Scotrail 321s from LM

[swt_passenger]

The Scotrail franchise agreement here:

http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk...Redacted Franchise Agreement - CU version.pdf

(This is also being discussed in another thread with an emphasis on DMU reductions.)

It suggests in table 1 (page 21) that the 7 x 321s will be 3 car, and this is supported by the capacity figures shown in table 2 (page 23) that gives identical numbers to the existing 320s.

Is there any other information to support the units being shortened after transfer, or is this a mistake in the document?

 

[ADRboy]

They'll be 3 cars!

 

[Aictos]

If they're going to be shorten to 3 carriages, what will happen to the spare carriage?

Seems so wasteful to operate them as 3 carriage trains, far better and more economical to leave them as they are.

 

[Carlisle]

If they're going to be shorten to 3 carriages, what will happen to the spare carriage?

Seems so wasteful to operate them as 3 carriage trains, far better and more economical to leave them as they are.

It depends what routes they are planned to operate , if it's on the SPT network maybe its in order be to be compatible with existing equipment like stop boards and DOO monitors etc , if elsewhere then as you say it seems to make no obvious sense

 

[158722]

If they're going to be shorten to 3 carriages, what will happen to the spare carriage?

Seems so wasteful to operate them as 3 carriage trains, far better and more economical to leave them as they are.

How much would performance be affected by inserting them in 150s? Then find a home on a fairly flat route to displace 4-car Pacers with only a slight drop in capacity...

Agreed very wasteful if a new home not found for them, but I can't see any reasonable option for re-use in other EMUs.

 

[Blindtraveler]

5 car units, all be it only 7 of them for GA? or maybe put them in 322s?

 

[Wolfie]

They'll be 3 cars!

Given that on the Northern 319 thread, it has been explained just how problematic in terms of moving vital bits of kit that would be on a 319, I have to ask why or how it is any easier on a 321.....

 

[ADRboy]

Given that on the Northern 319 thread, it has been explained just how problematic in terms of moving vital bits of kit that would be on a 319, I have to ask why or how it is any easier on a 321.....

I'm not claiming to know how it'll be done. Just that it's going to be done.

 

[Wolfie]

I'm not claiming to know how it'll be done. Just that it's going to be done.

Well, either the ROSCO think this is a longterm deal or Scotrail will be paying a pretty price....

 

[badassunicorn]

shouldn't be too hard given there is no special equipment on the ATOS coach other then that which is on all coaches. Except the toilet and compressor. I've driven 2 coaches of a 321 on their own before, DMOC and PMS without the rest of the train, was very surreal!

 

[swt_passenger]

Given that on the Northern 319 thread, it has been explained just how problematic in terms of moving vital bits of kit that would be on a 319, I have to ask why or how it is any easier on a 321.....

Possible that the 321 is a direct development of the 320, and the fourth coach is independent of the other three. So it could be as simple as the guts of a 319 being spread randomly over all four cars, but those of the 321 being predominantly in the three cars that match a 320?

IYSWIM.

 

[Yabbadabba]

Possible that the 321 is a direct development of the 320, and the fourth coach is independent of the other three. So it could be as simple as the guts of a 319 being spread randomly over all four cars, but those of the 321 being predominantly in the three cars that match a 320?

IYSWIM.

Except weren't both batches of cl321 (1988-1990) built before the cl320 (1990).

 

[swt_passenger]

Except weren't both batches of cl321 (1988-1990) built before the cl320 (1990).

I guess it depends which order they were designed in then. If the designers were already assuming 3 and 4 car variants of the same basic idea. But then why would they have needed to use separate class numbers?

 

[Blindtraveler]

Were the 320s not a seperate order by whatever SPT was called at the time? Hense the different class?

 

[D365]

Were the 320s not a separate order by whatever SPT was called at the time? Hence the different class?

The second-generation three-car fleets ordered in Scotland were all classed differently to their more numerous English counterparts i.e. 314 vs. 313/315, 318 vs. 317, 320 vs. 321. For the Mark 3-derived builds (317-322), aside from that the 318 and 320 as built are three instead of four-car units, they are rated for a lower top speed (90mph), are fitted with different traction equipment/motors and internal configuration is to their own specification.

Certainly though, there's more difference between a 320 and 321, than a 321 and 322.

 

[SC318250]

I still wouldnt be suprised to see them appear as 4 car units, and them ending up working initially North Berwick/Glasgow/Ayr services when some of the 380 go to the Edinburgh to Queen St initial service pending arrival of the Hitatchi units
When they 1st arrive, probably be refurbished, relivery then driver training probably Motherwell or Yoker and used on services that need more than 3 cars but less than 6 car. Wont be hard or too costly to stick up 4 car signs beside the 6 car signs

 

[David Goddard]

What a waste to remove a vehicle from each set. I agree that they should remain as four car sets, and be used on North Berwick, Dunbar and Newcraighall, along with Edinburgh - Carstairs - Glasgow. Seven units should fit nicely to cover these... Simples!

 

[Andrew1395]

321 too good for secondary services. Should be kept as 4 cars. Compared to a 350 cheap as chips, another unit that will get 50 years in

 

[Brian Aylott]

321 too good for secondary services. Should be kept as 4 cars. Compared to a 350 cheap as chips, another unit that will get 50 years in

If so, Scotrail's 318s and 320s are too good also

Good to have a standard 3 car fleet for diagramming (and platforms)

All the 321s have to be fitted with Universal Toilets (as on 318s and 320s) + other changes for 2020 and so there is a need for a lot to be done to them anyway at their next C6

Brian

 

[380101]

I still wouldnt be suprised to see them appear as 4 car units, and them ending up working initially North Berwick/Glasgow/Ayr services when some of the 380 go to the Edinburgh to Queen St initial service pending arrival of the Hitatchi units

Unlikely to be used on the Ayrshire lines as most of the DOO monitors/mirrors have been removed. EGIP will not go to EMUs until the AT200s enter service and 380s wont get used as they have no first class which is specified for the E-G services. Going by the current work progress on wiring, the AT200s will sat idle for a while anyway!

 

[northwichcat]

I guess it depends which order they were designed in then. If the designers were already assuming 3 and 4 car variants of the same basic idea. But then why would they have needed to use separate class numbers?

322s were given a different class number just because a few trains were built with a different interior for Stansted Express services.

 

[Carlisle]

Unlikely to be used on the Ayrshire lines as most of the DOO monitors/mirrors have been removed. !

Yes I beleive they got reconditioned and used on the newly electrified Paisley canal and Whifflet lines as a more affordable alternative to fitting external cameras to the all the ex BR era SPT emu stock

 

[SprinterMan]

What a waste to remove a vehicle from each set. I agree that they should remain as four car sets, and be used on North Berwick, Dunbar and Newcraighall, along with Edinburgh - Carstairs - Glasgow. Seven units should fit nicely to cover these... Simples!

(60-75% joking...)

Give the trailer coaches to SWT to jam into the 455s :P They are switching over to become a "10-car railway" so they will fit right in. They have far more 455s than 456s anyway. It has happened before, a load of SWT 455s have Merseyrail 508 trailers jammed crudely in them. Or, better yet replace the ex-508 trailers with them and send the 508 trailers to Merseyrail, 2 rakes of 3, T&T with super 73s and INCE AND ELTON WILL FINALLY GET THE SERVICE IT DESERVES (gets carried away...)

Adam :P

 

[D365]

(60-75% joking...)

Give the trailer coaches to SWT to jam into the 455s :P They are switching over to become a "10-car railway" so they will fit right in. They have far more 455s than 456s anyway. It has happened before, a load of SWT 455s have Merseyrail 508 trailers jammed crudely in them. Or, better yet replace the ex-508 trailers with them and send the 508 trailers to Merseyrail, 2 rakes of 3, T&T with super 73s and INCE AND ELTON WILL FINALLY GET THE SERVICE IT DESERVES (gets carried away...)

Adam :P

Why not throw in the 442s? (23m ftw :P)

 

[SprinterMan]

Why not throw in the 442s? (23m ftw :P)

Nahh, under my plans they are all being used to provide a metro service on the Stockport - Stalybridge line :P Will need either a loco of some sort or JUST CONVERT THE WHOLE THING TO MAGLEV OPERATION.

Adam

 

[glbotu]

Nahh, under my plans they are all being used to provide a metro service on the Stockport - Stalybridge line :P Will need either a loco of some sort or JUST CONVERT THE WHOLE THING TO MAGLEV OPERATION.

Adam

What about re-tractioning Class 442 with Magnetic Levitation.................................... (coat successfully retrieved)

 

[SprinterMan]

What about re-tractioning Class 442 with Magnetic Levitation.................................... (coat successfully retrieved)

Sorry, that is what I was implying :P They have been subjected to so many re-tractioning and re-use propositions on here that we might as well just rip out the motor coach and jam Didcot's GWR railmotor in it's place and let one of them operate the Brigg line.......

Adam :P

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Given that on the Northern 319 thread, it has been explained just how problematic in terms of moving vital bits of kit that would be on a 319, I have to ask why or how it is any easier on a 321.....

Pictures might explain better than words....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/321425_C_TSO_71973.JPG

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2509/4029654046_872cc32937_z.jpg

 

[SprinterMan]

Pictures might explain better than words....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/321425_C_TSO_71973.JPG

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2509/4029654046_872cc32937_z.jpg

You make an excellent point, there is just one box of equipment on the 321 car but many many things on the equivalent 319 car. I assume the difference is due to the dual voltage gear on the 319s making it necessary to move other equipment to other carriages. To continue in an earlier vein, the extra space on the 321s makes them all the more appropriate for MAGLEV CONVERSION...

Adam

 

[hairyhandedfool]

You make an excellent point, there is just one box of equipment on the 321 car but many many things on the equivalent 319 car. I assume the difference is due to the dual voltage gear on the 319s making it necessary to move other equipment to other carriages. To continue in an earlier vein, the extra space on the 321s makes them all the more appropriate for MAGLEV CONVERSION...

Adam

There is extra equipment because of the dual voltage nature of the 319 (and it having a retention tank for the toilet). I wouldn't be at all surprised if the 321s, like the 317s, have some equipment on one of the DTS vehicles, the Main Air Reservoir for example.