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

[GrimShady]

If you think that stock conversions would make them standard, then technically speaking on that basis you think that the major refurbishment coming up on the 156s for Scotrail would make them fit for purpose?

Struggling to see where you're coming from because on one hand you say that the 156s aren't fit for purpose and that there really should be replaced by much better rolling stock (which I agree with). Yet on the other hand, you're saying that Scotrail should stick a 156 coach on the back of a HST set and run it up the WHL as a replacement?

Just curious.

It would have to be refit fit for purpose and not a cheap white wash. Somebody mentioned (on another thread) an article they seen in RAIL a few years back with regard to uograded 156s in a semi permanent formation. That would be interesting to see but your still left with noisey units and vibrations.

As for the HST 156 formation its simple really.

Removed Engine, no vibrations.

Better seating (thats if you wanted to put seats in it)

Gangways retained enabling the HST formation to split at Cairnlarich. Power Car facing Ft Bill, Ex156 DSO trailing with the second part in the reverse.

Choice of seat either in Mk3 or Ex 156 DSO (if seats fitted)

Can fitted out with buffet and lots of luggage space.

No difficult alteration to existing Mk3 coaches, which might prove impossible giving its construction.

This is all assuming its desirable to keep the current pratice of spliting at Cairnlarich. If not the Mk3 DVT trailer will do

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Ok...5 and a bit hours to Mallaig then. Overall I'm implying that 156s are unsuitable for a journey in excess of 1 or 2 hours. Their design both inside and out is catered best to suburban/local workings. If 156s were still being operated between Glasgow and Inverness, I guarantee you more folk would see their unsuitability.

Not trying to be a crusader of any sort, but more or less can't help but seeing it from the perspective it blatantly is.

The real perspective is that the last time the route received new traction BR was still seen to be in decline and it was a case of Sprinters or nothing (meaning closure ultimately). Times have changed considerably since then but realistically the WHL is way down the pecking order when it comes to prioritising expenditure on renewals or replacements. While it certainly has value as a tourism asset, both as a transport option and in itself as a pretty ride, the season is not that long and most of the year it is little more than a lifeline route. As such I wouldn't expect anyone to be throwing money at the route but I would also hope that new stock, when it comes, will be a reasonable compromise to meet the various demands placed on it. "Value For Money" is an inevitable consideration.

 

[Clansman]

The real perspective is that the last time the route received new traction BR was still seen to be in decline and it was a case of Sprinters or nothing (meaning closure ultimately). Times have changed considerably since then but realistically the WHL is way down the pecking order when it comes to prioritising expenditure on renewals or replacements. While it certainly has value as a tourism asset, both as a transport option and in itself as a pretty ride, the season is not that long and most of the year it is little more than a lifeline route. As such I wouldn't expect anyone to be throwing money at the route but I would also hope that new stock, when it comes, will be a reasonable compromise to meet the various demands placed on it. "Value For Money" is an inevitable consideration.

The thing is that the WHL can't be "low down picking order" for new rolling stock purely because the rolling stock which operates the WHL also operates on a diverse variation of lines. So given that fact alone, you can really see that the WHL isn't low down the pecking order at all, but more towards the top. For as long as the 156s remain with Scotrail, the WHL won't see any new stock - simple as that. The WHL is on par with the GSWR in that respect.

In terms of new stock, unless you're going for dedicated scenic stock, the words "value for money" shouldn't really come into the equation. The new DMUs, when they're eventually ordered, will just be your typical standard commuter DMUs which have slightly greater specifications to allow operational diversity and suitability consisting of the finer details (seat window alignment for example), rather than just an all out tourist magnet.

In my opinion, the tourism aspect in terms of new rolling stock specification shouldn't go any further than provisions such as window/seat alignment, first class and a part-time walk up catering counter - for as long as the whole 156 replacement concept is value for money.

This post sums it up quite well;

The concept of scenic trains here is really just a specific configuration of an otherwise bog-standard train. It's like how the Hull Trains 170s had a special InterCity layout for their specific use case. When on that route, they were more optimal than a standard layout would give, but upon being cascaded away they were just a few days' reconfiguration away from being basically standard trains.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

The thing is that the WHL can't be "low down picking order" for new rolling stock purely because the rolling stock which operates the WHL also operates on a diverse variation of lines. So given that fact alone, you can really see that the WHL isn't low down the pecking order at all, but more towards the top. For as long as the 156s remain with Scotrail, the WHL won't see any new stock - simple as that. The WHL is on par with the GSWR in that respect.

Yet where is the focus in the Scotrail franchise? Improving the services between The Five Cities and more Central Belt electrification, that's where. And now a study on extending TS's current "bauble", the Borders Route. Interest in the other diesel worked lines appears minimal: look at Stranraer. As for linking the WHL with the GSW if it weren't for the needs of the latter the former might well have fared less well than it actually has. The fact that the WHL seems to attract so little political interest tells you exactly how much value it really has at Holyrood.

In terms of new stock, unless you're going for dedicated scenic stock, the words "value for money" shouldn't really come into the equation. The new DMUs, when they're eventually ordered, will just be your typical standard commuter DMUs which have slightly greater specifications to allow operational diversity and suitability consisting of the finer details (seat window alignment for example), rather than just an all out tourist magnet.

In my opinion, the tourism aspect in terms of new rolling stock specification shouldn't go any further than provisions such as window/seat alignment, first class and a part-time walk up catering counter - for as long as the whole 156 replacement concept is value for money.

To dismiss the concept of VFM so lightly is fully in tune with SNP thinking. But eventually they will learn that there is no money tree... It simply isn't realistic to expect that publicly funded procurement can always be to a continually improving specification: sometimes like-for-like but to a modern standard of construction is the VFM solution.

 

[Altnabreac]

I think people are missing the point when they insist that what will be ordered is a commuter DMU with flexibility for different routes. It won't be.

The rolling stock plan for this franchise is pretty much fixed. Any extra stock will be follow on orders for 385s.

So a new DMU stock order is likely to be something specified in the post 2025 franchise.

In 2025 we need to consider the DMU stock position and which lines have a diesel future.

East Kilbride, Barrhead, Kilmarnock, Barassie, Maryhill, Dunblane - Dundee are likely to be electrified. Plans will be in place for Dundee - Aberdeen electrification and Edinburgh - Fife - Dundee electrification over the following 5 years.

The new franchise will be proposing an EMU replacement for HSTs on Aberdeen services.

Inverness will be insisting they are next in line for electrification or proposing bi-mode stock.

170s will be operating Fife and Borders services but both lines will be anticipated for eventual electrification.

So basically your DMU order in 2025 is only for WHL, FNL, Kyle, Stranraer and possibly GSW. GSW may make more sense to order bi-modes jointly with Inverness services.

So scenic routes will be the core purpose of any Scotrail DMU order. There will be no 156 operated commuter services by 2025.

 

[CosherB]

It would have to be refit fit for purpose and not a cheap white wash. Somebody mentioned (on another thread) an article they seen in RAIL a few years back with regard to uograded 156s in a semi permanent formation. That would be interesting to see but your still left with noisey units and vibrations.

As for the HST 156 formation its simple really.

Removed Engine, no vibrations.

Better seating (thats if you wanted to put seats in it)

Gangways retained enabling the HST formation to split at Cairnlarich. Power Car facing Ft Bill, Ex156 DSO trailing with the second part in the reverse.

Choice of seat either in Mk3 or Ex 156 DSO (if seats fitted)

Can fitted out with buffet and lots of luggage space.

No difficult alteration to existing Mk3 coaches, which might prove impossible giving its construction.

This is all assuming its desirable to keep the current pratice of spliting at Cairnlarich. If not the Mk3 DVT trailer will do

I'm afraid you don't appreciate the fine engineering detail between HST stock, Mk3 DVTs and DMUs, which will scupper this daft idea, quite apart from the development costs and ruining perfectly good 156s.

 

[Clansman]

Yet where is the focus in the Scotrail franchise? Improving the services between The Five Cities and more Central Belt electrification, that's where. And now a study on extending TS's current "bauble", the Borders Route. Interest in the other diesel worked lines appears minimal: look at Stranraer. As for linking the WHL with the GSW if it weren't for the needs of the latter the former might well have fared less well than it actually has. The fact that the WHL seems to attract so little political interest tells you exactly how much value it really has at Holyrood.

To dismiss the concept of VFM so lightly is fully in tune with SNP thinking. But eventually they will learn that there is no money tree... It simply isn't realistic to expect that publicly funded procurement can always be to a continually improving specification: sometimes like-for-like but to a modern standard of construction is the VFM solution.

What further political interest do you expect from anyone at Holyrood for the WHL out with your bog standard political p*sh that comes from every party?

I was speaking in the context of the same stock working on WHL and GSWR when the 156s are replaced. The WHL on it's own isn't high up the pecking order as I've stated. However, if the GSWR was considered for new rolling stock, as if Scotrail would want a minority fleet for around 10 156s running around when they could order off the same shelf as their new stock. But I guess I'm just playing out a non-existent situation so it's purely wait and see as to what really happens. One can only speculate.

I was under the assumption that any commuter rolling stock order was value for money in the first place - that's what I was implying, rather than dismissing VFM altogether. But if Scotrail went for dedicated scenic stock like the Swiss have, then VFM would be of greater importance as opposed to your standard DMU with a window alignment here and there. But overall VFM will always be a factor no matter what stock you have. No idea what the comparison to the SNP has to do with this either?

 

[GrimShady]

I'm afraid you don't appreciate the fine engineering detail between HST stock, Mk3 DVTs and DMUs, which will scupper this daft idea, quite apart from the development costs and ruining perfectly good 156s.

That maybe so hence the reason I'm asking. As I stated previously im aware of a few engineering points.

Incompatible electrical systems.

Incompatible control system.

Incompatible couplings.

Possible issue with braking with regard to require the 43 to apply first.

None of the above are technically impossible or within the scope of achieving without serious rebuilds. All your really talking about is modifying the 156 trailer to be compatible with an existing HST set. I also listed many similar projects that BR managed to accomplish. You seem to be under the assumption that I consider it to be a plug & play solution, I do not.


Seen as you know all the "fine engineering" details maybe you could provide more information. Do you have rough guess at cost vs new stock?

Also as the units are coming to the end of their working lifes its hardly ruining a good 156. Select the oldest and or thw more troublesome examples for conversion.

 

[CosherB]

That maybe so hence the reason I'm asking. As I stated previously im aware of a few engineering points.

Incompatible electrical systems.

Incompatible control system.

Incompatible couplings.

Possible issue with braking with regard to require the 43 to apply first.

None of the above are technically impossible or within the scope of achieving without serious rebuilds. All your really talking about is modifying the 156 trailer to be compatible with an existing HST set. I also listed many similar projects that BR managed to accomplish. You seem to be under the assumption that I consider it to be a plug & play solution, I do not.


Seen as you know all the "fine engineering" details maybe you could provide more information. Do you have rough guess at cost vs new stock?

Also as the units are coming to the end of their working lifes its hardly ruining a good 156. Select the oldest and or thw more troublesome examples for conversion.

You've listed enough points to make this a complete non-starter. It isn't going to happen.

I have neither the knowledge, expertise, time or inclination to start various cost analyses. It's a pointless exercise anyway, apart from satisfying your highly theoretical musings.

And since when are 156s coming to the end of their working lives - I don't think so!

 

[GrimShady]

You've listed enough points to make this a complete non-starter. It isn't going to happen.

I have neither the knowledge, expertise, time or inclination to start various cost analyses. It's a pointless exercise anyway, apart from satisfying your highly theoretical musings.

And since when are 156s coming to the end of their working lives - I don't think so!

Still its been done before. Strip out the engine, alternator, compressor and what do you have, an empty coach. No different from what the DBSOs were built from or the Class 489 or the PCVs. All you need is the HST control system and some rewiring. Hell even DRS have equipmwnt to work DBSOs and Mk2s to work push pull with 37s!

In 2020 the units will be 30 years old with some even older... life expired or certainly getting there...yes I would say so.

It can be part of a wider conversion order for all UK scenice lines.

It is entirely feasible however like you say its cost related. Is it worth doing for a 10 year period untill the various TOCs can decide what their going to do with regard to new builds. 37/4s were fitted with ETH to cover a period of 5 years not including the sleeper.

 

[NotATrainspott]

1+4 HST sets aren't a popular idea because they only have a single power source. If the power car breaks down, the whole train is stuck and without power. DMUs have multiple redundant engines and all operational HST sets have and will have two power cars in use.

The other problem, especially for splitting and joining services, is that you then need to ensure that the portions join up in the right order. It isn't possible for power cars to join together except in emergencies. Also worth remembering is that platform lengths at Queen Street would become a problem for any split HST sets, as entire carriage lengths would be wasted to the power cars. A 1+3+3+1 arrangement is the best you're going to get.

I think a strong argument against the use of longer trains on the WHL is this 2043 aspiration for 1tph to Crianlarich. Like it or not, the late-BR/privatisation approach of shorter but more frequent services has done wonders for many lines.

 

[GrimShady]

1+4 HST sets aren't a popular idea because they only have a single power source. If the power car breaks down, the whole train is stuck and without power. DMUs have multiple redundant engines and all operational HST sets have and will have two power cars in use.

The other problem, especially for splitting and joining services, is that you then need to ensure that the portions join up in the right order. It isn't possible for power cars to join together except in emergencies. Also worth remembering is that platform lengths at Queen Street would become a problem for any split HST sets, as entire carriage lengths would be wasted to the power cars. A 1+3+3+1 arrangement is the best you're going to get.

I think a strong argument against the use of longer trains on the WHL is this 2043 aspiration for 1tph to Crianlarich. Like it or not, the late-BR/privatisation approach of shorter but more frequent services has done wonders for many lines.

All valid points. HST can still function with only one power car at much lower performance. A single power car would be a problem but thats in the same boat as a standard loco hauled train which regularly use the line. My suggestion of using 156s as Driving Trailers was to keep the current split at Cairnlarich and the gangway connections. This would require two Driving Trailers coupled cab to cab. Running two short HST sets would be difficult with no through passage between sections and the waste of 4 power car platform lengths. Queen Street platform length would be an issue I agree.

 

[Clansman]

All valid points. HST can still function with only one power car at much lower performance. A single power car would be a problem but thats in the same boat as a standard loco hauled train which regularly use the line. My suggestion of using 156s as Driving Trailers was to keep the current split at Cairnlarich and the gangway connections. This would require two Driving Trailers coupled cab to cab. Running two short HST sets would be difficult with no through passage between sections and the waste of 4 power car platform lengths. Queen Street platform length would be an issue I agree.

With your very far out idea, you also have the problem of having to have some sets reversed, so that 2 driving trailers can couple and uncouple at Crianlarich. 1 screw up with 1 service (such as Oban-QS) and suddenly you're facing having a HST set at the wrong end of the train. So making sure the driving trailer is always on the "inside" of each coupled set all the time would be difficult, thus rendering this concept impracticle.

 

[GrimShady]

With your very far out idea, you also have the problem of having to have some sets reversed, so that 2 driving trailers can couple and uncouple at Crianlarich. 1 screw up with 1 service (such as Oban-QS) and suddenly you're facing having a HST set at the wrong end of the train. So making sure the driving trailer is always on the "inside" of each coupled set all the time would be difficult, thus rendering this concept impracticle.

That is a consideration, the key there is not to screw up. Sets can be reversed using the Cowlairs cord if need be. The 47 Push Pull formations always had the DBSO facing towards Queen Street, this was achieved without any issues due to not wanting to be pushing the formation up the Cowlairs incline although I do know of the odd case where this wasn't so. The IC 225 formations always have the DVT facing London, I've never seen this the other way round. I can't see a situation in normal service on those lines where the formation would get turned end for end, there's no reason for them to be turned round unless it was depot screw up. The Ft Bill 43 should always face Ft Bill and the Oban portion would always have the 43 facing the Glasgow end.

All we're talking about is a normal Push Pull config with the DBSO cabs coupled.

Anyway it was just an idea to use available stock in the short term until something more permanent can be agreed. There are many options discussed here. I do admit that a new fleet of DMUs fitted out to an Intercity spec along the lines of the Hull Trains 170s is probably the more likely and ultimately more desirable. To scrap the MK3 sets at present is a waste of good stock in a time where good stock is hard to come by.

Something has to change.

 

[CosherB]

That is a consideration, the key there is not to screw up. Sets can be reversed using the Cowlairs cord if need be. The 47 Push Pull formations always had the DBSO facing towards Queen Street, this was achieved without any issues due to not wanting to be pushing the formation up the Cowlairs incline although I do know of the odd case where this wasn't so. The IC 225 formations always have the DVT facing London, I've never seen this the other way round. I can't see a situation in normal service on those lines where the formation would get turned end for end, there's no reason for them to be turned round unless it was depot screw up. The Ft Bill 43 should always face Ft Bill and the Oban portion would always have the 43 facing the Glasgow end.

All we're talking about is a normal Push Pull config with the DBSO cabs coupled.

Anyway it was just an idea to use available stock in the short term until something more permanent can be agreed. There are many options discussed here. I do admit that a new fleet of DMUs fitted out to an Intercity spec along the lines of the Hull Trains 170s is probably the more likely and ultimately more desirable. To scrap the MK3 sets at present is a waste of good stock in a time where good stock is hard to come by.

Something has to change.

Have you approached Abellio with your ideas?

 

[HSTEd]

What about the HST power cars fitted with buffers? They can be coupled nose to nose with the TDM jumpers coupled can't they? If TDM was re retrofitted to them again

 

[Clansman]

What about the HST power cars fitted with buffers? They can be coupled nose to nose with the TDM jumpers coupled can't they? If TDM was re retrofitted to them again

True.

But that defeats the purpose entirely though if you're looking for rolling stock which allows the current diagrams on the WHL to continue (ie the 5 Oban & Mallaig services splitting/joining at Crianlarich each day, thus needing an end gangway).

 

[43096]

What about the HST power cars fitted with buffers? They can be coupled nose to nose with the TDM jumpers coupled can't they? If TDM was re retrofitted to them again

OFFS! Another ill thought through idea...

In any case, wiring diagrams long since lost for power car TDM.

 

[GrimShady]

Have you approached Abellio with your ideas?

No I havent as it only popped into my head a few days ago. Any aproach should include a few proposals, pros and cons, drawings with a bit more engineering detail than I have at present, something I hope to rectify hopefully with the help of you gentlemen.

Nothing is achieved without trying even if it does end in
failure. If it helps maybe inspire a bit of creative thinking or improvement then its worth it.

 

[HSTEd]

OFFS! Another ill thought through idea...

In any case, wiring diagrams long since lost for power car TDM.

That was merely an answer to the idea that power cars can't be coupled nose to nose

 

[NotATrainspott]

That was merely an answer to the idea that power cars can't be coupled nose to nose

I was aware of this. However, for full flexibility you would need to have the same coupler at the power car end as you had at the driving trailer, which wouldn't be so easy. Even then, you would still be losing the ability to walk through the train which is hardly ideal on these sorts of journeys.

 

[Bevan Price]

Class 185s have heavier coaches on average when divided by their total weight

3-car Class 185 = 168.5 Tonnes. /3 = 62.16 tonnes per coach (average)

5-car Class 221 = 227.0 Tonnes. /5 = 45.40 tonnes per coach (average)

From a NR Rolling Stock Specification available on line (dated 2011), so maybe some variations since then, especially seating capacity & minor changes in weight:

Class / Max Speed / Coaches / Seats 1st/2nd classes/ Weight (t.):

142 Pacer 75 2 0 121 49.5
143 Pacer 75 2 0 92 48.5
144 Pacer 75 2 0 87 48.5
144 Pacer 75 3 0 145 72
150 / 0 Sprinter 75 3 0 240 99
150/1 Sprinter 75 2 0 148 76.4
150/1 Sprinter 75 3 0 224 114.7
114.5
150/2 Sprinter 75 2 0 149 74
153 Super Sprinter 75 1 0 72 41.2
155 Super Sprinter 75 2 0 160 77.6
156 Super Sprinter 75 2 0 150 76.5
158/0 90 2 0 138 77
158/0 90 3 0 208 115.5
158/8 90 2 13 114 77
158/9 90 2 0 142 77
159 90 3 24 170 115.5
165/0 Network Turbo 75 2 0 183 79.5
165/0 Network Turbo 75 3 0 289 116.5
165/1 Network Turbo 90 2 16 170 75
165/1 Network Turbo 90 3 16 270 112
166 Network Express Turbo 90 3 32 243 117.2
168/0 Clubman 100 4 0 278 171.5
168/1 Clubman 100 3 0 204 132.2
168/1 Clubman 100 4 0 278 175.7
168/2 Clubman 100 3 0 204 134.2
168/2 Clubman 100 4 0 280 178.9
170/1 Turbostar 100 2 24 97 89.8
170/1 Turbostar 100 3 45 119 132.8
170/2 Turbostar 100 2 9 110 91.4
170/2 Turbostar 100 3 7 173 133.7
170/3 Turbostar 100 2 18 96 91.6 - 93.1
170/3 Turbostar 100 3 7 162 137.5
170/3 Turbostar 100 3 7 162 137.5
170/4 Express (1) 100 3 18 172 132.9
170/4 Express (2) 100 3 18 172 137
170/4 Express (3) 100 3 0 198 136.1
170/4 Express (4) 100 3 0 188 133.8
170/5 Express (5) 100 2 0 122 91.7
170/6 Express (6) 100 3 0 196 134.1
171/7 Turbostar 100 2 9 107 92.5 - 95.4
171/8 Turbostar 100 4 18 167 180.4
172/0 Turbostar 75 2 0 124 83.1
172/1 Turbostar 75 2 0 124 83.1
172/2 Turbostar 100 2 0 124 83.1
172/3 Turbostar 100 3 0 193 121.3
175/0 Coradia 1000 100 2 0 118 101.4
175/1 Coradia 1000 100 3 0 186 148.9
180 Adelante 125 5 42 268 252.5
185 Desiro UK 100 4 15 154 163
220 Voyager 125 4 26 160 185.6
221 Super Voyager 125 4 26 160 219.4
221 Super Voyager 125 5 26 220 276
222 Meridian 125 5 50 192 249
222 Meridian 125 7 106 304 337.8
222 Pioneer 125 4 33 148 202

 

[Maxfly]

As far as can be ascertained, this should still be 'what will replace the 158's on the whl when the time comes'. 156's still going and I believe it was part of the franchise agreement bring 158 'scenic' trains in with air con etc, so not easy to just say 'Na mate, not getting em 'new' trains now'

 

[Altnabreac]

As far as can be ascertained, this should still be 'what will replace the 158's on the whl when the time comes'. 156's still going and I believe it was part of the franchise agreement bring 158 'scenic' trains in with air con etc, so not easy to just say 'Na mate, not getting em 'new' trains now'

The Franchise describes a spec rather than explicitly prescribing the stock so I think if 158s were not brought in then a more heavyweight refurb of 156s (new internal layout, aircon etc) would be required to bring them up to the specification in the franchise.

 

[InOban]

From a NR Rolling Stock Specification available on line (dated 2011), so maybe some variations since then, especially seating capacity & minor changes in weight:

Class / Max Speed / Coaches / Seats 1st/2nd classes/ Weight (t.):

142 Pacer 75 2 0 121 49.5
143 Pacer 75 2 0 92 48.5
144 Pacer 75 2 0 87 48.5
144 Pacer 75 3 0 145 72
150 / 0 Sprinter 75 3 0 240 99
150/1 Sprinter 75 2 0 148 76.4
150/1 Sprinter 75 3 0 224 114.7
114.5
150/2 Sprinter 75 2 0 149 74
153 Super Sprinter 75 1 0 72 41.2
155 Super Sprinter 75 2 0 160 77.6
156 Super Sprinter 75 2 0 150 76.5
158/0 90 2 0 138 77
158/0 90 3 0 208 115.5
158/8 90 2 13 114 77
158/9 90 2 0 142 77
159 90 3 24 170 115.5
165/0 Network Turbo 75 2 0 183 79.5
165/0 Network Turbo 75 3 0 289 116.5
165/1 Network Turbo 90 2 16 170 75
165/1 Network Turbo 90 3 16 270 112
166 Network Express Turbo 90 3 32 243 117.2
168/0 Clubman 100 4 0 278 171.5
168/1 Clubman 100 3 0 204 132.2
168/1 Clubman 100 4 0 278 175.7
168/2 Clubman 100 3 0 204 134.2
168/2 Clubman 100 4 0 280 178.9
170/1 Turbostar 100 2 24 97 89.8
170/1 Turbostar 100 3 45 119 132.8
170/2 Turbostar 100 2 9 110 91.4
170/2 Turbostar 100 3 7 173 133.7
170/3 Turbostar 100 2 18 96 91.6 - 93.1
170/3 Turbostar 100 3 7 162 137.5
170/3 Turbostar 100 3 7 162 137.5
170/4 Express (1) 100 3 18 172 132.9
170/4 Express (2) 100 3 18 172 137
170/4 Express (3) 100 3 0 198 136.1
170/4 Express (4) 100 3 0 188 133.8
170/5 Express (5) 100 2 0 122 91.7
170/6 Express (6) 100 3 0 196 134.1
171/7 Turbostar 100 2 9 107 92.5 - 95.4
171/8 Turbostar 100 4 18 167 180.4
172/0 Turbostar 75 2 0 124 83.1
172/1 Turbostar 75 2 0 124 83.1
172/2 Turbostar 100 2 0 124 83.1
172/3 Turbostar 100 3 0 193 121.3
175/0 Coradia 1000 100 2 0 118 101.4
175/1 Coradia 1000 100 3 0 186 148.9
180 Adelante 125 5 42 268 252.5
185 Desiro UK 100 4 15 154 163

These have 3 coaches, not 4. Anyone know why they are so heavy? Is it just the extra-powerful engines?

220 Voyager 125 4 26 160 185.6
221 Super Voyager 125 4 26 160 219.4
221 Super Voyager 125 5 26 220 276
222 Meridian 125 5 50 192 249
222 Meridian 125 7 106 304 337.8
222 Pioneer 125 4 33 148 202

Thanks for all that info.

 

[Clansman]

The Franchise describes a spec rather than explicitly prescribing the stock so I think if 158s were not brought in then a more heavyweight refurb of 156s (new internal layout, aircon etc) would be required to bring them up to the specification in the franchise.

Isn't that what's supposed to be happening just now with the 156? Apparently there's been a set under refurbishment for ages.

 

[Altnabreac]

Isn't that what's supposed to be happening just now with the 156? Apparently there's been a set under refurbishment for ages.

As I understand it the 156s are getting a "refresh" rather than a full "refurbishment"'

So something like CET toilets, new seat covers, wifi, plug sockets.

But not, new seats, aircon, sealing windows etc.

Not sure of exact details but something along those lines anyway.

 

[scotraildriver]

They are getting new seats with built in USB points. There is a problem at the supplier which means the refurbished sets have retained the original seating, however the first new seats should be fitted in the next couple of weeks. The wiring for the USB and WiFi is all in place so will be done at Corkerhill depot.

 

[Clansman]

They are getting new seats with built in USB points. There is a problem at the supplier which means the refurbished sets have retained the original seating, however the first new seats should be fitted in the next couple of weeks. The wiring for the USB and WiFi is all in place so will be done at Corkerhill depot.

I take it the new seats are just the ironing boards? Not heard much about what will the new seats are like other than they are of a similar variant, if not the same.

 

[sonorguy]

Better chance of brand new loco hauled gold plated stock than a tory MP in Scotland.

I wouldn't be so sure of that after June 8th... The Conservatives are the only party that the SNP are worried about, and with good reason. Not sure if they'll lose the 10-12 seats quoted but they will lose a few. Blue is running at about 30% in polling in Scotland currently.