ScotRail Stopgap Stock: What COULD be used to replace an aging fleet?

[TrainViation]

I've seen discussion elsewhere about what trains ScotRail could take in via leasing or outright buying, and I'm not sure how good a fit the trains mentioned would be to replace trains like the 318s and 320s.

The two trains mentioned were the Class 769s and the Class 458s which are being withdrawn from SWR. Why would these be a good or bad fit for routes around Glasgow and Edinburgh?

 

[brad465]

769s are a bad fit just about anywhere, and 458s would need to be converted to OHLE. This might have been possible when new, but at this point in their life is pointless.

350/2s are available, however they are 4-car so could well have issues replacing a 3-car fleet, particularly with platform lengths and SDO procedures.

 

[Peter0124]

Can imagine 769s would fail 5x more frequently than the 318/320 do.

 

[JonathanH]

I've seen discussion elsewhere about what trains ScotRail could take in via leasing or outright buying, and I'm not sure how good a fit the trains mentioned would be to replace trains like the 318s and 320s.

The 318s and 320s have been regularly overhauled, and with no immediate replacement, there wouldn't be any gain in running down maintenance. I could imagine there is less that can go wrong with them than some more recent units.

 

[Ben Conlin]

The contract is already out for the replacement of the 318/320s and the 156s I believe. I think the plan is to have them entering service in around 5 years from now.

 

[JonathanH]

The contract is already out for the replacement of the 318/320s and the 156s I believe. I think the plan is to have them entering service in around 5 years from now.

Yes, I think the original poster is trying to suggest something else is used between now and the new stock arriving.

 

[TrainViation]

Yes, I think the original poster is trying to suggest something else is used between now and the new stock arriving.

Yes, such as how the Happy Trains helped fill a hole while the 385s were delayed and late to enter service. Except this would be a slightly longer solution, and a more permanent one.

 

[Russel]

350/2s are available, however they are 4-car so could well have issues replacing a 3-car fleet, particularly with platform lengths and SDO procedures.

If things get desperate, the 350/2s are probably the only realistic option.

Though I'm not actually sure why a stop-gap solution would be needed?

 

[JonathanH]

Yes, such as how the Happy Trains helped fill a hole while the 385s were delayed and late to enter service. Except this would be a slightly longer solution, and a more permanent one.

What makes you think that the 318s and 320s can't see their time out?

 

[TrainViation]

Though I'm not actually sure why a stop-gap solution would be needed?

Only really due to the EMU deficit we have, which shows on the East Kilbride branch line.

What makes you think that the 318s and 320s can't see their time out?

They definitely would be able to, though with a wait which could be up to seven years from now, it would be nice to have newer trains or even a slight increase in the amount we have in general, all while replacing the 318s/320s earlier. (A bit like the Meridian stopgap.)

 

[scosutsut]

With a time machine, they should have taken some 321 - preferably the Renatus units before they went for scrap. To save on costs stick a wrap over them and just run them as 4 car units, allowing all serviceable 3 car units to run in pairs.

As one train short formed to 4 car is better than two trains short formed to 3.

Many of us have moaned about that already, and they are bean cans now so 100% they walked into the current situation willingly.

 

[BerkshireRails]

What I would do is;

Use the 458 for Suburban workings. Options are either
1) reform them into 334s to create 6-car 334s.
2) retrofit them with Pans to replace some 3 & 6 car 334 diagrams, and as they are fitted with selective door operation, then you can run them as 4 & 8 car pairs if you really want.

The 350/2s could be used to replace some 318s and 320s, and maybe work with the 380s, enhancing capacity on those services.

The 769s would be for Glasgow South Western, Fife Circle and Tweedbank during electrification until new units can replace them.

 

[Kite159]

...

What I would do is;

Use the 458 for Suburban workings. Options are either
1) reform them into 334s to create 6-car 334s.
2) retrofit them with Pans to replace some 3 & 6 car 334 diagrams, and as they are fitted with selective door operation, then you can run them as 4 & 8 car pairs if you really want.

The 350/2s could be used to replace some 318s and 320s, and maybe work with the 380s, enhancing capacity on those services.

The 769s would be for Glasgow South Western, Fife Circle and Tweedbank during electrification until new units can replace them.

The odds that someone will pay a large sum to convert the 458s from DC to AC for a short term gap are quite long, not impossible. Likewise the only place for those 769s is the scrapyard, life expired when they left service with Thameslink and somehow kept alive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

...


The odds that someone will pay a large sum to convert the 458s from DC to AC for a short term gap are quite long, not impossible. Likewise the only place for those 769s is the scrapyard, life expired when they left service with Thameslink and somehow kept alive.

There seems no sense in using 458s when 350/2s exist.

 

[N1]

...


The odds that someone will pay a large sum to convert the 458s from DC to AC for a short term gap are quite long, not impossible. Likewise the only place for those 769s is the scrapyard, life expired when they left service with Thameslink and somehow kept alive.

There seems no sense in using 458s when 350/2s exist.

Not a massive sum in the grand scheme to fit pantographs and transformers to 458s, they have the wells and frame space in the trailer cars for it. Wouldn't see them being reformed though. Just leave as 5-car.

Both fleets are owned by Porterbrook though so means you can't get competition in pricing, but they may be more willing to lower costs to not have too many units sitting around. They do seem willing to just let trains sit in storage instead of sending them to scrap.

Neither sets should require large amount of training as similar to units already used by Scotrail.

All that being said, 318/320s staying another 5 years definitely the most likely outcome.

 

[Kite159]

Wouldn't see them being reformed though. Just leave as 5-car.

Most of the 5 coach 458s left are the ones without wells for the AC equipment.

 

[Peter0124]

All that being said, 318/320s staying another 5 years definitely the most likely outcome.

In my opinion, they're perfectly adequate trains for the routes they serve, no need for a short term replacement until the new order arrives.

 

[N1]

In my opinion, they're perfectly adequate trains for the routes they serve, no need for a short term replacement until the new order arrives.

Agreed. But I could see a particularly long or brutal heatwave in the next few years (El Nino is back) that extends to Glasgow leading to a whip up in the press that puts the pressure on for a political temporary stop-gap.

 

[JonathanH]

Agreed. But I could see a particularly long or brutal heatwave in the next few years (El Nino is back) that extends to Glasgow leading to a whip up in the press that puts the pressure on for a political temporary stop-gap.

If there is a long or brutal heatwave in Glasgow, I would be somewhat fearful of what that means for the rest of the world.

 

[AndrewE]

Isn't it our experience that it takes far longer and costs far more to introduce (re-use) stock from elsewhere than it could possibly cost to upgrade depot skills or staffing to keep current trains in service?

The only exception to this is where trains are already grossly overcrowded and there is absolutely no compatible or almost-identical stock to draft in - or potential intermediate vehicles to splice in to extend current units...

 

[The exile]

In my opinion, they're perfectly adequate trains for the routes they serve, no need for a short term replacement until the new order arrives.

Especially as that short term replacement probably wouldn’t even start entering service till 2028.
However, if I were doing anything, I’d use some of the 350/2s (non-intensively) on the East of Edinburgh services, thus releasing several 385s to set off a bit of a cascade. Would 4 cars on N Berwicks ever be totally inadequate (as in people unable to board)?

 

[43096]

Not a massive sum in the grand scheme to fit pantographs and transformers to 458s, they have the wells and frame space in the trailer cars for it. Wouldn't see them being reformed though. Just leave as 5-car.

The fact that you think the 458s are (still) 5-car rather exposes your lack of knowledge.

 

[N1]

The fact that you think the 458s are (still) 5-car rather exposes your lack of knowledge.

Was thinking of the 458/5s that are already stored, and were not converted back to 4-car.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not a massive sum in the grand scheme to fit pantographs and transformers to 458s, they have the wells and frame space in the trailer cars for it.

It is a massive sum for about 2-3 years use.

It’s not just the cost of rebuilding them, there is the cost of all the work necessary to get them to fit the infrastrcuture (and vice versa), crew training, fitter training, station staff training, etc etc.

 

[43096]

Was thinking of the 458/5s that are already stored, and were not converted back to 4-car.

All eight of them. Six of which don't have the pantograph wells etc for AC operation.

 

[BerkshireRails]

...


The odds that someone will pay a large sum to convert the 458s from DC to AC for a short term gap are quite long, not impossible. Likewise the only place for those 769s is the scrapyard, life expired when they left service with Thameslink and somehow kept alive.

I was thinking with the class 458 reforms into 334s. This would give Scotrail an equivalent 26 extra 3-car 334s, as they would have 26 6-car 334 sets and 16 3-car sets, which, although it would split the fleet into two subclasses, could provide sufficient capacity to enable the removal of the diesel East Kilbride line diagrams and introduction of Turn Up And Go services on more lines. The centre vehicles from the 458s would be inserted into 26 out of the 42-strong fleet of 334s.

The 769 suggestion was only to get the benefits of electrification for passengers on the Fife Circle and Tweedbank sooner, as otherwise they will be waiting longer, suffering with pure diesel units. In contrast, LNER passengers benefit from the partial electrification of the Fife Circle. Any new units for Fife Circle are unlikely to enter service before the mid-2030s, and the Edinburgh to Forth Bridge electrification would have been installed for nearly a decade, used only by the handful of LNER services that run north of Edinburgh.

 

[Kite159]

I was thinking with the class 458 reforms into 334s. This would give Scotrail an equivalent 26 extra 3-car 334s, as they would have 26 6-car 334 sets and 16 3-car sets, which, although it would split the fleet into two subclasses, could provide sufficient capacity to enable the removal of the diesel East Kilbride line diagrams and introduction of Turn Up And Go services on more lines. The centre vehicles from the 458s would be inserted into 26 out of the 42-strong fleet of 334s.

The 769 suggestion was only to get the benefits of electrification for passengers on the Fife Circle and Tweedbank sooner, as otherwise they will be waiting longer, suffering with pure diesel units. In contrast, LNER passengers benefit from the partial electrification of the Fife Circle. Any new units for Fife Circle are unlikely to enter service before the mid-2030s, and the Edinburgh to Forth Bridge electrification would have been installed for nearly a decade, used only by the handful of LNER services that run north of Edinburgh.

Chance of that happening is 0.000001%. Nobody will fund the large sum which will be needed to convert the 458s to AC, not for the length of time they have left

 

[Class83]

I was thinking with the class 458 reforms into 334s. This would give Scotrail an equivalent 26 extra 3-car 334s, as they would have 26 6-car 334 sets and 16 3-car sets, which, although it would split the fleet into two subclasses, could provide sufficient capacity to enable the removal of the diesel East Kilbride line diagrams and introduction of Turn Up And Go services on more lines. The centre vehicles from the 458s would be inserted into 26 out of the 42-strong fleet of 334s.

The 769 suggestion was only to get the benefits of electrification for passengers on the Fife Circle and Tweedbank sooner, as otherwise they will be waiting longer, suffering with pure diesel units. In contrast, LNER passengers benefit from the partial electrification of the Fife Circle. Any new units for Fife Circle are unlikely to enter service before the mid-2030s, and the Edinburgh to Forth Bridge electrification would have been installed for nearly a decade, used only by the handful of LNER services that run north of Edinburgh.

769s are not a great solution for the Fife Circle as the interior is significantly worse than the 170s/158s they'd be replacing, so the only real benefit would be capacity. However they are 80m long so can't run in multiple as the platforms are generally something like 147m long (suitable for 6*23m) so a double 769 couldn't stop at many stations without SDO. This would then mean they'd need to be run in the shoulder peaks to allow the 170s/158s to run in multiple on the busiest trains as a single 769 is effectively 3.5 carriages, but it wouldn't be a simple task to timetable. Unless they could be reformed to 3 (operating in pairs) or 6 car (single) but I've no idea if the units would work with that.

 

[Kite159]

769s are not a great solution for the Fife Circle as the interior is significantly worse than the 170s/158s they'd be replacing, so the only real benefit would be capacity. However they are 80m long so can't run in multiple as the platforms are generally something like 147m long (suitable for 6*23m) so a double 769 couldn't stop at many stations without SDO. This would then mean they'd need to be run in the shoulder peaks to allow the 170s/158s to run in multiple on the busiest trains as a single 769 is effectively 3.5 carriages, but it wouldn't be a simple task to timetable. Unless they could be reformed to 3 (operating in pairs) or 6 car (single) but I've no idea if the units would work with that.

I'm pretty sure unlike the 321s which had a trailer coach which could get removed without causing too many issues, the 319's trailer coach has stuff underneath it which would require to be relocated to one of the other coaches.

Best place for the failed experiment of the 769s is the scrappy

 

[GRALISTAIR]

...


The odds that someone will pay a large sum to convert the 458s from DC to AC for a short term gap are quite long, not impossible. Likewise the only place for those 769s is the scrapyard, life expired when they left service with Thameslink and somehow kept alive.

Absolutely yes. I agree.

There seems no sense in using 458s when 350/2s exist.

Yes