Scottish Electrification: Stock

[Huntergreed]

With the recent announcement that the majority of the Scottish rail network is to be electrified within the next 15 years, what can we expect with regards to rolling stock?

Are we likely to see new rolling stock ordered (80x’s, Civity’s)? New orders for the same types of stock (318, 320, 334, 380, 385)? Or are we likely to see some stock transferred from other franchises?

With 158’s and 170’s well within their capability of working for a while longer yet, where are these likely to be transferred to as Scotrail need less diesel traction to work their services? Or are they simply likely to be scrapped?

 

[Starmill]

There's a run-on option for class 385s, although I don't know if it has expired or is expiring soon. There are also unused 32x units hanging around and will soon be a very large number off lease which would be suitable for conversion to class 320. There are also 379s and Renatus 321s which will be off lease before too long. It seems unlikely that there would be an enormous appetite for the reintroduction of much older EMUs such as the Networkers ScotRail recently withdrew.

The HST replacement is likely to be coming at a much later stage than these considerations, this would probably have to go to open tender for new build?

I imagine that a battery 385 will be quite possible to trial? A Hydrogen unit might be a bit more of a stretch but again various trials are ongoing in England.

As for the diesel units, it's fairly certain that by 2035 they will be fit for nothing but scrap, the sprinter units will probably need to be retired before that.

 

[route101]

Will be interesting to see.

Something will oust the 318s and 320s. Maybe a new order for EK and Barrhead services. I think 385s would be wasted on them lines. Maybe something like a 701.

 

[Starmill]

It is worth acknowledgement of the hints and rumours about class 318 replacement as above, although it's hard to see those being replaced with anything but bew build, and so far they're only rumours.

 

[Energy]

I can see the class 600s (hydrogen class 321s) coming to Scotrail as they are similar to the 320s already at Scotrail

 

[Clansman]

I can see the class 600s (hydrogen class 321s) coming to Scotrail as they are similar to the 320s already at Scotrail

Is your reasoning purely based on the bodyshells of 321s and 320s being near identical?

 

[Mitchell Hurd]

I can't see Scotrail opting for commuter-style trains to replace the HST's - one reason they wanted HST's for the longer distance services was because of the end-doors.

I'd have thought a 100mph version of the Hitachi AT300 would be possible - or build the same 125mph type but restrict it to 100mph.

 

[hexagon789]

I can't see Scotrail opting for commuter-style trains to replace the HST's - one reason they wanted HST's for the longer distance services was because of the end-doors.

I'd have thought a 100mph version of the Hitachi AT300 would be possible - or build the same 125mph type but restrict it to 100mph.

For suburban services I'd expect something akin to a 70x but likely fully gangwayed, a 100mph top speed and at least an accessible toilet.

For longer-distance workings I'd expect something like that you describe, probably with a 125mph top-speed as it future proofs them to a degree and there are aspirations to increase speeds on internal InterCity services.

 

[hexagon789]

I can see the class 600s (hydrogen class 321s) coming to Scotrail as they are similar to the 320s already at Scotrail

If they are getting rid of the 318s and 320s, likely they'd do both at the same time, I don't see them wanting 600s somehow. Besides aren't the 600s 4-car?

 

[Energy]

Is your reasoning purely based on the bodyshells of 321s and 320s being near identical?

Yeah. They have already converted some 321s to 320s.

 

[SeanG]

I can't see past them getting some 385s to replace the 318s/320s, and even the 334s while they are at it.
A common fleet is more efficient, just ask Ryanair.

 

[gingertom]

For the WHL Kyle and Far North lines I'd be looking at TfW's tri-mode Flirt: 4-car set and a power module with one diesel (which hopefully never gets used) and 3 battery rafts.

 

[Huntergreed]

For the WHL Kyle and Far North lines I'd be looking at TfW's tri-mode Flirt: 4-car set and a power module with one diesel (which hopefully never gets used) and 3 battery rafts.

I hope, whatever stock is chosen for the WHL, the idea of the 'world's most scenic railway' is kept, and that window size is absolutely maximised. It would be a shame to have smaller windows on a train that traverses the most scenic line in the whole country.

 

[SeanG]

Could we not just have 37s and mk2s on the WHL?

Joking aside I would agree that much should be made of the scenic aspect and appealing to tourists. Bespoke units or at least interiors would be great, with more tables than usual, lining up with large windows. Pictorial route maps could be printed onto the tables.
Plenty of bike/ski storage and suitcase storage would be required and I would specify catering to be a bit more than a trolley, though I don't think that full meals would be provided.

 

[Clansman]

Yeah. They have already converted some 321s to 320s.

What bearing does this have on any reason for ScotRail to take on 600s? They may have the same bodyshell, which is over 30 years old (by the time they are developed), but the mechanics will be different. As will the routes they operate on vs 320s. Unless I'm missing something, there is absolutely no case for them in Scotland. Hydrogen units may well have a concrete case - but a hydrogen converted BREL unit for the sake of bodyshell uniformaty with another fleet of MUs. Absolute no go.

 

[43096]

What bearing does this have on any reason for ScotRail to take on 600s? They may have the same bodyshell, which is over 30 years old (by the time they are developed), but the mechanics will be different. As will the routes they operate on vs 320s. Unless I'm missing something, there is absolutely no case for them in Scotland. Hydrogen units may well have a concrete case - but a hydrogen converted BREL unit for the sake of bodyshell uniformaty with another fleet of MUs. Absolute no go.

In any case, by the time ScotRail would be getting 600s they'd be looked at binning the 318s and 320s.

 

[Huntergreed]

How long, reasonably, do the 318's and 320's have still in service?

 

[Journeyman]

How long, reasonably, do the 318's and 320's have still in service?

Quite a few years, I would have thought. They're decent, robust trains, and I don't think reliability is an issue.

I'd replace the HSTs straight away if it was down to me, as they're gas-guzzling disasters that should never have been seriously contemplated.

 

[Scotrail12]

I see 318's and 320's sticking around for a while yet (probably gone by 2030) but I'm guessing/hoping that they'll order some new stock in the next 5 years or so to cover the EK/Barrhead electrifications and then the 320/4's can go in the bin - I loathe them.

334's should have at least another 20 years if 314's made it as far as 2019.

 

[Journeyman]

I see 318's and 320's sticking around for a while yet (probably gone by 2030) but I'm guessing/hoping that they'll order some new stock in the next 5 years or so to cover the EK/Barrhead electrifications and then the 320/4's can go in the bin - I loathe them.

334's should have at least another 20 years if 314's made it as far as 2019.

I think the only particular issue ScotRail has with its electric fleet is the variety of different types, that can't work in multiple with each other. That might be the only thing that leads to 334s getting replaced early, as an opportunity to get hold of something more reliable and more standard might present itself.

 

[Scotrail12]

I think the only particular issue ScotRail has with its electric fleet is the variety of different types, that can't work in multiple with each other. That might be the only thing that leads to 334s getting replaced early, as an opportunity to get hold of something more reliable and more standard might present itself.

That is true but 334's rarely operate outside of the Airdrie-Bathgate route (I'd love if they did some routes from Central HL for a change though) so wouldn't have to work with any other sort of unit anyway.

 

[Clansman]

If the replacements for the 318/320s involve longer units and platform extensions, then there's little reason for the 334s to remain. They never were the best specced units for space maximisation, were notoriously unreliable, incompatible with existing fleets rotating on the same services, and at times can't cope with peak loads - particularly between Edinburgh and Bathgate.

At the end of the day, it is not in any TOC's interest to keep any fleet solely based on its age - particularly if improvements are needed on core routes, or would be inhibited or inefficient without replacing said fleet.

I think there's a perception or a false rule of thumb among the forum that, for various reasons, because there's still BR era rolling stock kicking about, that it automatically sets a precedent for any younger fleet to survive beyond them by default.

The 334s very much fall victim to that assumption. Very much like the 332s and 365s, and I suspect this will be the case with the 458s and 360s.

 

[Neptune]

Is there a case to order a fleet of 6 car 20m vehicle EMU‘s to replace the 318/320 fleet and potentially 334’s. This would mitigate against short forms. Not sure if the low level platforms at some stations would accommodate 6 cars of 23m vehicles.

 

[Energy]

Is there a case to order a fleet of 6 car 20m vehicle EMU‘s to replace the 318/320 fleet and potentially 334’s. This would mitigate against short forms. Not sure if the low level platforms at some stations would accommodate 6 cars of 23m vehicles.

5 X 23m is about equal to 6 X 20m so a 5 car 385 might be preferable.

 

[Journeyman]

At the end of the day, it is not in any TOC's interest to keep any fleet solely based on its age - particularly if improvements are needed on core routes, or would be inhibited or inefficient without replacing said fleet.

I think there's a perception or a false rule of thumb among the forum that, for various reasons, because there's still BR era rolling stock kicking about, that it automatically sets a precedent for any younger fleet to survive beyond them by default.

The 334s very much fall victim to that assumption. Very much like the 332s and 365s, and I suspect this will be the case with the 458s and 360s.

I know what you mean. Just because *some* fleets successfully make it to 40/50 years old, doesn't mean they *all* will. Plenty of fleets have only lasted around 20/25 years, and there's nothing unusual about that. Although bulletproof things like the Southern's SUBs and EPBs lasted a long time, many vehicles were withdrawn after fairly short careers, and keeping the remainder literally forever prevented a lot of much needed improvements being made.

The 334s are essentially non-standard, as only the 458s are similar, and they'll be gone soon as well.

 

[Clansman]

The 334s are essentially non-standard, as only the 458s are similar, and they'll be gone soon as well.

This is basically the issue in a nutshell that has and will cause even more 20 year old fleets to be retired.

I struggle to see how some fail to realise that by having non standard units and sub-fleets, eventually they get crowded out by the desire for greater standardisation once the so called standard/compatible fleets need replacing. The 707s and 458s very much come to mind. It's in nobodies interest in any TOC to keep units based on their age.

5 X 23m is about equal to 6 X 20m so a 5 car 385 might be preferable.

The 385s aren't suitable replacements for the 318/320/334s.

 

[Journeyman]

This is basically the issue in a nutshell that has and will cause even more 20 year old fleets to be retired.

I struggle to see how some fail to realise that by having non standard units and sub-fleets, eventually they get crowded out by the desire for greater standardisation once the so called standard/compatible fleets need replacing. The 707s and 458s very much come to mind. It's in nobodies interest in any TOC to keep units based on their age.

Absolutely. It seems pretty obvious to me that ScotRail would be best off replacing all the 318s/320s/334s at the same time, with a single basic design. If that design has some commonality with the 380s or 385s, even better.

It seems crazy that people are desperate to find uses for expensive, unreliable micro-fleets just because they're not completely knackered!

 

[route101]

600s , thats a new class for me. Not a fan of the 32o seating though , seats feel low down.

 

[Neptune]

600s , thats a new class for me. Not a fan of the 32o seating though , seats feel low down.

Class 600 is the designation for the Hydrogen class 321 project.

Now it’s been classified people will suggest it for everything including replacing all electric fleets (including similar units that they are being converted from) it would now seem.

 

[HST43257]

Personally I’d say that once Scottish electrification has finished, they need these things:

An overhead electric commuter fleet of 3 and 4 car trains you can walk between - just get a hell of a lot more 385s. These would be on any commuter train as the name suggests. 100mph max speed is sufficient I think.

An overhead electric Intercity fleet of 5 and perhaps 7 car trains that don’t need to be walked through - 80Xs look fine for this and they don’t even need to be bi-mode. These would be on Inter7City services. Being 140mph capable to enable future line improvements would be good, though it may not be used for a fair bit of time.

A tri-mode that can run on overhead electric power, hydrogen or battery. It would be 3 cars and you‘d be able to walk through between sets. These would be used on Stranraer to Girvan (and beyond) services as well as Glasgow to Oban/Mallaig and Inverness to the Kyle and Far North Lines. These can also be limited to 100mph I think.