ScotRail 156 replacements

[Whistler40145]

At some point ScotRail will have to replace the aging 156 fleet

Would Bi Mode units be more beneficial?

 

[Essan]

For the West Highland line they should be replaced by Class 37s hauling Mk1 coach stock

 

[Whistler40145]

For the West Highland line they should be replaced by Class 37s hauling Mk1 coach stock

37s from HNRC?

 

[Essan]

37s from HNRC?

Don't mind where they get them from - I just want to see tractors back on the line

 

[snowball]

The most recent official information we have on proposed Scottish rolling stock replacement is from the August 2022 document linked in the first post of the thread at this link:

ScotRail’s New Trains Procurement Programme

An advert for a tender for legal services for the above (https://www.publiccontractsscotland.gov.uk/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=AUG455691) gives some more detail on the fleet plan ScotRail Trains (SRT) plans to replace 65% of its train fleet (around 675 carriages) in the period 2027 to...

www.railforums.co.uk

The trains in phase 1 would have been a mixture of EMUs and BEMUs (battery electric multiple units).

Not long after that there was a rapid deterioration in the financial position which led to electrification being slowed down and nothing new being said in public about train procurement.

The work to come up with a "refresh" of the decarbonisation strategy (already delayed by well over a year) is supposedly still going on so we will presumably hear something eventually.

 

[Essan]

On a more serious note, obviously, bimodals wouldnt be much use on the WHL. Note sure what should replace the 156s there? Bearing in mind too the introduction of the additional 153s to provide more space for bikes.

 

[Blindtraveler]

Like much of scotrails fleet strategy. This has disaster in the making written all over it and should have been done several years ago. Even to the point of looking a decade back at life cycle costs of the fleet. The Highland explorer vehicles were never intended as a long-term solution and the operator has made themselves. No friends by the introduction of less comfortable seats and a heating system upgrade, which is nothing of the sort on the units, meaning that passengers on the WHL are often refrigerated nicely by the time they arrive in Glasgow or at there West Highland destinations
I suspect that the financial position is being used as a front for the fact that the tender specification asked for was highly specific and ambitious and probably no one could do it at the price they were prepared to pay
No doubt they'll find a reason to make fleet replacement or lack of it Westminster's fault

 

[snowball]

I suspect that the financial position is being used as a front for the fact that the tender specification asked for was highly specific and ambitious and probably no one could do it at the price they were prepared to pay
No doubt they'll find a reason to make fleet replacement or lack of it Westminster's fault

I hadn't heard that any tenders for trains had yet been invited, or even bidders asked to prequalify. The tender invitation that I referred to in post #5 was just for legal services.

 

[The Puddock]

No doubt they'll find a reason to make fleet replacement or lack of it Westminster's fault

I think a batch of Stadler FLIRTs would be ideal. Perhaps with a dedicated bike area at one end.

 

[Kite159]

For the West Highland line they should be replaced by Class 37s hauling Mk1 coach stock

I guess that is one way to make the journey time even longer compared to the bus service between Glasgow & Fort William/Oban owing to the speed restrictions for loco hauled stock, somehow getting spun as a "we have replaced your old 156s with trains even older!"

 

[JonathanH]

For the West Highland line they should be replaced by Class 37s hauling Mk1 coach stock

Would it work if someone just added a class 37 soundtrack so you can just imagine there is one on the front?

 

[Whistler40145]

Seriously, should the same units work the West Highland line, along with the Glasgow Central to Stranraer and Carlisle services?

 

[AlastairFraser]

Seriously, should the same units work the West Highland line, along with the Glasgow Central to Stranraer and Carlisle services?

Why not the Class 68 (or a lighter bi mode loco) and Mk5 combo?

 

[Struner]

The infrastructure on the WHL is in need of some improvement.
It can’t accommodate Class 158 (~1990)
So it may be tough to find a modern design for it (even Stadler)

 

[ld0595]

Why not the Class 68 (or a lighter bi mode loco) and Mk5 combo?

As nice as that would be, loco hauled services would be a non starter. You'd no longer be able to split units at Crianlarich and Fort William unless you have spare locos sitting round or run separate services to Oban / Fort William. Likewise, I think some passing loops have limited space which would limit the length of services due to the dead space used by the loco. It works for the limited number of loco hauled services that run (sleeper and Fort William alcan) but I believe this already limits the paths available.

Three main issue is that any order for the WHL would also need to cover the Far North, Kyle and Stranraer lines which would be overkill. I would think that a batch of 2-car panoramic units which could be coupled up to 6-car would suit them perfectly.

 

[Whistler40145]

Would the Glasgow Central to Carlisle service have different stock?

 

[Bill57p9]

HSTs?!?

The infrastructure on the WHL is in need of some improvement.
It can’t accommodate Class 158 (~1990)
So it may be tough to find a modern design for it (even Stadler)

What is the reason for 158s not being cleared for WHL & Stranraer? They would certainly be an improvement in passenger experience (air con & noise levels).

158s are cleared for the GSW but only ECS, so presumably there is a platform issue with their doors there.

Would the Glasgow Central to Carlisle service have different stock?

Currently Glasgow - Kilmarnock - Carlisle stock & crews work interchangeably with Kilmarnock - Ayr - Girvan - Stranraer.
On the one hand, keeping this commonality and operational flexibility makes a substantial degree of sense, especially as it would avoid a microfleet in the far South West. However conversely Kilmarnock must be fairly high on the list for Scottish electrification which would make bimodes the obvious GSW solution - and Kilmarnock - Ayr - Girvan too.
Girvan - Stranraer is a real outlier: steep gradients, relatively low top speed, RA5 and only one unit on the entire line, apart from a brief period each Sunday.

I do agree that panoramic units coupled with some decent marketing could be a really good move for the West Highland and Kyle lines.

 

[AlastairFraser]

As nice as that would be, loco hauled services would be a non starter. You'd no longer be able to split units at Crianlarich and Fort William unless you have spare locos sitting round or run separate services to Oban / Fort William. Likewise, I think some passing loops have limited space which would limit the length of services due to the dead space used by the loco. It works for the limited number of loco hauled services that run (sleeper and Fort William alcan) but I believe this already limits the paths available.

Three main issue is that any order for the WHL would also need to cover the Far North, Kyle and Stranraer lines which would be overkill. I would think that a batch of 2-car panoramic units which could be coupled up to 6-car would suit them perfectly.

That makes sense, it's just a shame to waste those relatively new carriages while units of this vintage are still running around the network.

 

[Blindtraveler]

I hadn't heard that any tenders for trains had yet been invited, or even bidders asked to prequalify. The tender invitation that I referred to in post #5 was just for legal services.

My understanding was that they had had or were having some initial discussions with rolling stark manufacturers. The specification that was being proposed was in many ways. Excellent, but seemed a little over ambitious at times but I could be completely wrong here and will gladly admit it if so

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jul 2024 ==

Everyone can see from your posting history that you really hate the SNP with a passion but it's very boring when you bring it into every topic.

Anyway, I think a batch of Stadler FLIRTs would be ideal. Perhaps with a dedicated bike area at one end.

Don't accurate and well-reported facts of what currently goes on in Scottish politics. Get in the way of a good personal attack now. Will you? I trust that you subject those who regularly bash other political parties or leanings to the same level of unnecessary criticism and if not either please start doing so or refrain from doing it to me
As it happens, I completely agree with you that a batch of flirts a truly excellent product would be ideal for many of the Scottish diesel or part diesel routes and as the wires eventually go up, they could have the power packs removed or replaced with a limp home last mile generator such as on the 80x

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jul 2024 ==

Would it work if someone just added a class 37 soundtrack so you can just imagine there is one on the front?

Great idea, maybe a new virtual reality app with advanced AI technology could roll this out to all routes across the network. And passengers with nothing better to do. Could sit and listen and watch their favourite train being propelled along the route. They were travelling, anyone up for a revisit to Penzance behind a valenta?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jul 2024 ==

I guess that is one way to make the journey time even longer compared to the bus service between Glasgow & Fort William/Oban owing to the speed restrictions for loco hauled stock, somehow getting spun as a "we have replaced your old 156s with trains even older!"

Even without this so-called improvement, the coach journey time is way faster than the train and levels of comfort. Way better, toilet provision and onboard catering accepted. But for those concerned about journey time. The trade-off where these are concerned is worth it

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jul 2024 ==

Seriously, should the same units work the West Highland line, along with the Glasgow Central to Stranraer and Carlisle services?

Going forward they absolutely should not. Glasgow Central to Carlisle needs units with a decent capacity. Longer distance interior. There are people who do journeys of up to 2 hours on these trains and yet at the Glasgow end and between Dumfries And Carlisle loadings are high and so you really could do with something fixed formation 4 coaches. I don't know how much of an economic basket case strandra now is especially after the hefty suspension of service caused by the Station hotel incident in air, but in all reality they could probably get away with the modern-day equivalent of a 153

 

[Kite159]

What is the reason for 158s not being cleared for WHL & Stranraer? They would certainly be an improvement in passenger experience (air con & noise levels).

158s are cleared for the GSW but only ECS, so presumably there is a platform issue with their doors there.

I believe the issue is with the doors as they swing outwards (and potentially could strike the platform edge).

In an ideal world something like a Flirt designed with large windows for the scenery on the West Highland line. Maybe one which can run under the wires (assuming the missing gap on the Maryhill line can be wired up, even with a short neutral section under the canal aqueduct), that way it removes diesel emissions from Glasgow city centre and can run on the wires towards Dumbarton, maybe even if the wires extended to Helensburgh Upper (with the changeover to diesel happening in the station).

 

[Blindtraveler]

That infill electrification wouldn't be particularly difficult or costly I don't think and the neutral section under that aqueduct would be all right. Providing drivers are competently getting ready for it, in short, it's a perfectly viable solution

 

[Trainbike46]

On a more serious note, obviously, bimodals wouldnt be much use on the WHL. Note sure what should replace the 156s there? Bearing in mind too the introduction of the additional 153s to provide more space for bikes.

bimodes, an example of which are the Greater Anglia 755s, would have the advantage of being zero-emissions in Glagow, and being prepared for full decarbonisation.

In reality, I expect that the 156s will be pushed out by a cascade so we will see 170s and 158s taking over

The infrastructure on the WHL is in need of some improvement.
It can’t accommodate Class 158 (~1990)
So it may be tough to find a modern design for it (even Stadler)

never mind re the 158s I guess

Stadler could certainly design a custom unit for the WHL, and the relatively short car lengths of the FLIRT may well mean that a FLIRT could work either as is, or with minor changes to the infrastructure or unit design. Stadler does loads of custom designs for railways with specific needs (e.g. Glasgow subway and rack railways in Switzerland), but of course a custom design does bring higher costs.

 

[Tetchytyke]

What is the reason for 158s not being cleared for WHL & Stranraer? They would certainly be an improvement in passenger experience (air con & noise levels).

158s are cleared for the GSW but only ECS, so presumably there is a platform issue with their doors there.

I think it's to do with the doors, which are plug doors and swing out. There were issues when the 158s first moved to Leeds-Blackpool North back in the 90s as the doors couldn't open at a couple of stations (Blackburn was one IIRC).

It's not so much that the 158s can't work the WHL, it's that there's been no need to take the time to fix the platform coping stones because the 158s were never intended to work up there. Same to a large extent with the Stranraer route. But when the 156s finally die, there's no reason why the work couldn't be done relatively quickly to allow 158s or 170s to be cascaded there.

 

[43096]

I believe the issue is with the doors as they swing outwards (and potentially could strike the platform edge).

That being the case, how are they passed ECS? Are drivers unable to leave the train if there’s a technical issue?

 

[ld0595]

But when the 156s finally die, there's no reason why the work couldn't be done relatively quickly to allow 158s or 170s to be cascaded there.

170s would be hopelessly unsuitable for the WHL. The large windows would be appreciated and they could generate a bit of extra revenue by selling first class, but the 1/3 and 2/3 door layout would be very uncomfortable at places like Rannoch and Corrour in the middle of winter!

The 170s are also wheezy enough trying to accelerate on the HML gradients - they'd be much slower than 156s as well and have very little opportunity to make use of the higher top speed.

 

[Southsider]

I think it's to do with the doors, which are plug doors and swing out. There were issues when the 158s first moved to Leeds-Blackpool North back in the 90s as the doors couldn't open at a couple of stations (Blackburn was one IIRC).

It's not so much that the 158s can't work the WHL, it's that there's been no need to take the time to fix the platform coping stones because the 158s were never intended to work up there. Same to a large extent with the Stranraer route. But when the 156s finally die, there's no reason why the work couldn't be done relatively quickly to allow 158s or 170s to be cascaded there.

IIRC the 158s were intended to operate on the WHL, that’s when the clearance issues came to light.

 

[Falcon1200]

I think it's to do with the doors, which are plug doors and swing out.

At one time Class 158 was barred from the Holytown Jc-Midcalder Jc via Shotts route for this very reason; We (Control) did query the reason and were told that at one or two stations, if the air suspension was deflated, the opened doors might scrape the platform. The route was later passed for the class, which worked many of the services until electrification. So clearing the West Highland for 158s might not actually be that major a task.

(158s were also barred from the Hamilton Circle, which did not prevent one going that way, when operated by Virgin......)

 

[Struner]

I think it's to do with the doors, which are plug doors and swing out. There were issues when the 158s first moved to Leeds-Blackpool North back in the 90s as the doors couldn't open at a couple of stations (Blackburn was one IIRC).

It's not so much that the 158s can't work the WHL, it's that there's been no need to take the time to fix the platform coping stones because the 158s were never intended to work up there. Same to a large extent with the Stranraer route. But when the 156s finally die, there's no reason why the work couldn't be done relatively quickly to allow 158s or 170s to be cascaded there.

indeed, it’s an infrastructure problem. on the ground, just like platform length & passing loops

 

[stevieinselby]

Why not the Class 68 (or a lighter bi mode loco) and Mk5 combo?

On the West Highland Line, the main reason would be splitting at Crianlarich with one portion to Oban and one portion to Fort William/Mallaig – not so easy to do with loco-hauled stock and fixed-formation rakes, and certainly not remotely efficient or cost-effective.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Jul 2024 ==

The infrastructure on the WHL is in need of some improvement.
It can’t accommodate Class 158 (~1990)
So it may be tough to find a modern design for it (even Stadler)

Given that the line takes loco-hauled passenger trains and freight trains, the issue is clearly not with the weight of the 158s, but physical clearance.

 

[AlastairFraser]

On the West Highland Line, the main reason would be splitting at Crianlarich with one portion to Oban and one portion to Fort William/Mallaig – not so easy to do with loco-hauled stock and fixed-formation rakes, and certainly not remotely efficient or cost-effective.

Thanks for the explanation