New ScotRail EMU's, Any more news?

[northwichcat]

142s have 168kW engines whereas 170s have 315kW - 90% more power in a carriage only 50% longer. It would be surprising if 170 acceleration were worse, at least when both are fully loaded.

172s have 360kW/car, giving better power/weight than the 170.

A 170 is believed to be able to operate Greenbank-Altrincham in 26.9 minutes stopping at all stations, currently the services are timetabled for 142 operation and is timetabled to take 33 minutes, so on that basis using 170s on Chester-Manchester all-stops services could probably bring the time down to around 75 minutes end to end including recovery time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Agreed: I didn't think it was any more than assumption that Scotrail will lose all the 170s. I'm scratching my head over the availability, and suitability, of 158s for the Fife Circle services, and would have thought that these services would be far better sticking with 170s until any potential electrification project comes along.

Abellio did a presentation where they gave figures for the number of new carriages they would take on, the number of carriages they would release and what type of train would operate on which lines. In the presentation they didn't mention using 170s once and the number of carriages released (assuming the add-on order for more EMUs doesn't go ahead) adds up to the total number of 170s. That's why people have concluded the 170s will be released.

 

[WatcherZero]

Was also talk before the award was even made that they were quite expensive to lease and operate and could be released in favour of other stock to lower costs.

 

[D6975]

Where is it stated that Scotrail will release all the 170s and on what timescale? The franchise brochure doesn't make any reference to which units will operate the diesel Edinburgh commuter routes. 170s are far more suitable for this than 158s, dwell times at Haymarket are an issue, plus as 3 car units they would need fewer than the 2 car 158s. I would have expected them to keep some, probably the units without 1st Class until electrification reaches Dundee.

See the 'Abellio win Scotrail...' thread.

If you start with the number of DMU/EMU vehicles that they have stated they will have and then subtract the new emus and all existing units that they have said they are keeping, you hit zero with just the 314s and 170s left.
So they haven't specifically said they're getting rid of the 170s, but the sum of what they have said they're keeping and the new orders adds up to the stated new total no of vehicles.

 

[47802]

See the 'Abellio win Scotrail...' thread.

If you start with the number of DMU/EMU vehicles that they have stated they will have and then subtract the new emus and all existing units that they have said they are keeping, you hit zero with just the 314s and 170s left.
So they haven't specifically said they're getting rid of the 170s, but the sum of what they have said they're keeping and the new orders adds up to the stated new total no of vehicles.

That's already essentially been said by Jcollins does it need to be repeated?

In any case while it may be a reasonable conclusion by the armchair experts it doesn't mean to say its correct, neither is the idea that some 170's will go to Northern, might be possible but doesn't mean to say its going to happen.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

That's already essentially been said by Jcollins does it need to be repeated?

In any case while it may be a reasonable conclusion by the armchair experts it doesn't mean to say its correct, neither is the idea that some 170's will go to Northern, might be possible but doesn't mean to say its going to happen.

It apparently did, as people kept asking about it!

I wouldn't be surprised to see even the 314s finding further use, being aluminium bodied, corrosion is less of an issue. Might be a role for them in Wales along with 315s.

 

[NotATrainspott]

It apparently did, as people kept asking about it!

I wouldn't be surprised to see even the 314s finding further use, being aluminium bodied, corrosion is less of an issue. Might be a role for them in Wales along with 315s.

If the D-Stock conversion were to happen I think that throws all conventional understanding of what should happen with old stock out of the window. If they can manage to fit a London Underground passenger train with diesel engines and certify it for National Rail revenue-earning duties, I really can't see them not being able to do something similar to the PEP stock. That could then be significantly more interesting as the 25kV AC overhead pickup capacity could be retained with the 75mph top speed, meaning that diesel power would only be needed on slower sections not shared with other mainline stock and so top speed and acceleration wouldn't be as much of a priority. A single 314 is a 60m unit, equivalent to two standard Pacers and with significantly better dwell times, so that would be more-or-less the equivalent of 28 Pacers removed from passenger service. If this conversion were possible, it would also be possible for the other PEP stock to free up even more Pacers.

 

[Class83]

Yup, the plan is for Scotrail to eventually lose all its 170s. 158s are to go on the West Highland, stay on North of IS sevices, GSW routes will be 156s. HSTs on the Queen St-IS-AB-Waverley circuit.

The GSW is described as "Scenic railway service with refurbished trains on
Stranraer and Dumfries/Carlisle lines" which presumably means the same 'tourist' 158s as Far North, Kyle, West Highland and Borders.

Abellio did a presentation where they gave figures for the number of new carriages they would take on, the number of carriages they would release and what type of train would operate on which lines. In the presentation they didn't mention using 170s once and the number of carriages released (assuming the add-on order for more EMUs doesn't go ahead) adds up to the total number of 170s. That's why people have concluded the 170s will be released.

Is the presentation publicly available? The number of carriages required will be the same whether they're 158s or 170s so it's hard to read too much into this. I think the Fife Circle/Dundee services require about 60 carriages which would be 30 158s or 20 170s, will there only be a need for 18 of the 'tourist' style 158s.

So it could be all the 156s are released, and a chunk of the 158s and 170s leaving the 'tourist' 158s and 'commuter' 170s which is really what they're best suited to.

 

[SC318250]

GSW will be 156

 

[northwichcat]

Is the presentation publicly available? The number of carriages required will be the same whether they're 158s or 170s so it's hard to read too much into this. I think the Fife Circle/Dundee services require about 60 carriages which would be 30 158s or 20 170s, will there only be a need for 18 of the 'tourist' style 158s.

So it could be all the 156s are released, and a chunk of the 158s and 170s leaving the 'tourist' 158s and 'commuter' 170s which is really what they're best suited to.

No it can't they've stated what will operate on each line and 156s will still be used on some routes. Likewise 158s will be used on routes which aren't having 'tourist trains.' The only types of diesel trains they mention using long term are 156s, 158s and HSTs. If things change (such as growth is higher than expected) maybe they will try and keep some 170s but at the moment it's looking like they will all be released.

 

[Altnabreac]

I'll try and summarise what we think we know about the Scotrail rolling stock plan. Feel free to make any corrections / additions.


DMUs

Quote from RM Web poster who has presumably seen details of Abellio's DMU plan:

The Class 156 units will be the first to be overhauled and completed by December 2017
Of the current fleet of 48, 32 will be overhauled, 16 will be refreshed and then returned to RoSCo (on completion of electrification)

The Class 158 units will be overhauled, all to meet the same specification as the current Inverness based units (14F and 110S) and completed by December 2017
Of the current fleet of 48, 15 will be overhauled, 8 will be returned to RoSCo (on completion of electrification)

The Class 170 units will be returned to RoSCo on completion of electrification.

HSTs:
13x 2+5
14x 2+4.
Although there are now reports that some / all of these may be extended to 2 + 6 formations.

New electric trains:
7 x 4 car 321s
46 x 3 car Hitachi AT200 trains
24 x 4 car Hitachi AT200 trains
10 x 4 car Hitachi AT200 trains if the option to extend the franchise to 2025 is undertaken.

Existing EMUs

Assuming all retained except 314s which will be returned to leasing company (2018?)

Routes by traction type

HSTs:
Edinburgh / Glasgow - Inverness (once upgraded to hourly - 8 diagrams)
Glasgow - Aberdeen (6 diagrams)
Edinburgh - Aberdeen - Inverurie (7 diagrams)
Inverness - Aberdeen (assuming interim 2 hourly service - 3 diagrams).

Scenic Stock 158s:
Borders
Far North
Kyle
Inverness - Elgin
West Highland.

Overhauled Scenic 156s:
Stranraer - Ayr / Kilmarnock / Glasgow
Glasgow - Dumfries - Carlisle
Glasgow - Barrhead / Kilmarnock (possibly electrified early 2020s).

Unknown Stock - presumably 158s???:
Fife Circle
Perth - Edinburgh
Dundee - Edinburgh Semi Fasts
Occasional Angus / Dundee / Perth - Glasgow services
Once daily Fife - Glasgow & return.

Electrified by Dec 2018 - EGIP / Stirling:
Edinburgh - Glasgow via Falkirk High
Edinburgh / Glasgow - Dunblane / Alloa
Glasgow - Falkirk Grahamston via Cumbernauld

Electrified by Dec 2019:
Edinburgh - Glasgow via Shotts

Electrified post 2019 but before end of Franchise in 2025:
Glasgow - East Kilbride
Glasgow - Anniesland via Maryhill - unconfirmed
Glasgow - Barrhead - unconfirmed
Barrhead - Kilmarnock - unconfirmed
Fife Circle - unconfirmed and likely to be close to end of Franchise period so rolling stock plan probably assumes DMU usage.

New / Enhanced Service with EMUs:
Edinburgh - Dunbar - Berwick

Other EMU services:
Similar service pattern to current timetable. May be stock cascade to enable return of 314s.

 

[northwichcat]

Altnabreac - I think returning some of the 156s and 158s is dependent on the option for a further 10 x 4 car EMUs being taken up.

 

[Altnabreac]

Altnabreac - I think returning some of the 156s and 158s is dependent on the option for a further 10 x 4 car EMUs being taken up.

Yes I believe so. I'd assume the extra 10x4 EMU option also requires some/all of the not totally confirmed East Kilbride / Maryhill / Barrhead / Kilmarnock electrifications to go ahead in the early 2020s as well.

 

[clc]

Yes I believe so. I'd assume the extra 10x4 EMU option also requires some/all of the not totally confirmed East Kilbride / Maryhill / Barrhead / Kilmarnock electrifications to go ahead in the early 2020s as well.

Minimum 4 cars on all East Kilbride services would be quite an improvement in capacity. I was on a 2-car train recently and it was bursting at the seams, and that was off peak!

 

[me123]

I think the line to EK has the potential for good growth, and would argue that electrification, longer trains, and 4tph could all be justified in the medium-term future. Indeed, I'd be surprised if these all hadn't happened within 10 years.

I've rarely seen an EK train that's not busy. EK is a very important Scottish town, and the line also runs through important areas in the South of Glasgow. I don't think the line has had the attention it deserves to be honest, and I think the same could be said for Kilmarnock (although it can now boast 2tph!).

 

[clc]

I think the line to EK has the potential for good growth, and would argue that electrification, longer trains, and 4tph could all be justified in the medium-term future. Indeed, I'd be surprised if these all hadn't happened within 10 years.
.

Heres hoping. Presumably to run 4tph they'd need to do something about the single track section between Busby and EK.

With 8 intermediate stations and long dwell times in the 156s (especially when the guard has to fight their way through a packed carriage) what sort of journey time improvements could be expected with electrification?

 

[Altnabreac]

I think the line to EK has the potential for good growth, and would argue that electrification, longer trains, and 4tph could all be justified in the medium-term future. Indeed, I'd be surprised if these all hadn't happened within 10 years.

I've rarely seen an EK train that's not busy. EK is a very important Scottish town, and the line also runs through important areas in the South of Glasgow. I don't think the line has had the attention it deserves to be honest, and I think the same could be said for Kilmarnock (although it can now boast 2tph!).

I think EK could also justify platform extensions to allow 8 x 23m operation at electrification. The peak 6 car trains in the morning are often full and standing well before Central.

Ideally you'd want to run 4tph but that would need more capacity at Central and more (all?) of the track redoubling between Busby and EK. Possibly also remodelling the single lead Busby junction.

Hopefully a business case could be made for the junction remodelling and perhaps some more redoubling (Hairmyres - East Kilbride at least) at the same time as electrification. Otherwise putting the masts up will make any future improvements prohibitively expensive.

 

[me123]

I think EK could also justify platform extensions to allow 8 x 23m operation at electrification. The peak 6 car trains in the morning are often full and standing well before Central.

Would be worthwhile to allow for any future growth. Certainly, at the minimum, any plans made should allow for the full length of track to doubled with electrification & 8 car platforms (where possible) at some point in the future, so that whatever happens any future developments can be done with minimal additional cost.

Although, before we think about lengthening trains, how about getting people to use the carriages that are already there? My recollection when passing the EK trains on the approach into Central was that the front carriage was full and standing whilst the rear carriage had about half of the seats taken...

I'm not overly familiar with the route, but are there any particular barriers to electrification, platform lengthening and re-doubling? I've had a quick look on google earth and street view, and can't see any obvious barriers - most bridges look compatible with doubling, and all the stations look like they can take longer platforms in one direction on the other.

 

[Altnabreac]

Would be worthwhile to allow for any future growth. Certainly, at the minimum, any plans made should allow for the full length of track to doubled with electrification & 8 car platforms (where possible) at some point in the future, so that whatever happens any future developments can be done with minimal additional cost.

Although, before we think about lengthening trains, how about getting people to use the carriages that are already there? My recollection when passing the EK trains on the approach into Central was that the front carriage was full and standing whilst the rear carriage had about half of the seats taken...

I'm not overly familiar with the route, but are there any particular barriers to electrification, platform lengthening and re-doubling? I've had a quick look on google earth and street view, and can't see any obvious barriers - most bridges look compatible with doubling, and all the stations look like they can take longer platforms in one direction on the other.

I'm not that familiar with the route either but I can't see anything insurmountable. From memory Busby is a fairly constrained station site and Pollokshaws West is up above ground level so might be complicated but I wouldn't have thought any station was impossible to lengthen.

With electrification expanding, 23m coaches becoming standard and 4 coach EMUs increasingly present in Scotland we really should be aiming for all new / upgraded station schemes to be based on at least 190 - 200m platform lengths to allow 8 x 23m operation in future. SDO has a place where extensions are impossible but we should be trying to have as flexible a future network as possible.

 

[Class 170101]

Glasgow - Anniesland via Maryhill - unconfirmed

I am surprised this hasn't already announced as part of the Glasgow QS to Edinburgh scheme as I doubt it will require a separate feeder station and just the wires constructed.

 

[Altnabreac]

I am surprised this hasn't already announced as part of the Glasgow QS to Edinburgh scheme as I doubt it will require a separate feeder station and just the wires constructed.

At one point the Network Rail EGIP project website did have a map on it suggesting Maryhill was being wired by EGIP at the same time as Cumbernauld, Grahamston etc but I've never actually seen a written confirmation it was/is included in EGIP.

It certainly seems obvious as an easy route to wire.

Also there is now a NR proposal to reinstate the junction North of Anniesland thus allowing trains to run Maryhill - Anniesland - Partick - Queen St LL. This is intended to allow Edinburgh - Glasgow trains to serve Queen St LL during the slab track replacement in Cowlairs tunnel.

However once built this would improve the case for wiring Maryhill as it would allow a number of different stock movement and diversionary routes for EMUs.

 

[clc]

...

Ideally you'd want to run 4tph but that would need more capacity at Central and more (all?) of the track redoubling between Busby and EK. Possibly also remodelling the single lead Busby junction.

.

There's been talk in the past of diverting EK services to Queen St LL via the City Union line and the council are still protecting the land that would be needed for the St Johns curve. If that happened you could avoid disbenefits for passengers who only want to go to Central by splitting EK services between Central and Queen St (2tph to each) as happens currently with Milngavie services.

I think Busby junction was upgraded a couple of years ago.

 

[158722]

At one point the Network Rail EGIP project website did have a map on it suggesting Maryhill was being wired by EGIP at the same time as Cumbernauld, Grahamston etc but I've never actually seen a written confirmation it was/is included in EGIP.

It certainly seems obvious as an easy route to wire.

Also there is now a NR proposal to reinstate the junction North of Anniesland thus allowing trains to run Maryhill - Anniesland - Partick - Queen St LL. This is intended to allow Edinburgh - Glasgow trains to serve Queen St LL during the slab track replacement in Cowlairs tunnel.

However once built this would improve the case for wiring Maryhill as it would allow a number of different stock movement and diversionary routes for EMUs.

Having lived in Anniesland for a year or so, I've always wondered on the merit of running the service (if electrified) via Springburn and into QS LL that way around. I know it would extend journey times to QS and would probably require a fly-over at Eastfield/Cowlairs over the E&G, but a decent outer circle rail route could be created then, possibly linked in with the City Union line from the south side too.

 

[clc]

Having lived in Anniesland for a year or so, I've always wondered on the merit of running the service (if electrified) via Springburn and into QS LL that way around. I know it would extend journey times to QS and would probably require a fly-over at Eastfield/Cowlairs over the E&G, but a decent outer circle rail route could be created then, possibly linked in with the City Union line from the south side too.

Glasgow Labour wouldn't like that one bit.

 

[cjmillsnun]

The train has a 35-year design life and is made to complement the requirements as set out by Transport Scotland. In particular, they place a heavy emphasis on energy efficiency and weight reduction to minimise the impact on the infrastructure.

That doesn't seem a very long time for the design life.

 

[najaB]

That doesn't seem a very long time for the design life.

That's not unreasonable for design life for what's effectively a commuter train. If they go into service in 2016, that takes us out past 2050. I'm pretty sure by then that there will be something better on the market. If not, then inspect and recertify for another 15 years or so.

 

[Altnabreac]

Having lived in Anniesland for a year or so, I've always wondered on the merit of running the service (if electrified) via Springburn and into QS LL that way around. I know it would extend journey times to QS and would probably require a fly-over at Eastfield/Cowlairs over the E&G, but a decent outer circle rail route could be created then, possibly linked in with the City Union line from the south side too.

Something similar to this was on the long list of options for EGIP when the plan was to increase the E-G service to 6tph and they needed to reduce other trains into Q Street.

I seem to remember they decided a flyover would be needed at Eastfield and ultimately reversal of Cumbernauld trains at Springburn was preferred.

As CLC says it ended up being a bit of a political football once it was combined with the furore from the Rail 2014 Station closure consultation mess and in the end the revised 4tph, 8 coach EGIP solution was presented as "saving" the Maryhill line from cuts/closure so I can't see it being politically popular to bring anything like this back on the agenda.

 

[Class 170101]

At one point the Network Rail EGIP project website did have a map on it suggesting Maryhill was being wired by EGIP at the same time as Cumbernauld, Grahamston etc but I've never actually seen a written confirmation it was/is included in EGIP.

It certainly seems obvious as an easy route to wire.

Also there is now a NR proposal to reinstate the junction North of Anniesland thus allowing trains to run Maryhill - Anniesland - Partick - Queen St LL. This is intended to allow Edinburgh - Glasgow trains to serve Queen St LL during the slab track replacement in Cowlairs tunnel.

However once built this would improve the case for wiring Maryhill as it would allow a number of different stock movement and diversionary routes for EMUs.

Glasgow Queen Street High Level cannot close for track replacement and OLE construction until this chord has been built and as such it appears in NR Rules of the Route for 2016.

However I have had a look at Track Atlas and I am wondering once Anniesland Chord is rebuilt does it become possible to operate a service from Bishopsbriggs, Cowlairs West Jn, Sighthill Jn, Bellgrove Glasgow QS LL, Hyndland, Anniesland amd Cowlairs Jn and back to Bishopsbriggs both clockwise and anti-clockwise?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That doesn't seem a very long time for the design life.

Design life is theoretical. 1972 Tube Stock on the Bakerloo Line is expected to be in service post 2020 apparently. The A Stock on the Met was 45 to 50 years old before final withdrawal after London Olympics in 2012.

On the mainline
Class 313s must be nearly 40 years old and no sign od retirement yet.
Class 315s at 35 years old and likely to find a home on the Welsh Valleys post electrification
and of course the humble HST at 40 years old and likely to see service for at least another 10 years with Scotrail.

 

[clc]

Glasgow Queen Street High Level cannot close for track replacement and OLE construction until this chord has been built and as such it appears in NR Rules of the Route for 2016.
.

If E&G services are diverted to Queen St LL how will they fit them onto the Hyndland - Partick section which is at capacity?

 

[170401]

If E&G services are diverted to Queen St LL how will they fit them onto the Hyndland - Partick section which is at capacity?

The capacity issues will mostly be through the junctions where trains will cross each others paths. Running the E&Gs anti clockwise would mean very few conflicting moves and should be fairly easy to fit in.

 

[Altnabreac]

Glasgow Queen Street High Level cannot close for track replacement and OLE construction until this chord has been built and as such it appears in NR Rules of the Route for 2016.

However I have had a look at Track Atlas and I am wondering once Anniesland Chord is rebuilt does it become possible to operate a service from Bishopsbriggs, Cowlairs West Jn, Sighthill Jn, Bellgrove Glasgow QS LL, Hyndland, Anniesland amd Cowlairs Jn and back to Bishopsbriggs both clockwise and anti-clockwise?

As I understood the briefing I saw from NR the intention was to run anti clockwise only during the blockade.

As such I'm not sure whether they intend only to provide access from Maryhill to the southbound line at Anniesland, rather than a more expensive full crossover?

Not sure what if any of the lines in that area would be bi-di signalled.