's wired, than be stuck messing around with a battery unit microfleet from now until a full battery fleet is ordered.

That is ridiculous. There are 321s spare and soon there will be 350s as well. With a bit of shuffling, they could cover all the East Kilbride turns.

None of us know what the plan is. They could have asked, and Porterbrook could have come back and said that they could only lease the full fleet, or that they had to guarantee use for a decade, or countless other reasons.

I think we should just wait and see what happens, and don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Wiring a short, steep, commuter line with frequent stops and at least 2tph is a good development, no matter which way you slice it.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The line is being wired, and at some point in the not too distant future, there will be EMUs running to East Kilbride.

Granted, not every service might be electric for a while, but realistically, I'd rather have it electrified and used half the time by electrics starting as soon as it's wired, than be stuck messing around with a battery unit microfleet from now until a full battery fleet is ordered.

I think we should just wait and see what happens, and don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Wiring a short, steep, commuter line with frequent stops and at least 2tph is a good development, no matter which way you slice it.

Exactly. My sentiments completely. Just do it -

Agree also on the thread drifting off topic.

 

[Southsider]

Exactly. My sentiments completely. Just do it -

Agree also on the thread drifting off topic.

That’s a bit of an emotional reaction, you shouldn’t just do it (spend lots of public money) without a joined up plan. I understand there are commercial considerations but project management should work its way through these along with the other challenges. I doubt whoever is transport minister will want this emerging on their watch.

 

[Trainbike46]

there was a joined up plan - electrify some lines and some key points across the Scotrail network, and order a new fleet of EMUs and BEMUs to work those lines.

Some, but not all, of the infrastructure in the plan is getting delivered as we speak, including East Kilbride. However, the new train fleet is delayed. IF it is true as some say on this thread that it won't immediately go to full electric operation (and I am not at all sure it is true), that is because of the delay to the new EMU and BEMU fleet. In any case, it will be temporary, because there will have to be a new EMU+BEMU fleet order at some point, the oldest EMUs can't just keep going forever.

 

[Charged up]

there was a joined up plan - electrify some lines and some key points across the Scotrail network, and order a new fleet of EMUs and BEMUs to work those lines.

Some, but not all, of the infrastructure in the plan is getting delivered as we speak, including East Kilbride. However, the new train fleet is delayed. IF it is true as some say on this thread that it won't immediately go to full electric operation (and I am not at all sure it is true), that is because of the delay to the new EMU and BEMU fleet. In any case, it will be temporary, because there will have to be a new EMU+BEMU fleet order at some point, the oldest EMUs can't just keep going forever.

NwR admitted recently, in public meetings, that there are not enough EMUs in the ScR fleet for all of the EK services to be operated post Dec 2025 therefore C156s will still run. To avoid this bizarre situation it may get to a point where EMUs are taken from other routes for EK with obvious overcrowding impacts.

The "joined up plan" is the (TS-Rail decarbonisation plan) and it should have started to procure BEMUs + EMUs in 2020/21 when the decision to electrify the Crossmyloof-Barrhead section was approved. Unfortunately wiring the 22·4 single track-km between Busby Junction & East Kilbride station is a vanity project which has seen TS & the Scottish Government agree to spend c.£90-100M on overpriced and unnecessary infrastructure works which will severely impact passengers throughout 2025.

Securing new modern fleets to replace C153s, C156s, C318s & C320s by 2025/26 should have been the priority but instead, due to the EK branch being wired, there will be DMUs under OHL and creaking EMUs running until they are over 40 years old across Strathclyde. The difference in the cost of leasing new, off lease or converted BEMU/ EMUs vs the current elderly units would have cost far less than the capital spend of £100M. If this alternative plan was progressed it would have to freed up scarce resources to concentrate on the bigger prize of mainline electrification south of Barrhead to Kilmarnock and through Fife & onto Aberdeen.

 

[Trainbike46]

I know some people are unhappy that EK is getting electrified, however I would point out that it was the final diesel line in an otherwise electric glasgow suburban service, so I absolutely understand why it was decided to electrify this line.

In addition, the plan was to order new EMUs. This hasn't happened yet, even though it very much should have. This is not, however, an infrastructure failure. It is a failure of train procurement, and I don't know why this hasn't happened. The problem is however wider than just EK, because as you say, there are old EMUs on the scotrail network that also need replacement at some point soon-ish.

I would also note that I disagree with your framing as it being either infrastructure or new trains - for starters infrastructure is capital spending, while new trains are revenue spending (provided they are leased, rather than bought outright by Scotrail).

 

[John R]

Just a thought, but is the issue with procuring BEMUs that in having informal soundings out with manufacturers, none will commit yet to being able to offer a product?

 

[Charged up]

Just a thought, but is the issue with procuring BEMUs that in having informal soundings out with manufacturers, none will commit yet to being able to offer a product?

Manufacturers [Stadler, Siemens, CAF, Alstom, Hitachi] are already building BEMUs plus owners of existing fleets [C321s/ C350-2s/ C380s/ C385s] have offered EMUs with batteries fitted over the past 4 years. It is obvious that we have a TS rail team that is too blinkered in trying to deliver the mythical "efficient electrification" - maybe linked to political point scoring? Also note that once the capital cost for OHL is completed there will still be on-going maintenance costs which will add to the overall railway operational annual budget.

There is a very competitive market out there for modern, decarbonised rolling stock to replace DMUs which will be required, in much larger numbers, across the rest of GB in the coming decades. SCR & TS could have taken advantage of this opportunity and looked to drive an efficient solution for trains to replace C156s during 2025 without OHL to/from EK.

BEMU fleets for EK and other GLC- south west routes could also include front loading future lease costs with capital but instead we have invested in the wrong project by paying over £3m stk to put up wires on the EK branch.

 

[Bikeman78]

I know some people are unhappy that EK is getting electrified, however I would point out that it was the final diesel line in an otherwise electric glasgow suburban service, so I absolutely understand why it was decided to electrify this line.

In addition, the plan was to order new EMUs. This hasn't happened yet, even though it very much should have. This is not, however, an infrastructure failure. It is a failure of train procurement, and I don't know why this hasn't happened. The problem is however wider than just EK, because as you say, there are old EMUs on the scotrail network that also need replacement at some point soon-ish.

I would also note that I disagree with your framing as it being either infrastructure or new trains - for starters infrastructure is capital spending, while new trains are revenue spending (provided they are leased, rather than bought outright by Scotrail).

Given that Scotrail brought in class 365s in a matter of months, this shouldn't be a difficult problem to solve. There will be plenty of spare 350s by the time the wires go live.

 

[d9009alycidon]

I know some people are unhappy that EK is getting electrified, however I would point out that it was the final diesel line in an otherwise electric glasgow suburban service, so I absolutely understand why it was decided to electrify this line.

DMUs will still be running to Kilmarnock after EK is completed.

 

[ld0595]

DMUs will still be running to Kilmarnock after EK is completed.

And Anniesland (albeit out of Queen Street)

 

[Charged up]

DMUs will still be running to Kilmarnock after EK is completed.

Instead of wiring the EK branch we could have reinvested some of the funds into OHL around Kilmarnock station south of Barrhead? These areas may have been far less challenging or disruptive to passengers than the 22 stkms between Busby junction & East Kilbride which will take around 5 years to deliver. Savings from this lessor work could have freed up funds to "pay" upfront for fitment of batteries to convert of a fleet of EMUs to BEMUs enabling a wider and quicker withdrawal of C156s across most of the Glasgow SW lines.

In addition fast charging at stations, such as the on-going GWR trial down south, perhaps near New Cumnock/ Dumfries and Girvan/ Stranraer might have allowed the complete replacement of the C156 fleet.

Fast Charge Battery-Electric Train Trial

This is currently (June 2024) underway in west London It uses 230 001 - a former London Underground D stock train. To simulate a real-world application this test train shadows the West Ealing - Greenford diesel passenger service, stopping at stations etc but it is not carrying passengers.

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[SC318250]

Would Scotrail consider taking the 9 off lease 3 car Class 323 to operate the East Kilbride service.
3 x 6 car diagrams operate the off peak service, with another pair available for peak with 1 maintenance set.
Yes would mean more training but would suit platform lengths at Central

 

[Transilien]

Couldn’t the 350s be converted to 3 carriages and multiple working with the 380s to allow some of the 318s/320s to go off lease and to free up stock for the East Kilbride line? Also I think it’s better to have the wires up rather than none so that there’s future proofing for when extra trains come.

The 350s coming could mean that a more standardised fleet for services to Glasgow Central High Level with Inverclyde, Cathcart Circle and Paisley Canal lines all being run by desiros.