ScotRail Suburban Fleet (EMU and BEMU) Market Engagement

[Struner]

Indeed, now that its public, I can say that this, along with other documents that will remain internal, have been around for a while.
[…]
The BEMUs will be able to fully decarbonise the Central Belt suburban services; 170s will be off to Aberdeen and the GSW, the 158s to the West Highland and Inverness.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Nov 2025 ==

Also, note for the mods; it might be worth butchering half of this threat to create a "ScotRail new fleet updates thread" that can be non-speculative.

will the WHL infrastructure be upgraded to accommodate 158s?

 

[stevieinselby]

will the WHL infrastructure be upgraded to accommodate 158s?

The report indicates that they are looking to cascade the 158s and 170s to replace the 156s on rural lines like the West Highland and South Western Lines – my guess is that it would be sensible to do any work needed to clear the WHL for 170s rather than 158s (if there's any difference as to the work needed), and that then gives them a further 10 years or so of use ... whereas doing work just for the 158s, when they are less than 5 years younger than the 156s they will be replacing, seems like it would be a poor use of time and money.

 

[Highlander1]

The report indicates that they are looking to cascade the 158s and 170s to replace the 156s on rural lines like the West Highland and South Western Lines – my guess is that it would be sensible to do any work needed to clear the WHL for 170s rather than 158s (if there's any difference as to the work needed), and that then gives them a further 10 years or so of use ... whereas doing work just for the 158s, when they are less than 5 years younger than the 156s they will be replacing, seems like it would be a poor use of time and money.

As I understand it it's door clearance that's the issue with both 158s and 170s.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

As I understand it it's door clearance that's the issue with both 158s and 170s.

So in an ideal world the WHL needs end carriage single door Stock? Makes sense when you look at what’s cleared for it.

I haven’t read the report, but I’m guessing the long term plan is eventually to use 170’s where possible. Though the lack of gangways could be a problem in the busy summers. Though this is probably all best in another thread as it’s reactionary to the tender.

 

[Struner]

didn’t find any serious discussion about changing/adapting/reconfiguring the infrastructure (my fault perhaps )
but apart from the 156/153 sets, are any others cleared for WHL? HST perhaps?

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

didn’t find any serious discussion about changing/adapting/reconfiguring the infrastructure (my fault perhaps )
but apart from the 156/153 sets, are any others cleared for WHL? HST perhaps?

HST’s are/can be cleared as both the Midland Pullman and New Measurement Trains go up it. Sure there’s others too.

 

[Highlander1]

HST’s are/can be cleared as both the Midland Pullman and New Measurement Trains go up it. Sure there’s others too.

HST are cleared for the line but as HST are about to be retired from Scotrail services and given their reliability, I can pretty much guarantee we won't see them being used on the WHL.
WHL is currently cleared for DMU 150/153/156 only plus a small number of locos (66,73,37) with Mark 1/2/3/5 coaches. There are other locos that are cleared for part of the line or for non passenger service only.
There's a number of diagrams require multiple units to split/attach.

 

[Struner]

HST’s are/can be cleared as both the Midland Pullman and New Measurement Trains go up it. Sure there’s others too.

thanks!
@Highlander1: so the reliability of the HSTs still is a problem then?
Platform length would be a problem I suppose, but diagrams could be rearranged?

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

HST are cleared for the line but as HST are about to be retired from Scotrail services and given their reliability, I can pretty much guarantee we won't see them being used on the WHL.
WHL is currently cleared for DMU 150/153/156 only plus a small number of locos (66,73,37) with Mark 1/2/3/5 coaches. There are other locos that are cleared for part of the line or for non passenger service only.
There's a number of diagrams require multiple units to split/attach.

I wasn’t thinking it would actually happen, but rather in answer to the OP’s question about whether or not they were cleared. I think there’s more chance of any of us winning the lottery.

There’s not a lot of end single door units around, so you’d think it’d have to be new stock for WHL if the platform issues cannot be fixed.

 

[JCO1406]

I am very unfamiliar with the WHL. Could someone explain what exactly is the issue with the platforms?

 

[Highlander1]

So in an ideal world the WHL needs end carriage single door Stock? Makes sense when you look at what’s cleared for it.

I haven’t read the report, but I’m guessing the long term plan is eventually to use 170’s where possible. Though the lack of gangways could be a problem in the busy summers. Though this is probably all best in another thread as it’s reactionary to the tender.

thanks!
@Highlander1: so the reliability of the HSTs still is a problem then?
Platform length would be a problem I suppose, but diagrams could be rearranged?

It's certainly improved over the summer but still nowhere near the reliability of the 156s. Given how remote the line, it would take a long time to rescue a failed HST, blocking a single line and effectively closing down the entire WHL depending on location.

 

[Snow1964]

I am very unfamiliar with the WHL. Could someone explain what exactly is the issue with the platforms?

History. Much as they were decades ago.

By modern standards, not compliant for stepping distances, and steps poorly lit. Some are too low, too wide a gap, platform edge nor easy to see when dark.

Although not relevant to types of train calling, lots of other modern features don't exist at some of the stations : tactile paving, accessible platforms, clear audio and visual information etc.

 

[stevieinselby]

History. Much as they were decades ago.

By modern standards, not compliant for stepping distances, and steps poorly lit. Some are too low, too wide a gap, platform edge nor easy to see when dark.

It isn't clear why those issues would be any different for 156s compared to 158s and 170s.
If it's about grandfather rights for trains already using the line that wouldn't apply to stock that hasn't previously used it then that feels like a derogation could be appropriate in this situation.

 

[waverley47]

The specific issue with the 158s is that the combination of platform clearance and curvature means that the outward opening single leaf doors wouldn't clear the platform at some stations.

 

[Highlander1]

It isn't clear why those issues would be any different for 156s compared to 158s and 170s.
If it's about grandfather rights for trains already using the line that wouldn't apply to stock that hasn't previously used it then that feels like a derogation could be appropriate in this situation.

It's not about grandfather rights, the main issue is saloon door clearance.

 

[Falcon1200]

The specific issue with the 158s is that the combination of platform clearance and curvature means that the outward opening single leaf doors wouldn't clear the platform at some stations.

Which was why Class 158 was for some years barred from the Shotts route! On investigation it transpired to be a problem at just a couple of stations, and then only when the air suspension was deflated. Clearly the problem was solved as Class 158 ended up working the route before electrification.

(Class 158 was also barred from the Hamilton Circle, although I am not sure whether for the same reason. Which does not mean that they never actually went that way....)

 

[Peter0124]

(Class 158 was also barred from the Hamilton Circle, although I am not sure whether for the same reason. Which does not mean that they never actually went that way....)

I've definitely seen a 158 at Hamilton when there was engineering work, though I believe it was ECS

 

[HighlandStorm]

thanks!
@Highlander1: so the reliability of the HSTs still is a problem then?
Platform length would be a problem I suppose, but diagrams could be rearranged?

If rapid maths not wrong a 2+4 HST is about 9m longer than 156+156+153. While a 2+5 HST is shorter than 156+156+156+153 for which platform alterations / extension have taken place on the WHL.

There is an objective to end portion working and up the service frequency south of Crianlarich and eventually move to a train per 2 hrs to each of Oban and Ft Wm with hourly service from and south of Crianlarich.

 

[stevieinselby]

There is an objective to end portion working and up the service frequency south of Crianlarich and eventually move to a train per 2 hrs to each of Oban and Ft Wm with hourly service from and south of Crianlarich.

Sounds like an admirable aim, but given the long single sections of varying lengths, I don't how robust or reliable an hourly service could be including space for freight paths, unless there is additional doubling added.
And I'm not sure what the business case for that would be.
Helensburgh is well enough served by Central and a priority should be increasing that to a 15-minute frequency.
Garelochhead is a small town that might just about merit an hourly service, it could be a useful railhead for the Coulport peninsula but has very poor road access to the station.
Arrochar & Tarbet has a minimal local catchment, could be a useful railhead but would need much more parking if it was going to serve that function.
Ardlui has minimal local or wider catchment.
Even taking into account tourism, it doesn't feel like there's enough demand to justify an hourly service over this line, unless it is determined that the extra staffing (and potentially infrastructure) costs for running all trains through separately are outweighed by potential improvements to reliability by ending portion working.

 

[och aye]

Does anyone know if Level Boarding for the new fleets will be a requirement or not?

 

[Davester50]

Does anyone know if Level Boarding for the new fleets will be a requirement or not?

I'd like to see that in the south end platforms in Dundee!

 

[Trainbike46]

I'd like to see that in the south end platforms in Dundee!

As I'm sure you know, when people say "level-boarding" in reference to a train, they mean a train that offers level boarding at a platform that meets the standards applying to that line, so 915mm for Scotrail. If the platforms at Dundee are not at the standard 915mm above railhead, then the boarding would not be level. However, one would hope the platforms get brought up to standard at some point over the next 40 years!

Does anyone know if Level Boarding for the new fleets will be a requirement or not?

I thought it was, but have not looked at the most recent documents. Someone more involved will be able to confirm

 

[Snow1964]

Does anyone know if Level Boarding for the new fleets will be a requirement or not?

It is a requirement in tender spec for new build trains (but not any secondhand trains that might be interim fleet).

However having a train designed for level boarding, doesn't mean platforms will all be made fully compliant (at 915mm) in initial years of operation though

 

[Snow1964]

Scotrail has announced busiest day with 345,216 journeys last Friday.
Makes me wonder how much spare capacity they actually have before current fleet cannot cope.

But still no sign of an order being placed.

The record-setting day saw 345,216 journeys across Scotland, breaking previously highs set during major events like the Edinburgh Festivals and Taylor Swift and Oasis concerts at Murrayfield.

The figure represents the most journeys in one day since ScotRail was brought into public ownership in April 2022.
The boom comes several months after peak fares were permanently scrapped by the Scottish Government.

ScotRail sets record for most journeys in a single day

The record setting day broke previously highs set during major events like the Edinburgh Festivals and Taylor Swift and Oasis concerts at Murrayfield.

www.heraldscotland.com

 

[3RDGEN]

Scotrail has announced busiest day with 345,216 journeys last Friday.
Makes me wonder how much spare capacity they actually have before current fleet cannot cope.

But still no sign of an order being placed.

ScotRail sets record for most journeys in a single day

The record setting day broke previously highs set during major events like the Edinburgh Festivals and Taylor Swift and Oasis concerts at Murrayfield.

www.heraldscotland.com

That's only since it was "brought into public ownership in April 2022." ScotRail is still over 10% down on Pre Covid levels on the last quarterly figures.

The tender doc quotes "The proposed procurement is planned for 2025-2027, with initial deliveries expected by late 2031," so there will be no Order signed off for a couple of years yet, sure I read April 2028 somewhere. They still need to sort out the HST replacements first.

 

[Snow1964]

Not directly the proposed replacement stock, but Scotrail has announced lease extensions of the current DMU fleets, which possibly hints at latest expected timescales of the proposed new fleets

class 170 extended 10 years from 31 March 2030, plus 2 year optional (so appears these are staying until early 2040s)


Class 158 (80 vehicles) extended 3 years from 31 March 2030, plus 2 years optional

2 buyers​

• Scotrail Trains Glasgow

1 supplier​

• Porterbrook London

Description​

This notice concerns a modification to an existing lease (the Lease) procured whilst ScotRail was under the Abellio franchise ownership, between ScotRail Trains Limited (SRT) and Porterbrook Leasing Company Limited (Porterbrook) for 80 Class 158 vehicles (the Fleet). The Lease is currently scheduled to expire on 31 March 2030 and a 3-year extension has been agreed to the Lease for the same scope of supplies, with an additional option to extend for up to a further 2 years. The value of that extension (inclusive of options) is GBP 73,300,000 excluding VAT. This extension is necessary to ensure SRT is able to discharge its obligations and continue to deliver vital services while the suburban and rural new fleet procurements are commenced and is therefore an interim solution until the new fleet can be procured, built and commissioned for passenger service. An interior refurbishment will be undertaken to the Fleet to ensure it can continue to operate for passenger service for the duration of the extension.

Total Quantity or Scope​

The Lease is being modified in accordance with regulation 86(1)(b) of the Utilities Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2016 as additional supplies not included within the original procurement have become necessary, and a change of contractor cannot be made for economic or technical reasons and would cause significant inconvenience or substantial duplication of cost for SRT, because:
1. The modification has become necessary: there is a need to secure the ongoing operation of the Lease, which includes lifeline services in rural and east suburban areas, while SRT carries out a full procurement for an enduring rolling stock solution using emerging technologies (including batteries and network electrification). Diesel trains are the only feasible option for this interim period.
2. A change of contractor cannot be made for economic or technical reasons: this is because:
a. the Fleet has specific characteristics and technical features that are designed to interoperate with the rail infrastructure and SRT’s other fleets and are required for operation on the Far North and East Suburban Lines. For example:
i. the Fleet is the only available DMU passenger stock which is fully accepted for operation on these lines and is able to make use of differential speed limits to meet journey time requirements;
ii. the Fleet has been fitted with Variable Rate Sanding Equipment, funded by the Scottish Targeted Performance Fund, to offer improved braking performance in low adhesion environments and support SRT’s safety case;
iii. the Fleet is fitted with essential radio electronic token block and request stop systems for the Far North Lines;
iv. the Fleet is able to maintain technical compatibility with the network (including the CL170 fleet with which it is required to operate interchangeably) and depots, ensuring SRT satisfies the operational requirements stipulated in its Grant Agreement with Scottish Ministers; v. any alternative Fleet would require an extensive programme of train crew and engineering staff training, which would create significant additional (and disproportionate) training workload at a time when SRT is already engaged in an intensive programme of recruitment for future fleet cascades and new trains;
vi. a Section 54 agreement is being finalised in relation to the Fleet, and SRT expects that agreement to be in place for the full duration of the lease and options.
b. SRT’s analysis has confirmed that there are no alternative available fleets (other than the CL170 s that SRT already operates) that contain the necessary technical features and could meet these requirements.
3. In the event that an alternative existing fleet with suitable performance and technical characteristics was available (which in SRT’s view is not the case), and that fleet could be adapted to accommodate the necessary technical features, this would result in substantial duplication of cost, significant inconvenience and extra time out of service, which would be disproportionate in the context of an interim solution

https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2026/W03/862716390

class 156 (76 vehicles) lease was due to expire 31 March 2027, with optional to 31 Dec 2027, has been given 5 year extension, plus optional extra year

2 buyers​

• Scotrail Trains Glasgow

1 supplier​

• Angel Trains London

Description​

This notice concerns a modification to an existing lease (the Lease) procured whilst ScotRail was under the Abellio franchise ownership, between ScotRail Trains Limited (SRT) and Angel Trains Limited (Angel) for 76 Class 156 vehicles (the Fleet). The Lease is currently scheduled to expire on 31 March 2027 with the option to extend until 31 December 2027. A 5-year extension has been agreed to the Lease for the same scope of supplies, with an additional option to extend for up to a further 1 year. The value of that extension (inclusive of options) is GBP 77,000,000 excluding VAT. This extension is necessary to ensure SRT is able to discharge its obligations and continue to deliver vital services while the rural new fleet procurement is progressed and is therefore an interim solution until the new fleet can be procured, built and commissioned for passenger service. There is a Continued Service Operation (CSO) workstream in progress to restore the condition of the fleet due to their age which will ensure it can continue to operate for passenger service for the duration of the extension.

Total Quantity or Scope​

The Lease is being modified in accordance with regulation 86(1)(b) of the Utilities Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2016 as additional supplies not included within the original procurement have become necessary, and a change of contractor cannot be made for economic or technical reasons and would cause significant inconvenience or substantial duplication of cost for SRT, because:
1. The modification has become necessary: there is a need to secure the ongoing operation of the Lease, which includes lifeline services in rural areas, while SRT carries out a full procurement for an enduring rolling stock solution using emerging technologies (including batteries and network electrification). Diesel trains are the only feasible option for this interim period.
2. A change of contractor cannot be made for economic or technical reasons: this is because: a. the Fleet has specific characteristics and technical features that are designed to interoperate with the rail infrastructure and SRT’s other fleets and are required for operation on the West Highland and Stranraer Lines, as well as Glasgow suburban routes. For example:
i. the Fleet is the only available DMU passenger stock which is fully accepted for operation on the West Highland and Stranraer lines and is able to make use of differential speed limits in order to meet the journey times of the timetable;
ii. any alternative Fleet would require an extensive programme of train crew and engineering staff training, which would create significant additional (and disproportionate) training workload at a time when SRT is already engaged in an intensive programme of recruitment for future fleet cascades and new trains;
iii. a Section 54 agreement is being finalised in relation to the Fleet, and SRT expects that agreement to be in place for the full duration of the lease and options.
b. SRT’s analysis has confirmed that there are no alternative available fleets that contain the necessary technical features and could meet these requirements.
3. In the event that an alternative existing fleet with suitable performance and technical characteristics was available (which in SRT’s view is not the case), and that fleet could be adapted to accommodate the necessary technical features, this would result in substantial duplication of cost, significant inconvenience and extra time out of service, which would be disproportionate in the context of an interim solution

https://bidstats.uk/tenders/2026/W03/862716392

 

[Transilien]

class 156 (76 vehicles) lease was due to expire 31 March 2027, with optional to 31 Dec 2027, has been given 5 year extension, plus optional extra year

I didn't know that the 156s were the only trains approved for the Stranrear route.

 

[Bill57p9]

I didn't know that the 156s were the only trains approved for the Stranrear route.

IIRC 156s are the only available DMUs (I.e. 156, 158, 170) cleared for Glasgow & South Western territory: not just Ayr to Stranraer but also Kilmarnock (if not Muirhouse South Junction) to Gretna, with the exception of ECS 158s Barrassie - Kilmarnock - Gretna.
Dalrymple Junction to Stranraer (alongside the Oban branch, Corpach-Mallaig and the Kyle line) is RA5, so quite sensitive to axle load too.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jan 2026 ==

As I have posted before, ScotRail 156s appear rather tired as they approach 40. Another 7 years as a minimum sounds a bit of a stretch, especially on a 5 hour journey.

 

[ic31420]

IIRC 156s are the only available DMUs (I.e. 156, 158, 170) cleared for Glasgow & South Western territory: not just Ayr to Stranraer but also Kilmarnock (if not Muirhouse South Junction) to Gretna, with the exception of ECS 158s Barrassie - Kilmarnock - Gretna.
Dalrymple Junction to Stranraer (alongside the Oban branch, Corpach-Mallaig and the Kyle line) is RA5, so quite sensitive to axle load too.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jan 2026 ==

As I have posted before, ScotRail 156s appear rather tired as they approach 40. Another 7 years as a minimum sounds a bit of a stretch, especially on a 5 hour journey.

Perhaps now there is some certainty they'll get some refresh love?

I have to say the 156s now at approaching 40 look and feel less dated than the 101s did at 40 in the late 90s.

Its a shame the 158s and 156s didn't get a more modern power train in the mid 00s

 

[Ben Conlin]

I notice the deadline for submitting a bid (I think) was yesterday January 19th. Hopefully there won’t be any delays and a the contract will be awarded by the summer. With any luck they’ll get theirs in before the operators down south.