Speculating to the future: What next for the West Highland Line (WHL)?

[GrimShady]

Cant agree at all Neil for the reasons I listed previously in this thread. Over crowding was an issue even back then.

 

[GrimShady]

They've served their purpose. As many have said, at a time when British Rail looked for cheap solutions, the 156s came in and done that job effectively.

But all things must come to an end, and in the 156s case, they'll not last much longer on longer distance routes.

It's clear cut Scotrail will need to order new DMUs within the next 5-10 years...full stop.

Whats the chances of getting something with some more amenities though?

Would you agree they should be 3 car units?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Cant agree at all Neil for the reasons I listed previously in this thread. Over crowding was an issue even back then.

That doesn't mean they were bad, just not enough were ordered.

 

[Clansman]

Whats the chances of getting something with some more amenities though?

Would you agree they should be 3 car units?

You'll not get any more than first class realistically on the amenities front - although I think my idea for a part time shop counter run by the trolley person was pretty reasonable, but it does push the likelihood barrier.

I do agree with them being 3-car units. A mixture of 3 and 4 car units would be appropriate, with 4 car units having a first class section as I've mentioned in page 2. With the future demand, 2 coaches is simply not enough - no doubt about it.

Nothing fancy. Nothing over the top. Just a commuter train with the appropriate provisions to do it's job for the passengers and the TOC. Simple.

 

[GrimShady]

That doesn't mean they were bad, just not enough were ordered.

As Clansman said they played an important role in cost cutting but that's all really. They've never been comfortable units at all and should never be on those type of journey lengths, its like going all the way from Waverley to Doncaster or indeed 5 hrs QS to Mallaig is like traveling the entire ECML in one.

 

[GrimShady]

You'll not get any more than first class realistically on the amenities front - although I think my idea for a part time shop counter run by the trolley person was pretty reasonable, but it does push the likelihood barrier.

I do agree with them being 3-car units. A mixture of 3 and 4 car units would be appropriate, with 4 car units having a first class section as I've mentioned in page 2. With the future demand, 2 coaches is simply not enough - no doubt about it.

Nothing fancy. Nothing over the top. Just a commuter train with the appropriate provisions to do it's job for the passengers and the TOC. Simple.

You hit the nail on the head with the Hull Trains 170s. That kind of standard would be perfect. Both Oban and Ft Bill services need to be split I think.

I still say that theres room for special trains in the high season similar to the Herbridean Mk2s that ran out of Inverness. Wasn't there supposed to be specials in this franchise running from QS?

 

[Clansman]

You hit the nail on the head with the Hull Trains 170s. That kind of standard would be perfect. Both Oban and Ft Bill services need to be split I think.

I still say that there's room for special trains in the high season similar to the Herbridean Mk2s that ran out of Inverness. Wasn't there supposed to be specials in this franchise running from QS?

Cheers. The HT 170s were good for their purpose but sadly they were just never utilised. The lack of gangways and the suburban layout of the 170s makes them impracticle for the current services on the WHL.
I think after the Flying Scotsman excursions along Fife showed just how loss-making such a service is, it's hard to see how this could work on the WHL, in the age where everything needs financial viability.

I'd be drawing the line after new DMUs and no more for Scotrail at least. Anything else would likely come from other private open access organisations such as West Coast Railways, realistically.

 

[InOban]

We can all agree that we need more separate Oban and FW trains, if only because joining trains at Crianlarich adds 10 minutes. Remember that apart from Oban FW and mallaig all stations are limited to six coaches. We can't have 170 because I believe their bogies can't negotiate the bends.

I can't conceive of there being any local demand for First. Whether a coach or part of a coach could be reserved for the exclusive use of a group, and provided with enhanced service, possibly.

I also cannot conceive of a fleet specially designed for the WHL. Traffic may be steadily rising but it is still highly seasonal. Fleet must be multipurpose.

I understand the idea of special tourist trains has been quietly dropped, unless a private operator wants to take the risk.

The number one priority is to convince the powers that be that we need more trains.

 

[NotATrainspott]

I also cannot conceive of a fleet specially designed for the WHL. Traffic may be steadily rising but it is still highly seasonal. Fleet must be multipurpose.

But the point has repeatedly been made that there won't really be any other uses for 156/158 replacements in Scotland other than rural or scenic routes. Today's summer WHL fleet can be moved from unelectrified suburban routes, which will plausibly have slightly lower loadings in the summer due to holidays. Once all of these suburban routes have been wired up, or use totally unsuitable suburban DMUs like the 170s, there won't be any alternative but to have a fleet of trains that only really spends time on the rural/scenic routes. There's no active choice involved in the matter; it's exactly what will happen with the 156/158 fleet regardless of what decisions are made about replacement trains.

During the off season, there would end up being a surplus of units which wouldn't then be easy to dump onto other routes on the network. This may actually be a factor in favour of a bi-mode solution for new stock, as that would make it much easier to use them on the electrified railway. Bi-modes could be capable of keeping up with the 38X fleet on electrified routes, and possibly even able to couple up with them. While the interior layout might be a bit wrong for heavy commuter loadings, they might be able to run contra-peak services so that more of the commuter-layout sets are available for peak direction ones. If they plausibly could end up being used on arbitrary off-peak electrified services, it would also make it easier to perform heavy maintenance during the winter. Spending money on new bi-modes might then have a better overall financial case than using cascaded DMUs.

 

[Clansman]

But the point has repeatedly been made that there won't really be any other uses for 156/158 replacements in Scotland other than rural or scenic routes. Today's summer WHL fleet can be moved from unelectrified suburban routes, which will plausibly have slightly lower loadings in the summer due to holidays. Once all of these suburban routes have been wired up, or use totally unsuitable suburban DMUs like the 170s, there won't be any alternative but to have a fleet of trains that only really spends time on the rural/scenic routes. There's no active choice involved in the matter; it's exactly what will happen with the 156/158 fleet regardless of what decisions are made about replacement trains.

During the off season, there would end up being a surplus of units which wouldn't then be easy to dump onto other routes on the network. This may actually be a factor in favour of a bi-mode solution for new stock, as that would make it much easier to use them on the electrified railway. Bi-modes could be capable of keeping up with the 38X fleet on electrified routes, and possibly even able to couple up with them. While the interior layout might be a bit wrong for heavy commuter loadings, they might be able to run contra-peak services so that more of the commuter-layout sets are available for peak direction ones. If they plausibly could end up being used on arbitrary off-peak electrified services, it would also make it easier to perform heavy maintenance during the winter. Spending money on new bi-modes might then have a better overall financial case than using cascaded DMUs.

I see your point about the flexibility of the units after electrifications, but I think you're forgetting (or maybe never knew) that there's the introduction of regular semi-fast services from Glasgow through to Perth, Dundee and Arbroath - the latter 2 probably won't be electrified until ~2025-2030 ish at the very least. This also gives flexibility for their use between Perth, Dundee and Edinburgh semi-fasts also. So there's definitely flexibility there if the eventual new DMUs are most likely non-tailored specifically to the WHL design wise - which allows the 170s to shift over to Fife also, which is more suited for their use than up to the likes of Perth, Dundee and Arbroath.

 

[InOban]

And remember that there will be non-electrified lines South of the border that will need replacement dmus.

 

[Clansman]

And remember that there will be non-electrified lines South of the border that will need replacement dmus.

They would just get the 170s from Fife, it makes sense after all given the stop-start nature of the route.

 

[SC318250]

It is a shame a couple of extra HST could not be added where as by operating one round trip Glasgow to Oban and one doing Glasgow to Fort William round trip

 

[NotATrainspott]

I see your point about the flexibility of the units after electrifications, but I think you're forgetting (or maybe never knew) that there's the introduction of regular semi-fast services from Glasgow through to Perth, Dundee and Arbroath - the latter 2 probably won't be electrified until ~2025-2030 ish at the very least. This also gives flexibility for their use between Perth, Dundee and Edinburgh semi-fasts also. So there's definitely flexibility there if the eventual new DMUs are most likely non-tailored specifically to the WHL design wise - which allows the 170s to shift over to Fife also, which is more suited for their use than up to the likes of Perth, Dundee and Arbroath.

I know about the plans for additional stopping services on the Glasgow-Aberdeen corridor. I don't think it really makes much of a difference though, because the wiring of that line is sort of pencilled in for the 2020s and that's about the time when the 156/158 fleet replacement would be happening. There's not a lot of point in specifying a new fleet of trains for a route that they'll only be doing for a few years at most. Upon electrification the stoppers will certainly end up using normal 38X equivalent EMUs, which would be no worse than the 170s currently used for the InterCity services.

The Edinburgh-Perth/Dundee semi-fast trains don't really need different rolling stock to the rest of the Fife service. Folk going from Edinburgh to those cities will choose the InterCity services for their faster speed and much better quality of service. They're not particularly scenic routes and they would really just serve commuters rather than tourists or business travellers.

Without the need to run these mid-distance regional stoppers, the 156/158 fleet really may as well be optimised for the routes they will spend the next 30 years on.

And remember that there will be non-electrified lines South of the border that will need replacement dmus.

Yes, that's true. However, there are enough non-electrified lines in England that multiple slightly optimised DMU types could easily be ordered. In the mid-2020s there will be a considerable need for new commuter/suburban DMUs in England which simply won't be the case for ScotRail.

 

[GrimShady]

It is a shame a couple of extra HST could not be added where as by operating one round trip Glasgow to Oban and one doing Glasgow to Fort William round trip

They could still be used in the high season as an intermediate solution until the future order of DMUs. The issue is the split at Cairnlarich hence the 156 DT idea.

Another option would be to have additional standard ScR HST sets used in the high season to gauge patronage and customer feed back. They can then be used all over the network in the low season until Highland line is electrified. HST can be limited to the notorious busy services with 158s picking up the quieter ones.

They need to market something like those though, and market it properly.

 

[Clansman]

I know about the plans for additional stopping services on the Glasgow-Aberdeen corridor. I don't think it really makes much of a difference though, because the wiring of that line is sort of pencilled in for the 2020s and that's about the time when the 156/158 fleet replacement would be happening. There's not a lot of point in specifying a new fleet of trains for a route that they'll only be doing for a few years at most. Upon electrification the stoppers will certainly end up using normal 38X equivalent EMUs, which would be no worse than the 170s currently used for the InterCity services.

The Edinburgh-Perth/Dundee semi-fast trains don't really need different rolling stock to the rest of the Fife service. Folk going from Edinburgh to those cities will choose the InterCity services for their faster speed and much better quality of service. They're not particularly scenic routes and they would really just serve commuters rather than tourists or business travellers.

But when the time comes that Perth and Dundee are electrified, the 385s will be a good few years into full service, so you've got an electrified route and not enough EMUs to run services. Unless of course Abellio are granted the franchise extension which will see an additional 10 x 385s being produced.

Without the need to run these mid-distance regional stoppers, the 156/158 fleet really may as well be optimised for the routes they will spend the next 30 years on. Yes, that's true. However, there are enough non-electrified lines in England that multiple slightly optimised DMU types could easily be ordered. In the mid-2020s there will be a considerable need for new commuter/suburban DMUs in England which simply won't be the case for ScotRail.

Their optimisation for these routes isn't as significant as it's played out to be - it doesn't even hinder the capacity in comparison to the unrefurbished sets (in the context of the 158s). So unless your expecting the WHL to get Swiss style scenic stock, what other optimisation can be foreseen to future trains on the WHL that would prevent suitability on other routes which already see "scenic stock" on a daily basis?

Also, the following routes that will need new stock after the 158s/156s are replaced are quite large - Glasgow to Stranraer/Dumfries/Carlisle/Newcastle, WHL, FNL and Inverness to Elgin/Kingussie (new timetabled stoppers in 2018). So really wouldn't the best option be to order bi-modes which meet the current scenic stock specifications set out by Transport Scotland and ScotRail - allowing flexibility on the entire network and ensuring that costs are kept to a minimum by having the one fleet whilst also enhancing passenger comfort, improving capacity and provisions availible? As said, unless you're looking for really scenic Swiss style stock, there's no reason why new stock can't have the interwork ability for other routes - as long as they are Bi-modes.

 

[Highland37]

I have just dropped my other half off at Fort William station for the 1140 to Glasgow. Two 156s on the service and it was pretty busy. It all felt, well a bit 80s and unbecoming of such a spectacular line. Good to see it busy though.

 

[NotATrainspott]

But when the time comes that Perth and Dundee are electrified, the 385s will be a good few years into full service, so you've got an electrified route and not enough EMUs to run services. Unless of course Abellio are granted the franchise extension which will see an additional 10 x 385s being produced.

385s or something reasonably equivalent will be available for order until approximately the end of time. Remember that the 318/320 fleet will be up for renewal around this time too, and the North Clyde route should be able to cope fine with SDO 385-equivalent rolling stock. A general re-jigging of stock could see some of the 385s moved further north and then the suburban services they run in and around Glasgow would get the new North Clyde line trains too.

Their optimisation for these routes isn't as significant as it's played out to be - it doesn't even hinder the capacity in comparison to the unrefurbished sets (in the context of the 158s). So unless your expecting the WHL to get Swiss style scenic stock, what other optimisation can be foreseen to future trains on the WHL that would prevent suitability on other routes which already see "scenic stock" on a daily basis?

Also, the following routes that will need new stock after the 158s/156s are replaced are quite large - Glasgow to Stranraer/Dumfries/Carlisle/Newcastle, WHL, FNL and Inverness to Elgin/Kingussie (new timetabled stoppers in 2018). So really wouldn't the best option be to order bi-modes which meet the current scenic stock specifications set out by Transport Scotland and ScotRail - allowing flexibility on the entire network and ensuring that costs are kept to a minimum by having the one fleet whilst also enhancing passenger comfort, improving capacity and provisions availible? As said, unless you're looking for really scenic Swiss style stock, there's no reason why new stock can't have the interwork ability for other routes - as long as they are Bi-modes.

Remember that my concept of specialised stock is to have a Hull Trains-style reconfigured interior without affecting any of the structure or mechanicals. Implementing this will be much easier when there's a much smaller range of services that they could plausibly end up on. With proper window-seat alignment and a set of self-service food and drink machines on board the trains would be ideal for basically all long distance rural routes like Stranraer or Carlisle. They would deliberately be less than optimal for suburban and commuter uses by trading seating/standing capacity for comfort and luggage capacity. For the relatively few non-scenic, non-InterCity services radiating from Inverness I don't think these compromises will be enough to justify having a subfleet. It's not like 2tph to Dingwall is going to be full and standing anytime soon.

 

[adamedwards]

My vote for the new trains would be the class 230 with 2 of the 4 doors as floor toceiling glass and special extra price observation seats to sit at them.

Failing this, how about a hybrid 319, electric power to Helensburgh!

 

[gsnedders]

385s or something reasonably equivalent will be available for order until approximately the end of time. Remember that the 318/320 fleet will be up for renewal around this time too, and the North Clyde route should be able to cope fine with SDO 385-equivalent rolling stock. A general re-jigging of stock could see some of the 385s moved further north and then the suburban services they run in and around Glasgow would get the new North Clyde line trains too.

Remember the North Clyde line currently needs 6x20m stock in the peaks and 6x23m won't fit, so realistically the question is whether an operator would be happy going with 5x23m (5m shorter, but you don't have the loss in space as a result of cabs in the middle) and lose the ability to run shorter trains off-peak.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Remember the North Clyde line currently needs 6x20m stock in the peaks and 6x23m won't fit, so realistically the question is whether an operator would be happy going with 5x23m (5m shorter, but you don't have the loss in space as a result of cabs in the middle) and lose the ability to run shorter trains off-peak.

Fixed formation is certainly in vogue at present, recognising that the extra diesel to run another 2 coaches around is not the biggest cost of operation, and simplifying the operation does save money.

And while it's a bit of a waste, a bay of 4 to yourself on an off peak service is a very nice thing and might actually attract custom.

 

[gsnedders]

Fixed formation is certainly in vogue at present, recognising that the extra diesel to run another 2 coaches around is not the biggest cost of operation, and simplifying the operation does save money.

And while it's a bit of a waste, a bay of 4 to yourself on an off peak service is a very nice thing and might actually attract custom.

Um, that was a side-point about the North Clyde Line, so cost of diesel doesn't come into it!

Also, off-peak it's already the case that it's often very empty, even with three car services: you can often get a bay to yourself during the weekday daytime or for much of the evenings. (There's a few six car services towards the end of service for reasons of stock movement, then you can have a carriage to yourself at times!)

 

[NotATrainspott]

Remember the North Clyde line currently needs 6x20m stock in the peaks and 6x23m won't fit, so realistically the question is whether an operator would be happy going with 5x23m (5m shorter, but you don't have the loss in space as a result of cabs in the middle) and lose the ability to run shorter trains off-peak.

6x23m stock can't currently be used but as far as I can tell, the major stations along the route will take it with no or minimal effort. All of the A-B project stations were built or rebuilt to be long enough. Queen Street LL took 6x23m all last summer with the diversions while Charing Cross has out-of-use platform space at the western end. Other stations might need a bit of work but there aren't any real showstopper issues, to the best of my knowledge. Without those showstoppers there's not as much of a reason to go for 20m carriages.

The Argyle line stations, on the other hand, have a bit more of an issue I think. The city centre underground ones are island platforms with no unused or easy-to-extend ends. I imagine that the 334s would live out the end of their lives on this route and then they can sort out what they want to do.

 

[gsnedders]

6x23m stock can't currently be used but as far as I can tell, the major stations along the route will take it with no or minimal effort. All of the A-B project stations were built or rebuilt to be long enough. Queen Street LL took 6x23m all last summer with the diversions while Charing Cross has out-of-use platform space at the western end. Other stations might need a bit of work but there aren't any real showstopper issues, to the best of my knowledge. Without those showstoppers there's not as much of a reason to go for 20m carriages.

The Argyle line stations, on the other hand, have a bit more of an issue I think. The city centre underground ones are island platforms with no unused or easy-to-extend ends. I imagine that the 334s would live out the end of their lives on this route and then they can sort out what they want to do.

Hyndland I think was meant to be the largest problem. I'm also not sure how far Partick has before the Merkland St bridge at the southern end?

 

[InOban]

Both QS LL and CHX have extra space for the steam engine, so could quite easily accommodate a longer train. Central LL would be the same, I think. And, I assume Glasgow X if they were to reopen it. I'm not sure how easy it would be to extend Anderston or Exhibition Centre, but Argyll St would be exceptionally difficult. It would surely involve shutting the line down for months to extend the station box.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Hyndland I think was meant to be the largest problem. I'm also not sure how far Partick has before the Merkland St bridge at the southern end?

Hyndland could be extended easily at the western end, as the tracks don't converge back together for quite a while.

Converting the platform ramps to proper platforms with a stair at the end will do quite a lot across the North Clyde line. As I said modern SDO would ensure that every carriage had access to the platforms even if extensions weren't possible. So long as the length is possible at the busiest and most important stations, then SDO isn't the end of the world.

 

[Clansman]

385s or something reasonably equivalent will be available for order until approximately the end of time. Remember that the 318/320 fleet will be up for renewal around this time too, and the North Clyde route should be able to cope fine with SDO 385-equivalent rolling stock. A general re-jigging of stock could see some of the 385s moved further north and then the suburban services they run in and around Glasgow would get the new North Clyde line trains too.

Remember that my concept of specialised stock is to have a Hull Trains-style reconfigured interior without affecting any of the structure or mechanicals. Implementing this will be much easier when there's a much smaller range of services that they could plausibly end up on. With proper window-seat alignment and a set of self-service food and drink machines on board the trains would be ideal for basically all long distance rural routes like Stranraer or Carlisle. They would deliberately be less than optimal for suburban and commuter uses by trading seating/standing capacity for comfort and luggage capacity. For the relatively few non-scenic, non-InterCity services radiating from Inverness I don't think these compromises will be enough to justify having a subfleet. It's not like 2tph to Dingwall is going to be full and standing anytime soon.

Right enough, completely bypassed me that some will be on the Cathcart Circle - where they could move further North as Dundee and Perth are electrified after new stock comes in to replace the BREL EMUs currently in and around Glasgow.

I think we're on the same lines in regards to new stock concepts for the replacement of the Sprinters on longer routes. In terms of comfort and luggage space, as long as the windows are fairly close together (such as the 158s) and not spread out (such as the Voyagers), window alignment would be simple enough without intruding on the overall capacity. It wouldn't make sense to have these new trains on the FNL and not on the semi-fast services radiating Inverness - then you're left with 2 fleets of trains out with the majority batch (which would all be in Glasgow and Edinburgh) - but in terms of justification, it's not like these routes haven't seen stock of the type you are describing in your concepts - with the former HT 170s and the "scenic" 158s - so really having the new stock, of the type you've proposed, on these routes would be similar on a comfort level to the trains they are replacing.

 

[GusB]

A bi-mode cross between the AT200 and AT300 would probably be ideal. Keep the 385-style cab ends for when sets are doubled up, but utilise the intercity layout instead.

On the WHL they can pick up the wires are they get closer to Glasgow, and could be used elsewhere on the electrified network as required. As more of the country gets wired up, the less time they spend running in diesel mode.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd definitely go Stadler FLIRT (though I am a self confessed fan!)

Low floor, helpful for the lower rural platforms. Huge windows. No DMU rattle due to the separate power car.

 

[Clansman]

I'd definitely go Stadler FLIRT (though I am a self confessed fan!)

Low floor, helpful for the lower rural platforms. Huge windows. No DMU rattle due to the separate power car.

To be fair to that concept, Stadler's design of the driving trailers on a lot of their FLIRT variants has 1 set of doors centralised on each side - meaning that longer trains are compatible with existing infrastructure such as short platforms as the passenger areas overhangs the platform - something which would be useful on the WHL. So, in theory, you could get an extra carriages worth of capacity simply by utilising this type of design.

How does this float your boat?...