I'm just conscious that electrification is not as advanced at the current time as the Scottish Government were hoping it would be, therefore they may feel like going immediately to new-build bi/tri-mode units may not be best.
It's a fair enough point, however it has already been indicated by management both past and present within ScotRail and Transport Scotland (Alex Hynes, Michael Mathieson, Fiona Hyslop to name a few) that the new procurement brief will be at the very minimum bi-modes, with considerations given to tri-modes with batteries if technology and the extent of electrification allows. Politically and even so within Transport Scotland/ScotRail management, level boarding and maximising accessibility requires lower floors, something no off-lease stock has.
I highly doubt the above will change, especially in the face of Scottish Government budget reductions which has focussed less so on the railway barring one or two pilot schemes including the now ill-fated off-peak blanket fares trial.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Your pictures showed a crowded 5-carriage train, why wouldn't a 7- or 8-coach train be an improvement?
The picture shows a 5-car HST full and standing. But that 5 car HST was designed to maximise luggage space more than any other HST interior design before it. By this I mean in terms of space between table bays of 4, additional luggage stacks, greater ceiling height leading to increased overhead space (a natural advantage of carriages which don't house underfloor engines like the 158/170s) and 6 (originally 2) public bike spaces. This inevitably trades off on the number of seats per metre compared to a higher density set up, but is efficient with how much luggage you can fit in for every seat lost. ScotRail clearly deem this an equitable trade off of mutual benefits (less seats but more luggage space per passenger), and to a larger extent this has worked out well barring a huge chunk of Inverness services and the odd Aberdeen service even after further investment in additional onboard luggage space (which my train on both occasions had).
In regards to 7/8 coach trains, my point was in relation to 222s, mainly their luggage space. Taking the 222s as-is, a 7-car has fewer standard class seats than a 5-car ScotRail HST (236 vs 280). If you swap a full first class coach with a standard one you'd gain around 60 standard seats, taking you to barely 20 or so seats more than a HST. And that's before luggage considerations. To keep it fair, include a 36 metre allowance for a 222 comparison to take into account the HST power cars being dead-space in passenger capacity terms - which works out at being a 6 car 222 rounded down (from 6.4).
To match the luggage density of a ScotRail spec Mk3, you'd need to remove seats to allow for room between table of 4 on the floor between the bays, as well as remove more seats to make way for luggage stacks, as well as adding additional bike spaces to match ScotRail HST's 6. All good and well in theory, except that's you now lost your 20 additional seats in a 7-car 222 vice a 5-car HST and being 10m longer (151m of a 5-car HST vs 162m of a 7-car 222).
But what about the ceiling space overhead? That has not yet been considered.
The 222's Voyager profile (as opposed to tilting profile, as Pendolinos and Mk4s prove) inhibits small cases or larger bags going above seats due to the inward protrusion of the ceiling housing electrical equipment. Therefore the same luggage that would go overhead on a HST or other DMU would mostly have be accommodated on the floor or on luggage stacks on a 222. Given we've already modified them to house the additional luggage space to match that of a 5-car HST, you would need to at least double these to mitigate. Less seats, more racks, poor use of space - leaving you with a far less seats per metre ratio per 23m carriage than a HST despite this already being the case to begin with.
Therefore, a 7-car would struggle to accommodate these changes efficiently and any more coaches above this could be seen to be a poor and inefficient use of resources given the unit cost of operating the sets compared to rolling stock that is more adaptable/flexible to making a better use of onboard space. And that's including the hypothetical 36 metres gained for passengers when considering the use of space that 2 HST power cars would have taken up which otherwise would take us to an overall train length slightly shorter than a 7-car 222 anyway.
222s are great if you're looking to throw in a stop gap to get the HSTs off the network in the shortest possible time be it due to union pressure, safety concerns, or operational or short term economic factors. They can also be made to work if you accept the clear and obvious trade offs in space, efficiency and resultant operational cost. But all things considered, are they really an appropriate long term solution for what ScotRail need? Absolutely not.
For arguments sake while TPE Mk5s would give you an improved passenger outcome in this regard vs 222s, they are shorter in carriage length, fewer in set numbers and therefore not enough to replace every HST set. And with one locomotive they cannot match HST timings. Also unsuitable.
Could the current overcrowding be because Scotrail is operating a reduced timetable on many routes? When Scotrail order these trains they should make sure that they order enough to eventually offer an hourly service on the Highland Main Line.
True, that could be the case. But I've seen it both ways both before and during the timetable changes. And should passenger forecasts increase at the pre-covid rate, I would argue it is only indicative of what is to come over the next 10 years.
I am not sure that Inverness to Aberdeen warrents IC stock. (Yes I know they are both cities, but so are Newcastle and Carlisle and that doesn't require IC stock either)!
The Scottish Government, ScotRail, and Transport Scotland disagree with you there. If you define IC stock as 125mph+, you'd have a point. If you define it as 'end door' stock with comfier seats, a first class, and catering facilities - I'd argue less so.
I believe it is such an arbitrary thing as to how one would class something as IC stock or a route 'requiring' them, especially since many people on here tend to fit rolling stock narratives entirely based on what exists now in terms of which route is currently operated by which stock (regardless of appropriateness), rather than what they might otherwise require in reality.
For example, it's this same line of thinking which I think causes the assumption that every Northern service between York/Leeds/Sheffield/Manchester should be doomed to run with 2 or 3 coaches with suburban spec and doors at 1/3s, for the sake of the fact that that is what it is now. Or in contrast, that Chiltern must replace their Mk3s with LHCS (ie Mk5s) at all costs simply because they are LHCS and nothing else fits that narrative. It's a funny ol' quirk against the far more complex economic reality of running a sustainable modern railway.
21 units would be required in service at any one time to give hourly services on;
Aberdeen - Edinburgh
Aberdeen - Glasgow
Inverness - Perth - (Edinburgh/Glasgow alternatley)
To cover maintenance and a spare maybe 25 x 5 car trains would be needed
With these frequencies a well designed 5 car train should suffice for the vast majority of the time (granted folk who board at Stirling to travel to Glasgow at 8am may have to stand but this is by choice given the ex-Alloa locals will arrive with many seats spare)
A larger train would not be needed for the majortity of the time and taxpayer money has to be speny wisely (unless it goes on a new ferry).
It's a tough one on set numbers. The number of HSTs are not sufficient to cover every intercity diagram, even when considering regional stock rotations. Especially so if it is being considered for any IC fleet to include the West Highland Line or Far North Lines. Based on my point above in response to 222s and the current HST shortfalls, I reckon at least 6 coaches would need to be the minimum if the set is well designed and is efficient in its use of space. Maybe even 7 coaches given on some occasions in the past a 6 coach 170/158 still faces the same problems in the busy seasons (and that any IC design for ScotRail may inevitably have less seating density than 170s/158s which would need to be negated with additional coaches).
