ScotRail Suburban Fleet (EMU and BEMU) Market Engagement

[RiverDon]

Whether they go for 3, 5 or 6 car trains they will need to extend platform 18 at Edinburgh. Well technically not if they buy 3 cars but it would be very inflexible because they wouldn't be able to use it with a double set.

 

[och aye]

That seems to me to be a bit of a political smokescreen from ScotRail in that it is:

a) A blinding statement of the obvious - if the platforms are the same height, of course the boarding will be level.

b) Doesn't commit anyone to changing platform heights or anything at any other stations.

In fairness, wouldn't the stations be the responsibility of Network Rail rather than ScotRail? I know that there is the "Scotland's Railway" alliance with both of them, but ultimately it is essentially Network Rail that make the decisions regarding major station infrastructure upgrades.

Given stations can be upgraded pretty much any time and fleet replacements only happen once circa every 25-30 years or so, it's good at least ScotRail are going to order trains with capability and use it at the stations that will allow them to use the feature than not have the capability at all.

 

[JamesT]

In fairness, wouldn't the stations be the responsibility of Network Rail rather than ScotRail? I know that there is the "Scotland's Railway" alliance with both of them, but ultimately it is essentially Network Rail that make the decisions regarding major station infrastructure upgrades.

Given stations can be upgraded pretty much any time and fleet replacements only happen once circa every 25-30 years or so, it's good at least ScotRail are going to order trains with capability and use it at the stations that will allow them to use the feature than not have the capability at all.

Network Rail in Scotland has its strategy set out by the Scottish Government. You would rather hope that if one organisation controlled by said government is ordering a new fleet, the other one knows about any necessary infrastructure upgrades.

 

[och aye]

Network Rail in Scotland has its strategy set out by the Scottish Government. You would rather hope that if one organisation controlled by said government is ordering a new fleet, the other one knows about any necessary infrastructure upgrades.

You would hope that, but this is the UK.

 

[Trainbike46]

Network Rail in Scotland has its strategy set out by the Scottish Government. You would rather hope that if one organisation controlled by said government is ordering a new fleet, the other one knows about any necessary infrastructure upgrades.

Bringing platforms up the standards that apply is something that should be done, but it isn't necessary to use the new fleet, just advantageous to maximise the benefits the new fleet brings. Even if no platforms are upgraded at all, step height and distance will decrease with the new fleet, so there will be benefits, especially at platforms that meet or are close to the standard.

You would hope that, over the 40 year life of these new trains, the number of platforms that meet the standard will increase!

 

[Ben Conlin]

Is the person making the decision ex SPT? For Fife and Borders 3 or 6 23m vehicles would be preferred, for Glasgow 5 23m vehicles. Unsurprising it sounds like Scotrail ignoring the Fife services as usual. A split East 3 car with enough units for peak doubles, West 5 car order would seem sensible.

If the idea is that all units could be 5 car would that not be a benefit to everyone. Major capacity increase for future proofing and cheaper maintenance as there’s commonality across the board.

 

[waverley47]

Is the person making the decision ex SPT? For Fife and Borders 3 or 6 23m vehicles would be preferred, for Glasgow 5 23m vehicles. Unsurprising it sounds like Scotrail ignoring the Fife services as usual. A split East 3 car with enough units for peak doubles, West 5 car order would seem sensible.

It's not that we are ignoring the Fife services or promoting the Strathclyde ones. This fleet replacement has several hundred people involved from many different organisations.

TS represent the long term demand forecasting, and it's their job to work out what exactly is needed. Currently, they're modelling long term demand into and out of Edinburgh, where I have a lot of experience. Future demand forecasting is possible but still difficult, and while maximising unit lengths may seem like the best option on paper, a single fleet of five car units, if that is the decided upon option, would offer significant benefits. For example, shifting all the 334s to Strathclyde and operating Fife, the Borders and the Bathgate lines off the same fleet would be operationally useful.

ScotRail represent the actual operations; currently they're collecting input from drivers and guards, trying to map out where the units are going to be stabled, how reliable they need to be to run the proposed services. ScotRail are basically the 'client' on behalf of whom TS are buying trains, and as such it's their call on what is possible and not possible operationally.

NRScot represent the actual infrastructure; it's not worth buying units which are too long for some of the platforms they'd run from. If you can't properly platform all the units to run a timetable (looking specifically at platform 18 at Waverley) then you need to buy shorter units. They also represent the power to the units, and are involved with the proposal insofar as it's necessary to model how long each diagram spends off the wires, and redoing a timetable to change that.

ScotGov represent the money. They want the best benefit for the most people, but understandably buying a very expensive fleet means a higher long term subsidy; they are the ones examining the value for money. Buying two fleets of trains of different lengths is more expensive than a single fleet, and a uniform five car fleet already offers a significant capacity increase for Fife and the Borders, so negotiations are ongoing.

No decision has been made, and as I said, many bids have been received. It's a very collegiate atmosphere and there are a lot of open discussions between the interested parties to go before an optimal solution is agreed upon. I'm not party to the actual bids, as that would be commercially sensitive, however I can say that there are emails between TS, ScotGov and NRScot saying things along the lines of 'if we went for X option, would that work with the timetable, and if so, could you in the next four years provide X infrastructure to support this?"

 

[Peter0124]

Laughable images, the sign is hanging off too

'Bumpy' start to ScotRail's new multi-billion pound train fleet expected​

 

[SC318250]

I take it when you mean shift the Class 334 to Strathclyde, you mean to the Argyle Line and North Electric only?
As the 334s didnt work well on Cathcart lines before

 

[JumpinTrainz]

I do understand the 334s are considerably younger and more modern than the 318/320s but I do think from an operating point of view it would just be easier to replace all of the North Clyde/Argyle Line fleet at the once and have just one fleet.

It’s also ridiculous the amount of time it’s taking to agree on an order. The 318s are 40 this year and the 156s aren’t far behind them. This order was promised years ago.

 

[waverley47]

I do understand the 334s are considerably younger and more modern than the 318/320s but I do think from an operating point of view it would just be easier to replace all of the North Clyde/Argyle Line fleet at the once and have just one fleet.

It’s also ridiculous the amount of time it’s taking to agree on an order. The 318s are 40 this year and the 156s aren’t far behind them. This order was promised years ago.

I take it when you mean shift the Class 334 to Strathclyde, you mean to the Argyle Line and North Electric only?
As the 334s didnt work well on Cathcart lines before

I wasn't meaning to imply that the 334s to Strathclyde is the plan. It's one example of negotiations between the interested parties, where actually some joined up thinking, now that we know what is actually on offer, could result in a change of plans. Who knows, it might end up working well, or the price might be good enough to bin off the 334s, or better acceleration and better than expected battery range might mean that extra services are available from the same fleet, ect.

Ordering trains is complicated and slow. It's very expensive, and it's important to do it right first time, you don't want to end up with another 385 windows debacle, or something with terrible reliability.

Post covid, money has been tight. You could argue that they should have been ordered before then, with rock bottom interest rates, but they weren't. It's not like going to a garage and buying a car, or even ordering a fleet of double decker buses, it's a custom process that takes a long time. I do understand the frustration, however the process is going, all noises have been positive, they are going to be ordered, it just takes time to get it right.

I'd also draw your attention to the Northern ITT, which still four? years after it's announcement has not resulted in an order, or the IET contract, which similarly took years. Sixteen months from an announcement of the contract to ordering a fleet of trains, if the schedule holds up, doesn't actually reflect that badly.

 

[AilsaBus]

I do understand the 334s are considerably younger and more modern than the 318/320s but I do think from an operating point of view it would just be easier to replace all of the North Clyde/Argyle Line fleet at the once and have just one fleet.

It’s also ridiculous the amount of time it’s taking to agree on an order. The 318s are 40 this year and the 156s aren’t far behind them. This order was promised years ago.

The 318s might be 40 years old but they've also had extensive refurbishments in the past 20 years and don't show their age. Some of us are old enough to remember the 303s just before they were withdrawn and they were in an absolutey shocking state at the end.

 

[Class83]

It's not that we are ignoring the Fife services or promoting the Strathclyde ones. This fleet replacement has several hundred people involved from many different organisations.

TS represent the long term demand forecasting, and it's their job to work out what exactly is needed. Currently, they're modelling long term demand into and out of Edinburgh, where I have a lot of experience. Future demand forecasting is possible but still difficult, and while maximising unit lengths may seem like the best option on paper, a single fleet of five car units, if that is the decided upon option, would offer significant benefits. For example, shifting all the 334s to Strathclyde and operating Fife, the Borders and the Bathgate lines off the same fleet would be operationally useful.

ScotRail represent the actual operations; currently they're collecting input from drivers and guards, trying to map out where the units are going to be stabled, how reliable they need to be to run the proposed services. ScotRail are basically the 'client' on behalf of whom TS are buying trains, and as such it's their call on what is possible and not possible operationally.

NRScot represent the actual infrastructure; it's not worth buying units which are too long for some of the platforms they'd run from. If you can't properly platform all the units to run a timetable (looking specifically at platform 18 at Waverley) then you need to buy shorter units. They also represent the power to the units, and are involved with the proposal insofar as it's necessary to model how long each diagram spends off the wires, and redoing a timetable to change that.

ScotGov represent the money. They want the best benefit for the most people, but understandably buying a very expensive fleet means a higher long term subsidy; they are the ones examining the value for money. Buying two fleets of trains of different lengths is more expensive than a single fleet, and a uniform five car fleet already offers a significant capacity increase for Fife and the Borders, so negotiations are ongoing.

No decision has been made, and as I said, many bids have been received. It's a very collegiate atmosphere and there are a lot of open discussions between the interested parties to go before an optimal solution is agreed upon. I'm not party to the actual bids, as that would be commercially sensitive, however I can say that there are emails between TS, ScotGov and NRScot saying things along the lines of 'if we went for X option, would that work with the timetable, and if so, could you in the next four years provide X infrastructure to support this?"

It just seems that the optimum for Fife is clearly 6*23m while the optimum for Glasgow is 5*23m and the preference is the length which suits Glasgow. Between the loco hauls (which sadly were one of the better passenger experiences given to Fife in the last 20 years), removing the Inverkeithing and Kirkcaldy stops on trains to Aberdeen and the fact that the 6 car platforms are rarely required due to stock being required elsewhere, it's always a case of Fife getting whatever is leftover from Scotrail. Using realtimetrains starting with the 1639 departure from Edinburgh today train lengths were; 2, 3, 6, 5, 4, 3, 4, 3, 2, 3, 2 at rush hour. So while 5 cars would actually be the same or more than all but one of those, it also means that the service is limited from using the full platform length for the next 40 years.

Platform 18 is a problem as it's 4 car max at 23m, not sure what the solution is there. Are any of the Inter7city services going to be 4 car 222s, could squeeze them in?

Given the reduction in frequency and increase in journey times over the last 20 years it would be nice if something which put the service to Fife as a priority to get passengers back from the bus services which are actually quite good and frequent these days was.

 

[FlybeDash8Q400]

Platform 18 is a problem as it's 4 car max at 23m, not sure what the solution is there. Are any of the Inter7city services going to be 4 car 222s, could squeeze them in?

I doubt Platform 18 is realistically a problem as you have several Glasgow Central’s and Dunblane’s that can fit into it, just creates a few messy conflicts. If it were an absolute dealbreaker, there’s space to extend it similar to how 12 was years back when the Edinburgh to Glasgow Line was electrified. Buildings demolished that are in the way and ending close to the footbridge. The compactor for rubbish is also in that area which would be a problem. The biggest issue is that 18 can only be accessed to or from the Mound Z tunnel.

Depending whether or not the Masterplan ever happens, then I’m sure it can be repurposed as a loco siding replacing the current Klondike siding which would presumably no longer exist in said plan.

In any case, an interesting topic for another thread!

 

[stevieinselby]

It just seems that the optimum for Fife is clearly 6*23m while the optimum for Glasgow is 5*23m and the preference is the length which suits Glasgow.

Does it "clearly"? As far as I can tell, it's only very recently that 6-car trains have been used with any regularity on the Fife Circle, and even then it's only a handful of peak-time trains. Do those services actually need a full 6×23m set? I would have thought a consistent 5×23m would be ample. Looking over the last few days, for arrivals into Edinburgh between 0700 and 0930, the average train length was about 3½ carriages, so you're still looking at a 30–50% uplift in peak-time capacity overall, and more than that off-peak where units predominantly run singly now.

 

[Bob85]

A quote and a CGI render

AI, it's AI generated

 

[Class83]

Does it "clearly"? As far as I can tell, it's only very recently that 6-car trains have been used with any regularity on the Fife Circle, and even then it's only a handful of peak-time trains. Do those services actually need a full 6×23m set? I would have thought a consistent 5×23m would be ample. Looking over the last few days, for arrivals into Edinburgh between 0700 and 0930, the average train length was about 3½ carriages, so you're still looking at a 30–50% uplift in peak-time capacity overall, and more than that off-peak where units predominantly run singly now.

I did point out that the current train lengths are not commonly 6 carriages, but also that this has been a problem for 20 years since the platforms were extended to accommodate 6 carriage units, there has never actually been an adequate supply of rolling stock for Scotrail to offer that on many services even at peak times. With the 170s being delayed in release from Edinburgh-Glasgow, covering HST non-availability and some going off lease, regular 6 car service never happened and the loco hauled Mark 2s were drafted in to provide capacity. However, choosing a length which prevents use of the full capacity of the infrastructure for the next 40 years is limiting.

However the marginal benefit of 6 carriages versus 5 on a train arriving in Edinburgh at 0830/departing at 1715 is high, as it increases the chance of passengers getting a seat making rail an attractive option versus driving or taking the bus. The marginal benefit of 5 carriages versus 3 on a train arriving/leaving Edinburgh at 1130 is fairly low as it's likely everyone is sitting down either way. It's a bit like what happened on Cross Country with Operation Princess, the aggregate capacity being higher didn't solve the problem that everyone in Birmingham, Leeds etc finished work at 5pm and wanted to get the first train home, which was now shorter, even if there was another 30 mins later.

Looking at it, probably the simplest split would be to make the EMUs 5 car for the Glasgow services, and the BEMUs 3 car for Fife and the Borders. Waverley47 posted earlier in the thread that it's about 32 diagrams for the routes to be covered in Fife/Dundee/Borders, probably about 10-12 arriving/leaving Edinburgh at peak needing doubles is 44, 3 car units, 132 vehicles. Whereas 32 5 car units would need 160 vehicles. Both options would need a few extra spares depending on expected reliability.

 

[waverley47]

I did point out that the current train lengths are not commonly 6 carriages, but also that this has been a problem for 20 years since the platforms were extended to accommodate 6 carriage units, there has never actually been an adequate supply of rolling stock for Scotrail to offer that on many services even at peak times. With the 170s being delayed in release from Edinburgh-Glasgow, covering HST non-availability and some going off lease, regular 6 car service never happened and the loco hauled Mark 2s were drafted in to provide capacity. However, choosing a length which prevents use of the full capacity of the infrastructure for the next 40 years is limiting.

However the marginal benefit of 6 carriages versus 5 on a train arriving in Edinburgh at 0830/departing at 1715 is high, as it increases the chance of passengers getting a seat making rail an attractive option versus driving or taking the bus. The marginal benefit of 5 carriages versus 3 on a train arriving/leaving Edinburgh at 1130 is fairly low as it's likely everyone is sitting down either way. It's a bit like what happened on Cross Country with Operation Princess, the aggregate capacity being higher didn't solve the problem that everyone in Birmingham, Leeds etc finished work at 5pm and wanted to get the first train home, which was now shorter, even if there was another 30 mins later.

Looking at it, probably the simplest split would be to make the EMUs 5 car for the Glasgow services, and the BEMUs 3 car for Fife and the Borders. Waverley47 posted earlier in the thread that it's about 32 diagrams for the routes to be covered in Fife/Dundee/Borders, probably about 10-12 arriving/leaving Edinburgh at peak needing doubles is 44, 3 car units, 132 vehicles. Whereas 32 5 car units would need 160 vehicles. Both options would need a few extra spares depending on expected reliability.

So a couple of points.

On average, the busiest day for passengers into and out of Waverley is now a Saturday. Now obviously this is heavily skewed by summer and winter loadings, however the point still stands, and on a Saturday, demand is a lot less 'peaky'. That gives us some nice leeway to work with.

Additionally, there's a desire to bin off splitting and joining in stations; it's an unnecessary performance risk, and if it's going to happen, it will mostly happen on depot.

Now interestingly, the cost of additional trailer coaches isn't that high, it's the cabs that are the expensive bit. Buying fewer longer trains is a lot less expensive. This order has to represent a real service change, but also represent value for money.

With regards the lack of 170s in Fife, I will say that the additional capacity released by cascading some of the units was offset by serving the Borders, increasing service frequencies across the board, and the inadequate reliability of the HSTs. These units are going to improve daily capacity to Fife by a minimum of about 35%, however it's a lot easier to get that number up by improving off peak capacity than it is to try to run more trains in the peaks.

 

[och aye]

AI, it's AI generated

Perhaps they shouldn't have used AI!

ScotRail uses 'fascist' logo in train image after AI mishap

ScotRail has been accused of accidentally using the logo of a notorious fascist organisation on the side of one of its trains in an AI mock-up

www.heraldscotland.com

ScotRail uses 'fascist' logo in image of new train​

ScotRail has been accused of accidentally using the logo of a notorious fascist organisation on the side of one of its trains in an AI mock-up.

The national rail service is preparing to introduce new fleets from next year, before 70 new electric and battery-powered trains come online in 2031.

At the Rail in Scotland conference in Edinburgh , numerous images generated by artificial intelligence were presented to give an idea of what to expect.

ScotRail stressed that the images were not mock-ups, but included only for illustrative purposes.

In one of the images a ScotRail train is pictured with a large battery pack on the top and an encircled lightning bolt on the side.

However, rail engineer Gareth Dennis was quick to point out on social media the logo bore a striking resemblance to that of Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists.

He wrote: "Top tip: to avoid having the British Union of Fascists logo on the side of your mock-up train, don't use horrible text-to-image AI slop instead of actual designers and artists."

 

[N1]

Perhaps they shouldn't have used AI!

ScotRail uses 'fascist' logo in train image after AI mishap

ScotRail has been accused of accidentally using the logo of a notorious fascist organisation on the side of one of its trains in an AI mock-up

www.heraldscotland.com

ScotRail uses 'fascist' logo in image of new train​

Yeah I noticed that too. Not a good look. Amazing (although not that shocking) that the images actually came from Scotrail.

Is always a bit of a risk with electrification now though.

TfL's Electric bus branding is also a little close to the BUF symbol.

 

[RUK]

Will these new trains have longitudinal seating, then?

 

[tfw756rider]

How well do the batteries fit into the loading gauge? Yes.

Also, I like the single-piece windscreen with two wipers set up to crash into each other (obviously they didn't take lessons from the Voyagers in how to do two wipers on a single-piece windscreen right, and that's just too bad).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Feb 2026 ==

Will these new trains have longitudinal seating, then?

Not exclusively. Some of the seating will instead be transverse, even including tip-up seats in too-closely-spaced "airline" rows with nowhere to put your legs.

 

[Class83]

So a couple of points.

On average, the busiest day for passengers into and out of Waverley is now a Saturday. Now obviously this is heavily skewed by summer and winter loadings, however the point still stands, and on a Saturday, demand is a lot less 'peaky'. That gives us some nice leeway to work with.

Additionally, there's a desire to bin off splitting and joining in stations; it's an unnecessary performance risk, and if it's going to happen, it will mostly happen on depot.

Now interestingly, the cost of additional trailer coaches isn't that high, it's the cabs that are the expensive bit. Buying fewer longer trains is a lot less expensive. This order has to represent a real service change, but also represent value for money.

With regards the lack of 170s in Fife, I will say that the additional capacity released by cascading some of the units was offset by serving the Borders, increasing service frequencies across the board, and the inadequate reliability of the HSTs. These units are going to improve daily capacity to Fife by a minimum of about 35%, however it's a lot easier to get that number up by improving off peak capacity than it is to try to run more trains in the peaks.

To quote Scotrail's own analysis.
"Fife has strong competition from other modes and suffered from poor performance between 2017 and early 2019. Off peak demand and local journeys within Fife are low. Timetable is not customer friendly (different intervals and calling patterns throughout the day)."
https://www.scotrail.co.uk/media/3644/download?inline They do state that this data was from a particularly bad period of service, so an analysis of the more recent data would probably be useful, but the fact that the train has limited use for local journeys as even where they are faster than a bus, the frequency and ability of busses to have more stops probably favours them. Likewise travel to Edinburgh is driven by commuting and 'event' travel meaning there are quiet periods off peak.

While I agree that it's simpler to increase off peak capacity than run more trains in the peaks, given the above statement from the last publicly available analysis of capacity and demand on Scotrail shows that the Fife routes, demand is variable across the day, from your posts I presume you may have more up to date info on the loading on various trains, but the increased capacity is needed morning and evening rather than as an average. Increasing the current peak train length (about 3.5 carriages/train) to 5 carriages would mean more of the current passengers get a seat, but could induce demand which is currently suppressed from rail onto a better service meaning overcrowding still occurs. Now I'm of the opinion transferring passengers onto trains is a good thing, reducing the number of cars on the Queensferry Crossing (which was deliberately built with 2 rather than 3 lanes to discourage commuting) and with stops at all stations the train is less than 30 mins from Inverkeithing to Edinburgh, which is faster than the buses (which are about 50mins from Ferrytoll P+R to Edinburgh). If more trailers are cheap would having an option on a 6th be possible to deliver at the end of the contract, depending on passenger numbers. Though 6 car fixed formations are likely to be shifting a lot of fresh air at lunchtime on weekdays, but could be an way of maintaining operational simplicity, but maximising the length of rather than increasing the frequency of trains at rush hour would seem the priority whether that is 2*3 or 1*6.

Saturdays can definitely be busy during the festival, rugby etc. but probably a lot more day out which is early for some and late for others so I get what you mean about consistent loads throughout the day giving higher overall numbers.

 

[Snow1964]

Yesterday was the deadline for requesting to participate. That starts the Pre Qualifying Question (PQQ) stage where anyone who wants to participate answers questions to demonstrate their suitability to perform the contract. After the PQQ stage will be down to 5 selected bidders, the invitation date to tender in the main stage is listed as 19th July 2026. As always with public procurements its rare all the target dates get hit. That is the main stage of work for bidders, the equivalent dates were May 2024 for Southeastern and November 2025 for Northern.

One of the potential problems for Scot Rail is longer it goes on, the longer the delay because of the rush to build by multiple other European operators, who are snapping up factory production capacity

Since that PQQ orders have been flowing, eg

this week a Siemens-Stadler consortium to build 226 (with options for 100 more) 4car units for Copenhagen area.
this week Hungary announced plans to buy 82 EMUs
3 weeks ago Czechs issued tender for upto 140 BEMU
Month ago Alstom received order for 26 Corradia Max from Germany
Netherlands and Poland both placed orders with Stadler early Jan for Flirts
Greece has ordered 26 6car EMUs from Alstom in Jan
Ireland exercised option for another 20 5car X'trapolis
Alstom announced received €1.6bn intercity order from Poland

As examples of other countries rushing to build
Trenitalia has increased its orders to 1081 regional trains (978 already in service)

And in last fortnight
Saudi Arabia issued tenders for 10 passenger trains
Portugal issued €584m high speed train tender

The procurement notice also contains this paragraph:

That parallel procurement hasn't turned up yet and will also take several months for each stage. I personally don't think they'll award earlier than mid-2027 and the commencement date of April 2028 in the notice is plausibly the planned award date.

So whilst the Scots may say they are doing due diligence, hence many months (couple of years ?) to consider it. This might sound sensible in isolation, but not when others with more slick procurement processes are also after big orders.

I fear they will find any order (when eventually placed) isn't started for 3-5 years because other countries got in first

 

[Peter0124]

Not exclusively. Some of the seating will instead be transverse, even including tip-up seats in too-closely-spaced "airline" rows with nowhere to put your legs.

That looks horrible. I'll definitely miss the 318s and 320s when they're gone.

 

[Highlander1]

One of the potential problems for Scot Rail is longer it goes on, the longer the delay because of the rush to build by multiple other European operators, who are snapping up factory production capacity

Since that PQQ orders have been flowing, eg

this week a Siemens-Stadler consortium to build 226 (with options for 100 more) 4car units for Copenhagen area.
this week Hungary announced plans to buy 82 EMUs
3 weeks ago Czechs issued tender for upto 140 BEMU
Month ago Alstom received order for 26 Corradia Max from Germany
Netherlands and Poland both placed orders with Stadler early Jan for Flirts
Greece has ordered 26 6car EMUs from Alstom in Jan
Ireland exercised option for another 20 5car X'trapolis
Alstom announced received €1.6bn intercity order from Poland

As examples of other countries rushing to build
Trenitalia has increased its orders to 1081 regional trains (978 already in service)

And in last fortnight
Saudi Arabia issued tenders for 10 passenger trains
Portugal issued €584m high speed train tender


So whilst the Scots may say they are doing due diligence, hence many months (couple of years ?) to consider it. This might sound sensible in isolation, but not when others with more slick procurement processes are also after big orders.

I fear they will find any order (when eventually placed) isn't started for 3-5 years because other countries got in first

They are looking at coming into service in 5 years time and the tender process is well underway. Given it's public funds for units that are going to be in service for many decades, I'd certainly rather they took their time and got it right and risk a production delay then rush to get ahead and get it wrong.

 

[tfw756rider]

That looks horrible. I'll definitely miss the 318s and 320s when they're gone.

It's a ridiculous AI-generated image, obviously the real trains won't have those nonsense seats!

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Perhaps they shouldn't have used AI!

I do wonder why they just released the work of the "sloppist" without even checking it... So far in discussing this imagery we've heard about evil logos and impossible seating arrangements - makes one wonder whether anyone knows what they are doing in that public relations department!

 

[tfw756rider]

I do wonder why they just released the work of the "sloppist" without even checking it... So far in discussing this imagery we've heard about evil logos and impossible seating arrangements - makes one wonder whether anyone knows what they are doing in that public relations department!

And batteries that might not fit into the loading gauge, a "level boarding" sign hanging off and windscreen wipers set up to crash into each other

 

[Peter Mugridge]

And batteries that might not fit into the loading gauge, a "level boarding" sign hanging off and windscreen wipers set up to crash into each other

Oh yeah, I'd forgotten about that lit - such is the volume of drivel in those images.

Sudden thought: They are official images, aren't they...?