ScotRail Suburban Fleet (EMU and BEMU) Market Engagement

[snookertam]

Hopefully, the issue of stabling capacity and/or platform lengths will be overcome. But I think that what’s more likely is that subclasses will be created.

Fife and the borders will likely get three car 23m units which will double up in the peak, and the Glasgow suburban network will get 5 car units as 6 x 23m cars wouldn’t work for the North Clyde stations. Those five car units can stable more readily at Yoker Depot and work a certain amount of South Clyde services (similar to those covered by class 318/320 currently), although this would create a challenge there. A solution might be to build a facility in the vicinity of smithy lye.

As for stabling space, this will be overlooked until after the trains are in service, because decision makers simply do not consider practical, logistical issues such as these, as experienced with the class 380 and HST introductions.

The lack of stabling and depot capacity on the Scottish network is, in general, pretty chronic.

 

[Peter0124]

Hopefully, the issue of stabling capacity and/or platform lengths will be overcome. But I think that what’s more likely is that subclasses will be created.

Fife and the borders will likely get three car 23m units which will double up in the peak, and the Glasgow suburban network will get 5 car units as 6 x 23m cars wouldn’t work for the North Clyde stations. Those five car units can stable more readily at Yoker Depot and work a certain amount of South Clyde services (similar to those covered by class 318/320 currently), although this would create a challenge there. A solution might be to build a facility in the vicinity of smithy lye.

As for stabling space, this will be overlooked until after the trains are in service, because decision makers simply do not consider practical, logistical issues such as these, as experienced with the class 380 and HST introductions.

The lack of stabling and depot capacity on the Scottish network is, in general, pretty chronic.

Could SDO be used on platforms were 6x23 wouldn't fit?

 

[AilsaBus]

Could SDO be used on platforms were 6x23 wouldn't fit?

That would be pointless as most of the platforms on the Glasgow Electric Network wouldn't be able to take 6x23m. Best thing for Scotrail to do is just get fixed formation 6x20m units like the Class 717s and be done with it.

 

[Snow1964]

That would be pointless as most of the platforms on the Glasgow Electric Network wouldn't be able to take 6x23m. Best thing for Scotrail to do is just get fixed formation 6x20m units like the Class 717s and be done with it.

If 23m are preferred, then might as well have 5car fixed formation units. It's only 115m, instead of 120m, but haven't got 2 intermediate cabs which are 3-4m of non passenger space. With slight taper at ends could probably add half a metre per vehicle and end up with same usable passenger space

 

[waverley47]

I can confirm this, but I cannot give a source. TS and ScotRail have not yet made a decision, however there is a desire for a standardised fleet with a single common coach length, and one single type of train. There is a negotiation going on over whether or not its acceptable to reduce Fife services to a standard 5x23m length, as opposed to the current mixed bag of anywhere between two and six coaches; you lose maximum length but gain aggregate capacity.

If this is deemed acceptable, and we can figure out how we're going to find space for them all, then the standardised five coach length will be the preferred option. If not, then it will be a mix of 3 and 5 coach trains.

We are awaiting the final list of five preferred bidders, but I can say that more than five very robust bids were submitted, these are being sifted.

Just to bump this, in case it's been lost.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Apr 2026 ==

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?"

And this

Both shameless self promotion, however, this gives some insight into the decision making process regarding unit lengths and carriage lengths. A solution has been reached on fleet commonality, however, no announcement will be made: it's commercially sensitive, and those of us involved would get in an awful lot of trouble.

 

[SC318250]

I know I mentioned it already that would it be beneficial moving the Class 334 to Argyle and Balloch services.

One reason was that it woukd be easier to stable fixed 5/6 cars at Bathgate where as Motherwell would struggle with this

Example
Derby siding has 4 services formed from there. I think they can onlybhold 3x6 cars

Not sure what the TMD can hold

 

[clc]

The Argyle Line will require an increase in capacity to handle the pipeline of thousands of new residents in Anderston and Finnieston. Ideally the frequency would be increased to 8tph-10tph.

 

[Transilien]

I know I mentioned it already that would it be beneficial moving the Class 334 to Argyle and Balloch services.

The class 334s have struggled with short spaces between stations however with examples overheating on the Cathcart Circle. Perhaps a regearing to 75mph top speed may help with this.

 

[Highlander1]

The Argyle Line will require an increase in capacity to handle the pipeline of thousands of new residents in Anderston and Finnieston. Ideally the frequency would be increased to 8tph-10tph.

There's already 6tph in each direction with a mix of 3 and 6 20m car units. Surely 6 x fixed 5 23m car units an hour is plenty of capacity? It's certainly an increase over the current provision.

 

[clc]

There's already 6tph in each direction with a mix of 3 and 6 20m car units. Surely 6 x fixed 5 23m car units an hour is plenty of capacity? It's certainly an increase over the current provision.

I’m thinking about the sheer number of flats/student beds under construction/planned within walking distance of Anderston and Exhibition Centre stations. We’re looking at an additional 9000 residents, mainly car-free. Dalmarnock also has significant residential development ongoing.

There’s also the longer term impact of the council's policy of increasing the city centre population by repurposing vacant office space and developing large gap sites including the big surface car parks near Argyle St Station.

It would be great to have a proper metro frequency in the core.

 

[NCT]

I’m thinking about the sheer number of flats/student beds under construction/planned within walking distance of Anderston and Exhibition Centre stations. We’re looking at an additional 9000 residents, mainly car-free. Dalmarnock also has significant residential development ongoing.

There’s also the longer term impact of the council's policy of increasing the city centre population by repurposing vacant office space and developing large gap sites including the big surface car parks near Argyle St Station.

It would be great to have a proper metro frequency in the core.

It's a decent density they are working towards, but 6 x 115 trains per hour will be ample capacity, especially with a metro layout. There's no danger of busting 4 standees to the square metre.

 

[Highlander1]

I’m thinking about the sheer number of flats/student beds under construction/planned within walking distance of Anderston and Exhibition Centre stations. We’re looking at an additional 9000 residents, mainly car-free. Dalmarnock also has significant residential development ongoing.

There’s also the longer term impact of the council's policy of increasing the city centre population by repurposing vacant office space and developing large gap sites including the big surface car parks near Argyle St Station.

It would be great to have a proper metro frequency in the core.

Given Anderston and Exhibition Centres are walking distance to Central for most people and those under 22, which covers most students, get free bus travel, how much of an increase in rail travel can be expected ?

 

[snookertam]

Just to bump this, in case it's been lost.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Apr 2026 ==



And this

Both shameless self promotion, however, this gives some insight into the decision making process regarding unit lengths and carriage lengths. A solution has been reached on fleet commonality, however, no announcement will be made: it's commercially sensitive, and those of us involved would get in an awful lot of trouble.

Who is deciding the common unit length? Given the difference in the routes and their current operations, it sees to create other problems. I’m not sure the same type of unit works on both Fife/Borders routes and the Argyle line.

The solution I posted solves all issues in terms of differing capacity expectations and stabling space. I know that’s logistical matters such as stabling space are typically beyond the ken of Transport Scotland but it’ll rear its head eventually. Probably when the units are ready to be delivered….

 

[MadMac]

I think it’s been brought up previously that 6x23 can’t fit the turnback at Neilston, and there’s no easy answer to it.

 

[Snow1964]

Whilst Scotrail take their time appraising invitations to tender, other European countries continue to move forward quickly with tenders.

Latest is MAV Hungary, with tender for Budapest EMU fleet of upto 54 trains. Initial indications were in November, and already moved to formal tender.

With other orders for Berlin, Portugal, Slovakia, Italy etc already this year, I do wonder how much spare short term capacity there is in train component manufacturing

I do wonder if those expressions of interest last year, have been overtaken by component factories getting orders elsewhere, and the British way of taking ages over paperwork will come back and bite them in extended delivery dates, or an order with so many detailed specifications (rather than simple minimum requirements) that special parts need to be procured increasing cost (rather than using standard components used in Europe)

 

[Rick1984]

The Europeans have the luxury of being able to pick a train straight off the shelf, where as in UK everything has to be bespoke due to our infrastructure limitations.
While frustrating, it does make sense to take the time to get this order right.

 

[aaronspence]

I think it’s been brought up previously that 6x23 can’t fit the turnback at Neilston, and there’s no easy answer to it.

Diamond crossover before the platforms so you terminate in alternating platforms?

 

[snookertam]

Diamond crossover before the platforms so you terminate in alternating platforms?

Yes, that should be the solution, but that involves spending money.

 

[waverley47]

Who is deciding the common unit length?

That would be us, the consortium of ScotRail, ScotGov, NRScot, and Transport Scotland. A decision has been made. Previous talks were about buying a uniform fleet, to save costs and allow interoperability, by buying a single fleet of 5x24m sets, and about how much of a capacity hit that would be in the busiest services into and out of Edinburgh, and on the Argyll Line.

Given the difference in the routes and their current operations, it sees to create other problems. I’m not sure the same type of unit works on both Fife/Borders routes and the Argyle line.

Why not? They're basically all suburban diagrams. The Glasgow electrics aren't busy enough to need a full 700/701 style unit, wide doors at quarters allow high turnover, low floor in the end coaches to allow bikes and wheelchairs. It saves buying the cabs, which at the moment given that cabs are going for about 1.5 million a pop, is a phenomenal saving. It saves on having gangways which is a major complaint from the drivers of the 385s especially.

As I said, all immaterial now given a decision has been reached, but the benefits are there.

I know that’s logistical matters such as stabling space are typically beyond the ken of Transport Scotland but it’ll rear its head eventually. Probably when the units are ready to be delivered….

Im not really sure this holds water. If we go back through fleets...

The 385 contract came with a maintenance deal, and as part of that, Hitachi agreed to build stabling sidings at Millerhill, and maintain them at Craigentinny, which was convenient for them given that they'd just taken over the depot to service the 80X fleet for LNER. Eastfield depot was fully wired in preparation, and when the fleet was introduced, they were all able to be fully accommodated in depot space.

The HSTs were originally meant to be stored at Slateford between runs, however that fel through because of local objections, and the fact that the sidings weren't particularly secured. A new set of stabling sidings at Cadder was provided, so that by the time the HSTs entered squadron service, there was enough space for them all.

The 380s came with a contract for Siemens to renovate, expand, and take over Shields depot, and a refurbishment of sidings at Ayr depot. By the time the 380s entered service, there was enough space for them, and they bedded in very well.

The Airdrie - Bathgate line came with a new depot and storage space at Bathgate for the 334s. They still outpost at various locations across Strathclyde, but the increase in services was matched with an increase in depot provision, and that was ready by the time the line opened.

There are driver/conductor depots now at Tweedbank and Leven, and ScotRail can base 6x170s at each now. With the wiring in place by the time these units enter service, these will be under the wires overnight and charging their batteries.

I can assure you, storage space is something we have looked at very deeply. Regarding the Motherwell issue, it's likely that several of the new units which would be based in the Derby and Weights Sidings overnight will be moved to the secure sidings around the back of Motherwell Depot, and the 385s still needed for Lanark, Shotts and Carstairs runs will take still be based at the station.

There's space at Polmadie, which is earmarked for the 222s but will allow space to be opened up at Haymarket depot and Eastfield. There's space in Dundee. There's space for a minimum of 24 full length (5*24m sets) at Yoker. There's space at Cockerhill.

There is enough storage space. We, the consortium and not myself, have looked at it. It's not going to be a situation where there's new units coming next week and nowhere to store them.

 

[NCT]

Thanks once again @waverley47 for the detailed insight.

If the interior layout is even slightly higher density than a 170 (by which I really mean standing space rather than more seats crammed in), not having cabs and having only one toilet should mean a 5x24m train can have the same people-shifting power as a 6-car Class 170 formation.

The Glasgow electrics aren't busy enough to need a full 700/701 style unit

That's probably reasonable. A quasi-metro layout can probably work for both Glasgow electrics and the longer distance Edinburgh suburban journeys. That said, if Glasgow are pure electrics and Edinburgh suburbans are BEMUs, they could have slightly distinct interiors?

wide doors at quarters allow high turnover

Yes, that applies to pretty much anything other than the Intercity routes.

low floor in the end coaches to allow bikes and wheelchairs

Interesting - this is the first I've heard what ScotRail's 'low floor' might actually look like. It'll be interesting to see how many doors are low-floor, how low floor relates to motor and trailer carriages, and relative positions of doors, bogies and toilet.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Yes, that should be the solution, but that involves spending money.

Might be cheaper to dig out the infill under the Double Hedges Road bridge and extend the turnback? At least that wouldn't involve any alterations to the signalling system?

Is the bridge even infilled? I can't remember - it's a few years since I was last at Neilston.

 

[MadMac]

Might be cheaper to dig out the infill under the Double Hedges Road bridge and extend the turnback? At least that wouldn't involve any alterations to the signalling system?

Is the bridge even infilled? I can't remember - it's a few years since I was last at Neilston.

Google Earth shows it infilled.

 

[Falcon1200]

6x23 can’t fit the turnback at Neilston, and there’s no easy answer to it.

Is the bridge even infilled? I can't remember - it's a few years since I was last at Neilston.

Yes it is - I walk over it regularly! But it shouldn't need totally re-excavating, just dig out enough to lengthen the Turnback siding sufficiently.

 

[NCT]

There will not be 6x23m at Neilston.

 

[Furrball]

I’m thinking about the sheer number of flats/student beds under construction/planned within walking distance of Anderston and Exhibition Centre stations. We’re looking at an additional 9000 residents, mainly car-free. Dalmarnock also has significant residential development ongoing.

There’s also the longer term impact of the council's policy of increasing the city centre population by repurposing vacant office space and developing large gap sites including the big surface car parks near Argyle St Station.

It would be great to have a proper metro frequency in the core.

Where would another 4tph fit in to the west? Partick <> Hyndland is at capacity with 13 to 14 tph through Partick/Hyndland in each direction at peak times

 

[Falcon1200]

Where would another 4tph fit in to the west? Partick <> Hyndland is at capacity with 13 to 14 tph through Partick/Hyndland in each direction at peak times

I have long believed that Finnieston Jcs/Hyndland East Jc should be quadrupled, with an island platform for each direction at the two stations to allow easy interchange, and grade separation at Hyndland East. But probably not going to happen!

 

[Transilien]

That's probably reasonable. A quasi-metro layout can probably work for both Glasgow electrics and the longer distance Edinburgh suburban journeys. That said, if Glasgow are pure electrics and Edinburgh suburbans are BEMUs, they could have slightly distinct interiors?

IMO, it would be fairly easy to do so. Perhaps some longitudinal seating and less seats to allow standing space. The class 455 and 317 are examples of what can be done with the same body shell.

 

[AilsaBus]

IMO, it would be fairly easy to do so. Perhaps some longitudinal seating and less seats to allow standing space. The class 455 and 317 are examples of what can be done with the same body shell.

Personally I think they should have 2+2 seating but with wider seats. I often get on 318s and 320s and always see 2 people sitting either end of a row of 3 seats with nobody wanting to sit in the middle seat.

 

[ld0595]

Personally I think they should have 2+2 seating but with wider seats. I often get on 318s and 320s and always see 2 people sitting either end of a row of 3 seats with nobody wanting to sit in the middle seat.

I'd agree to the 2+2 seating. I find that most people prefer to stand over sitting in the middle seat, and it makes it really difficult to get out when people are standing in the aisle with how narrow it is.

 

[Peter0124]

I'd agree to the 2+2 seating. I find that most people prefer to stand over sitting in the middle seat, and it makes it really difficult to get out when people are standing in the aisle with how narrow it is.

Personally I think they should have 2+2 seating but with wider seats. I often get on 318s and 320s and always see 2 people sitting either end of a row of 3 seats with nobody wanting to sit in the middle seat.

Wider seats means narrower aisle though, and a wide aisle could fit more standing?