ScotRail HST Introduction - Updates & Discussion

[BRX]

What about the ex-motorail siding that's parallel with platform 1?

 

[Hercules]

You sure about that?

Bearing in mind it's been some time since I've been to Inverness but RTT states that the following is booked to happen on a typical weekday:

1S25 Caledonian Sleeper arrives Platform 1 at 08:41

5S25 Caledonian Sleeper departs Platform 1 at 09:08
5S25 Caledonian Sleeper arrives Inverness Motorail Sdg via Inverness TMD at 11:01

5M16 Caledonian Sleeper departs Inverness Motorail Sdg at 18:30
5M16 Caledonian Sleeper arrives Platform 2 at 18:41

1M16 Caledonian Sleeper departs Platform 2 at 20:45

So there shouldn't be any reason for it to be hogging a platform during the day so I can't see why there should be any issues in any case in the current timetable only 4 services (Scotrail btw) are booked to use Platforms 1 and 2 between 09:15 and 18:15 so is very much underused but perfect for these HSTs of Scotrail.

Not paying attention to RTT timings on the ECS movements at INV. The sleeper has been shunted back into Platform 2 by 1pm every day this week.

 

[jingsmonty]

What about the ex-motorail siding that's parallel with platform 1?

Think the motorail siding was where 'platform 0' was to come from....we are not permitted to use it at all as there is no walking route to/from it (although I believe the sleeper has been stabled there perviously, possibly over Christmas & New Year).

 

[gsnedders]

I'm just going by what the Scotrail Manager said as justification for not having a full 2+5 fleet - you probably know who it is if you've read the article. I'm assuming that a 7 car EMU doesn't fit onto platforms 2, 5 + 6 then (obviously platform 1 as well)?

If 2+5 HST sets run just now, along with 7 car EMUs, would that not cause capacity problems at Queen St?

Any idea when the platform lengthening work is due to be completed? I've lost track of that one!

Remember they're about 10m shorter than a 7 car EMU.

Maximum occupation for Glasgow Queen Street High Level:

Platform 1: 74m, so 3x20m, 3x23m, 2+1 HST
Platform 2: 157m, so 7x20m, 6x23m, 2+5 HST
Platform 3: 174m, so 8x20m, 7x23m, 2+6 HST
Platform 4: 174m, so 8x20m, 7x23m, 2+6 HST
Platform 5: 150m, so 7x20m, 6x23m, 2+4 HST (just! 2+5 HST might fit before the starter with the end of the PC off the platform)
Platform 6: 155m, so 7x20m, 6x23m, 2+5 HST
Platform 7: 198m, so 9x20m, 8x23m, 2+7 HST

So yeah, can't fit a 7 car EMU into 1, 2, 5 or 6.

In the short term, while there are still plenty of DMUs running out of Queen Street, having the hourly services to Aberdeen and Inverness as 2+5 HSTs be unable to use platform 5, but can use any other shouldn't cause too much trouble. The bigger questions will be when more of the commuter services start to get replaced by EMUs (especially 365s in the short term, as 2 365s can't double-occupy many platforms).

 

[jingsmonty]

Remember they're about 10m shorter than a 7 car EMU.

Maximum occupation for Glasgow Queen Street High Level:

Platform 1: 74m, so 3x20m, 3x23m, 2+1 HST
Platform 2: 157m, so 7x20m, 6x23m, 2+5 HST
Platform 3: 174m, so 8x20m, 7x23m, 2+6 HST
Platform 4: 174m, so 8x20m, 7x23m, 2+6 HST
Platform 5: 150m, so 7x20m, 6x23m, 2+4 HST (just! 2+5 HST might fit before the starter with the end of the PC off the platform)
Platform 6: 155m, so 7x20m, 6x23m, 2+5 HST
Platform 7: 198m, so 9x20m, 8x23m, 2+7 HST

So yeah, can't fit a 7 car EMU into 1, 2, 5 or 6.

In the short term, while there are still plenty of DMUs running out of Queen Street, having the hourly services to Aberdeen and Inverness as 2+5 HSTs be unable to use platform 5, but can use any other shouldn't cause too much trouble. The bigger questions will be when more of the commuter services start to get replaced by EMUs (especially 365s in the short term, as 2 365s can't double-occupy many platforms).

Cheers for that - I think the najor capacity restraints at Inverness will be a big issue though...particularly with the 2+5 sets

 

[gingertom]

Cheers for that - I think the najor capacity restraints at Inverness will be a big issue though...particularly with the 2+5 sets

IIRC the plan was 2+5s to Aberdeen and 2+4s to Inverness. For a different thread but is Inverness station not due a rebuild and is out to consultation?

 

[InOban]

AFAIK the rebuild of the station is all 'front of house', not track layout.

 

[SC43090]

There's one thing that everybody seems to have overlooked... The EX FGW HST sets have selective door opening so i would have thought it wouldn't be a problem unless its been removed by Scotrail.... The reason why FGW had it fitted was because there services stopped at short platforms like Exeter ST Thomas, Starcross, Dawlish Warren, Redruth, Hayle, Torre, plus many other stations on the Great Western routes that have short platforms...

SC43090

 

[gsnedders]

AFAIK the rebuild of the station is all 'front of house', not track layout.

Oh, I forgot to address that in my previous post: yes, it's a simple extension of the platforms lengthwise towards the end of the train shed (and AFAIK they have more collapsible material in there than needed beyond the buffers to make that easy), and that can only be done when the new extension on the front of the train shed is completed. Last I heard was they should be extended by the 2019 December timetable. The track layout work was all completed during the 2016 closure of High Level.

There's one thing that everybody seems to have overlooked... The EX FGW HST sets have selective door opening so i would have thought it wouldn't be a problem unless its been removed by Scotrail.... The reason why FGW had it fitted was because there services stopped at short platforms like Exeter ST Thomas, Starcross, Dawlish Warren, Redruth, Hayle, Torre, plus many other stations on the Great Western routes that have short platforms...

That doesn't help in the majority of these cases, given the problematic places are the terminuses where you'll be beyond the starting signals and fouling points if you're too long. Many of the stations are already busy enough without each HST effectively taking up multiple platforms!

 

[jingsmonty]

IIRC the plan was 2+5s to Aberdeen and 2+4s to Inverness. For a different thread but is Inverness station not due a rebuild and is out to consultation?

It is, but this isn't anything to do with the actual track/infrastructure - it's the retail part of Inverness station

 

[jingsmonty]

There's one thing that everybody seems to have overlooked... The EX FGW HST sets have selective door opening so i would have thought it wouldn't be a problem unless its been removed by Scotrail.... The reason why FGW had it fitted was because there services stopped at short platforms like Exeter ST Thomas, Starcross, Dawlish Warren, Redruth, Hayle, Torre, plus many other stations on the Great Western routes that have short platforms...

SC43090

1929

Just as an aside, the Class 170s have selective door opening too - which train crew are forbidden to use (& which may have possibly been isolated, since my Conductor days...).

 

[jingsmonty]

IIRC the plan was 2+5s to Aberdeen and 2+4s to Inverness. For a different thread but is Inverness station not due a rebuild and is out to consultation?

I'm sure you're correct (think I remember that from the roadshow that Abellio did for staff before the current franchise started), but how long before a set is stepped up & ends up on the wrong working, possibly ending up causing chaos at a terminal station! At Inverness, I suppose that if a 2+5 arrived & had to go into Platform 3 or 4, the coaches would be on the platform, at least - but the rear power car would be hanging off the platform end, past the signal. Ok in an emergency, but not for a regular working!

 

[route101]

Oh, I forgot to address that in my previous post: yes, it's a simple extension of the platforms lengthwise towards the end of the train shed (and AFAIK they have more collapsible material in there than needed beyond the buffers to make that easy), and that can only be done when the new extension on the front of the train shed is completed. Last I heard was they should be extended by the 2019 December timetable. The track layout work was all completed during the 2016 closure of High Level.



That doesn't help in the majority of these cases, given the problematic places are the terminuses where you'll be beyond the starting signals and fouling points if you're too long. Many of the stations are already busy enough without each HST effectively taking up multiple platforms!

Is there track under the 'collapsible material' ?

 

[gsnedders]

Is there track under the 'collapsible material' ?

I believe not. https://twitter.com/NetworkRailGQS/status/753934524648742912 would tend to suggest my memory is correct.

 

[jingsmonty]

Oh, I forgot to address that in my previous post: yes, it's a simple extension of the platforms lengthwise towards the end of the train shed (and AFAIK they have more collapsible material in there than needed beyond the buffers to make that easy), and that can only be done when the new extension on the front of the train shed is completed. Last I heard was they should be extended by the 2019 December timetable. The track layout work was all completed during the 2016 closure of High Level.



That doesn't help in the majority of these cases, given the problematic places are the terminuses where you'll be beyond the starting signals and fouling points if you're too long. Many of the stations are already busy enough without each HST effectively taking up multiple platforms!

Thanks for the update on the Queen St platform extensions - I wasn't sure what the completion date for this was. Still doesn't address the numerous infrastructure issues in Inverness, though..have heard nothing official on this front as yet...

 

[BRX]

At one point in the past there was a proposal to rebuild Inverness station with 'through' platforms - in other words shift the platforms to the 'through' side of the triangle. Did that ever get anywhere? Obviously it would be quite a major job, and it would be a shame in a way for the current somewhat quirky layout o go, but it's not hard to see what benefits it could bring.

 

[jingsmonty]

At one point in the past there was a proposal to rebuild Inverness station with 'through' platforms - in other words shift the platforms to the 'through' side of the triangle. Did that ever get anywhere? Obviously it would be quite a major job, and it would be a shame in a way for the current somewhat quirky layout o go, but it's not hard to see what benefits it could bring.

There probably was, at one time - more recently, I did hear a rumour about 'Platform 8', which would have been a through platform on the Rose St curve. Think this was just a rumour though - there aren't that many through trains anyway (1, to be exact - the 1713 Kyle of Lochalsh to Elgin...).

The layout is certainly 'quirky' - as I have found when working nightshift & trying to marshall all the sets in the right order for the next morning's departures!

 

[Ben.A.98]

At Inverness, I suppose that if a 2+5 arrived & had to go into Platform 3 or 4, the coaches would be on the platform, at least - but the rear power car would be hanging off the platform end, past the signal. Ok in an emergency, but not for a regular working!

Is that not exactly why we maintain the standouts fitted to the platform starters?

 

[jingsmonty]

Is that not exactly why we maintain the standouts fitted to the platform starters?

I don't understand your point here - what do you mean?

I've had to start ahead of the signal here once, but that was due to a 4 car 158 being accidentally routed into platform 4 on top of a 170...only takes a 6 car. Certainly not something that should ever be taken for granted or written into a normal working diagram - that's a SASSPAD waiting to happen.....

 

[gordonjahn]

Remember they're about 10m shorter than a 7 car EMU.

Maximum occupation for Glasgow Queen Street High Level:

Platform 1: 74m, so 3x20m, 3x23m, 2+1 HST
Platform 2: 157m, so 7x20m, 6x23m, 2+5 HST
Platform 3: 174m, so 8x20m, 7x23m, 2+6 HST
Platform 4: 174m, so 8x20m, 7x23m, 2+6 HST
Platform 5: 150m, so 7x20m, 6x23m, 2+4 HST (just! 2+5 HST might fit before the starter with the end of the PC off the platform)
Platform 6: 155m, so 7x20m, 6x23m, 2+5 HST
Platform 7: 198m, so 9x20m, 8x23m, 2+7 HST

So yeah, can't fit a 7 car EMU into 1, 2, 5 or 6.

In the short term, while there are still plenty of DMUs running out of Queen Street, having the hourly services to Aberdeen and Inverness as 2+5 HSTs be unable to use platform 5, but can use any other shouldn't cause too much trouble. The bigger questions will be when more of the commuter services start to get replaced by EMUs (especially 365s in the short term, as 2 365s can't double-occupy many platforms).

Platform 1 has been extended to take a 4 car set now too ( https://www.networkrail.co.uk/feeds/new-platform-arrives-for-glasgow-queen-street-passengers/ ) so you'd manage an HST 2+2 in the now (although 50m might make you think HST 2+3 would be doable... guess some of that space is behind the stops though).

 

[Journeyman]

And the best thing is that its, A- Loco hauled and B- no under floor engines .

...which 99.9% of normals don't care about.

 

[Highland37]

No but they care about noise and vibration.

 

[Journeyman]

No but they care about noise and vibration.

Not that much, to be honest. And in modern trains it's not generally an issue.

 

[GrimShady]

No but they care about noise and vibration.

Exactly!

 

[Highland37]

So you say but as research and decisions show, passengers do prefer a less noisy and vibrating environment. That is one of the reasons they chose to go with the HSTs.

 

[Robertj21a]

So you say but as research and decisions show, passengers do prefer a less noisy and vibrating environment. That is one of the reasons they chose to go with the HSTs.

And an excellent decision too.

 

[mullac30]

If the ex-GW sets are being put into service unrefibished, is there any chance of them being rebranded like the 365's? Silver doors and Saltire logos?

 

[gsnedders]

Platform 1 has been extended to take a 4 car set now too ( https://www.networkrail.co.uk/feeds/new-platform-arrives-for-glasgow-queen-street-passengers/ ) so you'd manage an HST 2+2 in the now (although 50m might make you think HST 2+3 would be doable... guess some of that space is behind the stops though).

Oh, of course. I always forget about that extension happening more recently; I don't think I've ever got a train from P1!

 

[route101]

I believe not. https://twitter.com/NetworkRailGQS/status/753934524648742912 would tend to suggest my memory is correct.

I see , i thought they would of done that to save going back.

 

[Ben.A.98]

I don't understand your point here - what do you mean?

I've had to start ahead of the signal here once, but that was due to a 4 car 158 being accidentally routed into platform 4 on top of a 170...only takes a 6 car. Certainly not something that should ever be taken for granted or written into a normal working diagram - that's a SASSPAD waiting to happen.....

I was always told that these indicators are fitted to allow trains to start when ahead of the signal, is there now policy preventing/limiting this?