Suggestions for unit allocations in the Glasgow area

[Scotrail12]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/scottish-electrification-updates-discussion.90420/

I see , ive not seen a 334 at High level for long time now.

Neither. I find it bizarre that there is not a single 334 diagrammed to go there yet all other EMU's are there frequently. I think that they should put one on an Inverclyde diagram in place of one of the 320's which can be used on North Clyde in place of the 334 diagram on Airdrie-Balloch or the 334 on Springburn-Dumbarton (there is one 334 on each of those routes).

Also think that the Argyle Line could do with a few more 334's. There are way too many 320's on that route, never thought that they were good on that line and now that they are the weak links in the EMU fleet since the departure of the 314's, I think that they should be limited to short routes such as Cathcart Circle & Paisley Canal.

 

[Carntyne]

Neither. I find it bizarre that there is not a single 334 diagrammed to go there yet all other EMU's are there frequently. I think that they should put one on an Inverclyde diagram in place of one of the 320's which can be used on North Clyde in place of the 334 diagram on Airdrie-Balloch or the 334 on Springburn-Dumbarton (there is one 334 on each of those routes).

Why though?

 

[Scotrail12]

Why though?

IMO, 320's (particularly the awful 320/4's) aren't any good for Gourock or Wemyss Bay (both take nearly an hour to get to from Central) and it would also keep the drivers up to date with 334's on Inverclyde. After all, isn't that why they have a couple of 334's doing Argyle Line duties? Things could easily change and the 334's may end up back there eventually when the 320's and 318's are put out to pasture.

 

[jopsuk]

ideally all the electric lines that can't take them at the moment would be upgraded to allow pairs of 3x23m units as a standard... with an additional order of 95 385/0...

 

[Scotrail12]

ideally all the electric lines that can't take them at the moment would be upgraded to allow pairs of 3x23m units as a standard... with an additional order of 95 385/0...

I would definitely welcome more 385's, they are really good from my experiences on them. Would they be feasible to operate on either of the Low Level lines?

 

[route101]

95 385? That is a lot

 

[Scotrail314209]

I would definitely welcome more 385's, they are really good from my experiences on them. Would they be feasible to operate on either of the Low Level lines?

This is something I’d like to see. 380s have operated down there before with relatively no issue*, so I think 385s can.

* This was during the commonwealth games when some 380s ran shuttles between Rutherglen and Garscadden.

 

[route101]

This is something I’d like to see. 380s have operated down there before with relatively no issue*, so I think 385s can.

* This was during the commonwealth games when some 380s ran shuttles between Rutherglen and Garscadden.

What is the need for them ? 100 mph units wasted.

 

[Scotrail12]

380's and 385's could be good for the North Clyde runs to Edinburgh. I can't really see a place for either of them on the Argyle Line though unless the Lanark 385's ever get diverted to the Low Level - would be wasted in terms of speed anywhere west of Central, Larkhall, Hamilton Circle & Whifflet and there just aren't enough passengers on the Cumbernauld branch to warrant those trains.

 

[Carntyne]

IMO, 320's (particularly the awful 320/4's) aren't any good for Gourock or Wemyss Bay (both take nearly an hour to get to from Central) and it would also keep the drivers up to date with 334's on Inverclyde. After all, isn't that why they have a couple of 334's doing Argyle Line duties? Things could easily change and the 334's may end up back there eventually when the 320's and 318's are put out to pasture.

Drivers don't need 'kept up to date' with every type of traction. It isn't a train set.

The 334s won't end up back there. They've got fewer seats.

380's and 385's could be good for the North Clyde runs to Edinburgh. I can't really see a place for either of them on the Argyle Line though unless the Lanark 385's ever get diverted to the Low Level - would be wasted in terms of speed anywhere west of Central, Larkhall, Hamilton Circle & Whifflet and there just aren't enough passengers on the Cumbernauld branch to warrant those trains.

Where are you finding the extra 18m on the 6x20m platforms along the North Electrics? They don't fit, and SDO doesn't seem like the best fit on an already busy route.

 

[gingertom]

Where are you finding the extra 18m on the 6x20m platforms along the North Electrics? They don't fit, and SDO doesn't seem like the best fit on an already busy route.

there *might* be gauging issues too with 23m/24m cars. I'm sure that could be overcome, but best bet would be a dedicated fleet of 6x20m sets. The usual suspects will be eager to secure the build of such a fleet.

 

[gingertom]

What is the need for them ? 100 mph units wasted.

by the same logic a 75mph unit is wasted on the Queen St- Maryhill route. And as for the Inter7city HSTs, I'll just park that here.

 

[route101]

by the same logic a 75mph unit is wasted on the Queen St- Maryhill route. And as for the Inter7city HSTs, I'll just park that here.

But dont the Annieslands operate other services?