321s into 320s replacing 318s?

[adamedwards]

ScotRail previously took some 321s, removed one car and made them into 320s. Given the mass extinction of 321s on Greater Anglia, would it not be logical to take more 321s to Scotland and eliminate the 318s, creating a more standard fleet? What counts against this?

 

[43096]

What counts against this?

Cost.

 

[Scotrail314209]

Cost.

And the fact that the 318s and 320s will likely be gone in the next 10 years. There's no point in doing all that work for a few years extra. They are good units, but they are definitely starting to show their age now.

 

[Peter0124]

I mean they're basically the same units anyway. Infact the 318s are far better, comfier, have bigger tables, and actually line up with the windows. So I'd rather they didn't do that. When both are paired together I try and go for the 318 instead.

 

[Clansman]

What counts against this?

No real benefits I'm afraid. Standardisation is only really used as an argument when talking about micro fleets or fleets which are not compatible with others on shared routes.

In this case 318s do not really satisfy this since they are interoperable with 320s and their mechanical differences are not significant enough to justify replacement for anything that isn't wholesale across both the 318/320/334s.

 

[scotraildriver]

The 320s were upgraded to run at 90mph to make them essentially the same as 318s, and work as a common pool. Replacing them with more 320s would have no advantage whatsoever. There will be a wholesale replacement of all the 318/320/334 fleets in the coming years.

 

[Southsider]

I suppose they might find their way onto Barrhead and East Kilbride if there’s no funding for new units when electrification is complete.

 

[Bikeman78]

I suppose they might find their way onto Barrhead and East Kilbride if there’s no funding for new units when electrification is complete.

With the service cuts, I think there will be plenty of slack in the existing EMU fleet to cover those routes and still have spares.

 

[Paul Jones 88]

What about removing a driving trailer from two refurbished 321s and joining them up to make a six car 321 with two motor cars and gangwayed through the entire train?

 

[skyhigh]

What about removing a driving trailer from two refurbished 321s and joining them up to make a six car 321 with two motor cars and gangwayed through the entire train?

...why?

 

[Clansman]

What about removing a driving trailer from two refurbished 321s and joining them up to make a six car 321 with two motor cars and gangwayed through the entire train?

Then you lose the flexibility of half the fleet since not all services are 6 coaches and therefore you'd require more conversions to keep up. So services that need only 3 coaches cost more to operate with a full 6 and cancellations being more prevalent without the ability to short form.

Overall it's a cost not worth the hassle, nor one that's needed. In fact you'd be paying more for less under the current environment. Not sure why you'd want to do that in the first place .

In fact First ScotRail got rid of the 318s cab gangways because they didn't need them and they were more of a hindrance to driver visibility than they were a bonus for passengers or staff being able to walk through all 6 coaches. That tells you all you need to know.

 

[43096]

In fact First ScotRail got rid of the 318s cab gangways because they didn't need them and they were more of a hindrance to driver visibility than they were a bonus for passengers or staff being able to walk through all 6 coaches. That tells you all you need to know.

And particularly so when operating in a pair with a 320!

 

[D365]

What about removing a driving trailer from two refurbished 321s and joining them up to make a six car 321 with two motor cars and gangwayed through the entire train?

At a very significant cost for the re-engineering.