5x Class 153 conversion to bike and baggage vans for Scotrail

[berneyarms]

The Friends of the West Highland Line website is mentioning that the first 153 conversion should enter service in May. It also mentions that only Oban and Glasgow crews are being trained initially - does this mean these will not get to Fort William for the foreseeable future?

There is no plan for them to go to Fort William.

They were only ever going to run to/from Oban on the self-contained trains that did not join/separate with Mallaig services at Crianlarich.

 

[scotraildriver]

The Friends of the West Highland Line website is mentioning that the first 153 conversion should enter service in May. It also mentions that only Oban and Glasgow crews are being trained initially - does this mean these will not get to Fort William for the foreseeable future?

Unfortunately like alot of things FWHL say that is plain wrong. There are alot of changes afoot for the WHL. Wait and see.

 

[InOban]

Before Covid19 there was a working group including a range of organisations with an interest in the future of the WHL, from freight to tourist and community groups. It included a FoWHL representative. We would all be interested if plans were still moving forward.

 

[AMD]

The 153s appear in this recent IMechE webinar -

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Before Covid19 there was a working group including a range of organisations with an interest in the future of the WHL, from freight to tourist and community groups. It included a FoWHL representative. We would all be interested if plans were still moving forward.

Unfortunately like alot of things FWHL say that is plain wrong. There are alot of changes afoot for the WHL. Wait and see

There was mention (on another thread?) of a timetable recast, hint of the separation of Oban and Fort William services. But no detail was offered / available.

 

[Steven_G]

If there is capacity between QS and Crianlarich then fantastic.

Drivers hours and scheduling another factor for Scotrail?

 

[John Bishop]

I believe there has been some recent work on some platforms in Inverness to accommodate 153s on Far North/ west services in the future.

 

[scotraildriver]

The plan is to separate all services eliminating the Crianlarich splits. Extra drivers have been recruited for this. The biggest constraint is finding paths between Glasgow and Helensburgh.

 

[Maxfly]

There is no plan for them to go to Fort William.

They were only ever going to run to/from Oban on the self-contained trains that did not join/separate with Mallaig services at Crianlarich.

Not the case, see Scotraildrivers reply above. The plan has always been for them to also get to Fort William but initially they could slot straight into the Oban trains and start without major changes, New occupied tokens now available at Oban for example. Also why they have been gauge cleared for the whole WHL.

 

[InOban]

The plan is to separate all services eliminating the Crianlarich splits. Extra drivers have been recruited for this. The biggest constraint is finding paths between Glasgow and Helensburgh.

I would be delighted if that happens ；the draft timetable circulated 2 years ago only separated some services.

 

[scotraildriver]

There are now 9 drivers at Oban and new recruits at Ft William and Mallaig. You don't need that for the current service levels.

 

[waverley47]

So, not sure how much of this is public yet, and all subject to change, but oh well. Makes sense to say here anyway.

Current (ScotRail) timetable is 6 trains each way to Oban, and three each way to Fort Bill.

The three services to Mallaig divide at Crianlairich, however due to the difference in journey times, this means that they join a different train when they arrive back in Crianlairich. This is important, as it means that you cant sent a three or four coach train to Oban and expect it to slot nicely into the back of a Mallaig service for the run back to Queen Street.

To fully separate the services, you need to completely split off the Oban services with the extra coaches, and ensure that they remain captive diagrams. This is possible, but requires a timetable rewrite.

Main problem so far has been Craigendorran Junction; you don't want to park anything on the single running line waiting for something coming the other way, while holding up every train on the line. This isn't really solvable without major interventions.

The next problem is timetabling and paths from Craigendorran to Dalmuir. (The cutting back of Dumbarton terminators to Dalmuir has made this easier, but the problem remains).

Next is the horrible layout at Westerton. Here, the two single lead junctions and interaction with both Milngavie services and North Clyde services is incredibly restrictive, with up services having to run wrong line through the platform there, before joining the Maryhill line. There doesn't seem to be an obvious solution to this from what I've seen, but it's in the list of renewals/enhancements for CP7.

Platform capacity at Queen Street is no longer a serious consideration, however trying to find a slot to chug up the hill from Queen Street remains an issue. This will eventually be solved, but that's by replacement rolling stock in a decade or so.

Future timetabling will split the services off at Queen Street, so that the Oban service remain captive, and helpfully increase service frequency (but not capacity by any meaningful level) on the southern half of the line. The six Oban services can then run with either 3 or 4 coaches. This will require more passing at Glen Douglas and Ardlui, which currently don't see much passing.

After that, the main improvement is in about another four timetable changes, when the 156s freed by the east Kilbride wires come on stream. The Fort William services should be increasing to 5 each way, with three extending to Mallaig.


In all, the current plan for the coming timetables splits the services to give 9tpd between Crianlairich and Queen street, up from 6. This increase in frequency is a slight increase in capacity, with extra coaches added to the Oban terminators, but not huge. Capacity comes down the line, but splitting the timetable is a necessary first step for a marked increase in service provision.

 

[47827]

.

So, not sure how much of this is public yet, and all subject to change, but oh well. Makes sense to say here anyway.

Current (ScotRail) timetable is 6 trains each way to Oban, and three each way to Fort Bill.

The three services to Mallaig divide at Crianlairich, however due to the difference in journey times, this means that they join a different train when they arrive back in Crianlairich. This is important, as it means that you cant sent a three or four coach train to Oban and expect it to slot nicely into the back of a Mallaig service for the run back to Queen Street.

To fully separate the services, you need to completely split off the Oban services with the extra coaches, and ensure that they remain captive diagrams. This is possible, but requires a timetable rewrite.

Main problem so far has been Craigendorran Junction; you don't want to park anything on the single running line waiting for something coming the other way, while holding up every train on the line. This isn't really solvable without major interventions.

The next problem is timetabling and paths from Craigendorran to Dalmuir. (The cutting back of Dumbarton terminators to Dalmuir has made this easier, but the problem remains).

Next is the horrible layout at Westerton. Here, the two single lead junctions and interaction with both Milngavie services and North Clyde services is incredibly restrictive, with up services having to run wrong line through the platform there, before joining the Maryhill line. There doesn't seem to be an obvious solution to this from what I've seen, but it's in the list of renewals/enhancements for CP7.

Platform capacity at Queen Street is no longer a serious consideration, however trying to find a slot to chug up the hill from Queen Street remains an issue. This will eventually be solved, but that's by replacement rolling stock in a decade or so.

Future timetabling will split the services off at Queen Street, so that the Oban service remain captive, and helpfully increase service frequency (but not capacity by any meaningful level) on the southern half of the line. The six Oban services can then run with either 3 or 4 coaches. This will require more passing at Glen Douglas and Ardlui, which currently don't see much passing.

After that, the main improvement is in about another four timetable changes, when the 156s freed by the east Kilbride wires come on stream. The Fort William services should be increasing to 5 each way, with three extending to Mallaig.


In all, the current plan for the coming timetables splits the services to give 9tpd between Crianlairich and Queen street, up from 6. This increase in frequency is a slight increase in capacity, with extra coaches added to the Oban terminators, but not huge. Capacity comes down the line, but splitting the timetable is a necessary first step for a marked increase in service provision.

Thanks for offering a more specific explanation. Additional traffic and charters (although now not so common anyhow) will be ever harder to squeeze onto the route, although probably not completely impossible as essentially you could run hourly trains between Craigendoran to Crianlarich each if everything else could be simply planned around that so 9 services each way isn't quite filling that section.

Glen Douglas has only tended to be used in recent years for additional traffic to pass scheduled services, or in emergencies due to something running late and sounds like Ardlui is similar.

On the WHL single line leaving Craigendoran it does sound like something could do with improving on the section up to Crianlarich, although don't see it forthcoming. Doubt the narrow ledges or cuttings allow for a lot more though. I can't recall if there is any locations a new or longer loop could even be installed though or if its simply a case of just making do as things are.

Its a shame the services have to be split apart to allow these improvements as an 8 or 9 carriage formation as far as Crianlarich would (were it possible) reduce the risk of the new timetable becoming a performance headache that could occasionally lead to big delays sometimes or conflicts on the suburban lines into Glasgow.

 

[adamedwards]

Thank you for that very useful update.

My Trackmaps book shows a reversible West Highland Loop at Craigendoran Junction. Can that be used to recess a train and pass? It looks like a train could come off the WHL into the loop with out crossing the Helensburgh line, which would alow a unit heading north to pass. Does that make any difference to pathing?

Getting even more outside the box, can a WHL train be routed from the Maryhill lines via Knightswood South junction and then around the curve via Yoker? It would take longer but might avoid something at Westerton? I am guessing the problem then is conflicts at the other junctions as it has to cross both Singer lines and the Up Yoker.

Very much looking forward to more trains. I would think when they can run them Fort William will see more use as it will be a much better service. I look forward to seeing the speculative timetables shortly!

 

[47827]

Am aware of various things going into Craigendoran loop over the years. Indeed had a lengthy sit in it one Saturday evening on a late running landcruise to Oban, before another big delay at Crianlarich for the 20xx ex Oban to pass. It could be used theoretically. At the moment I imagine it's only used a little bit if something is late or if a freight needs to wait its path. Think its bi directional if my memory is working.

 

[waverley47]

On the WHL single line leaving Craigendoran it does sound like something could do with improving on the section up to Crianlarich, although don't see it forthcoming. Doubt the narrow ledges or cuttings allow for a lot more though. I can't recall if there is any locations a new or longer loop could even be installed though or if its simply a case of just making do as things are.

The only location flat enough for a decent sized loop is at Glen Douglas, which already has a nicely sized (if unused) yard. There is absolutely no scope for doubling any of the plain line anywhere along the route, so unfortunately what we have is what we're stuck with.

My Trackmaps book shows a reversible West Highland Loop at Craigendoran Junction. Can that be used to recess a train and pass? It looks like a train could come off the WHL into the loop with out crossing the Helensburgh line, which would alow a unit heading north to pass. Does that make any difference to pathing?

Is possible and does happen, but it's not entirely practical. The signalling overlap of the loop is itself the single track section up to helensburgh upper, so there are issues using it in normal service.

Getting even more outside the box, can a WHL train be routed from the Maryhill lines via Knightswood South junction and then around the curve via Yoker? It would take longer but might avoid something at Westerton? I am guessing the problem then is conflicts at the other junctions as it has to cross both Singer lines and the Up Yoker.

That unfortunately is not possible in normal timetabling. It crosses no less than three running lines and needs a clear run as there isn't a signalling overlap.

Its a shame the services have to be split apart to allow these improvements as an 8 or 9 carriage formation as far as Crianlarich would (were it possible) reduce the risk of the new timetable becoming a performance headache that could occasionally lead to big delays sometimes or conflicts on the suburban lines into Glasgow.

Back on topic, the problem is platform lengths. Six is about the limit, and if you slot in a 153 then you make an odd number. Splitting 2/4 works well enough now, but you'd need to do 3/3 which reduces capacity on the Fort Bill branch. The 153s are a step change in service provision, but they only work with separate timetabling unfortunately.

Even if you were able to run a 9 coach train as far as Crianlairich, that becomes a nightmare to platform at Queen Street, and tbh how much of a market is there for these trains in the winter. The flow is very seasonal, and while these new coaches help with extra space for leisure journeys, the split would still be needed anyway to even up loads and increase frequencies.

 

[awsnews]

Am aware of various things going into Craigendoran loop over the years. Indeed had a lengthy sit in it one Saturday evening on a late running landcruise to Oban, before another big delay at Crianlarich for the 20xx ex Oban to pass. It could be used theoretically. At the moment I imagine it's only used a little bit if something is late or if a freight needs to wait its path. Think its bi directional if my memory is working.

It is a resonable length as well, the stock for the Jacobite occupied is for about an hour on Monday whilst they topped up with water without causing any nock on effects. I don't know where the track is positioned these days but in the lower part of the WHL Helensburgh Upper, Rhu and Shandon stations were all two platforms but adding passing loops there probably wouldn't be of much use. Given all the complexities of going beyond Dalmuir there is an argument to be made about starting back at Dumbarton (puts on tin hat and runs for cover)

 

[najaB]

Is possible and does happen, but it's not entirely practical. The signalling overlap of the loop is itself the single track section up to helensburgh upper, so there are issues using it in normal service.

Forgive my ignorance, but why is this the case? Since it's a loop wouldn't the exit be protected by a derail/catch point, or is that not allowed on passenger loops?

 

[47827]

One other point that's crossed my mind (and apologies if I've forgotten or not found the answer elsewhere) but are there just 5 of these 153s being done to cover routes off Inverness as well as all the West Highland routes? (as per thread title). Obviously there's too many services on the West Highland and full routes north of Inverness to have more than a couple out at each end in the summer. You could still share paths on an odd train to Crianlarich if that was true as it'd still be just 6 cars on a few of them.

 

[waverley47]

Forgive my ignorance, but why is this the case? Since it's a loop wouldn't the exit be protected by a derail/catch point, or is that not allowed on passenger loops?

My apologies, went back and checked and in the SA it's now signalled as a bi-directional move to passenger standards.

The difficultly remains though that it is easier for a northbound train to wait on the main line, with flank protection and a signal overlap (no catch points on the SA and even if there were, I'm no expert on the signalling allowance of catch points for passenger trains).

One other point that's crossed my mind (and apologies if I've forgotten or not found the answer elsewhere) but are there just 5 of these 153s being done to cover routes off Inverness as well as all the West Highland routes? (as per thread title). Obviously there's too many services on the West Highland and full routes north of Inverness to have more than a couple out at each end in the summer. You could still share paths on an odd train to Crianlarich if that was true as it'd still be just 6 cars on a few of them.

Unfortunately not. Currently, the services run as six cars to Crianlairich and split 2/4. The maximum platform length is 6*23m, so unless you wanted to reduce train length on the Fort Bill section (that would go down like a lead balloon in the summer months) you have to split the services. This gives a 3/4 car length for Oban, and a 4/5 car length for Fort Bill.

 

[47827]

My apologies, went back and checked and in the SA it's now signalled as a bi-directional move to passenger standards.

The difficultly remains though that it is easier for a northbound train to wait on the main line, with flank protection and a signal overlap (no catch points on the SA and even if there were, I'm no expert on the signalling allowance of catch points for passenger trains).



Unfortunately not. Currently, the services run as six cars to Crianlairich and split 2/4. The maximum platform length is 6*23m, so unless you wanted to reduce train length on the Fort Bill section (that would go down like a lead balloon in the summer months) you have to split the services. This gives a 3/4 car length for Oban, and a 4/5 car length for Fort Bill.

I was more suggesting that as per the thread title Scotrail haven't got enough 153s coming into the fleet (due to some being Inverness based) to cover all possible services to Oban and Fort William on the potential revised timetable. In practice, say its 2 153s off Inverness each day and 2 on the West Highland routes (with a spare that can be sent to either end) then I would struggle to see more than say a third of West Highland services being able to have one attached. The question that then springs to mind is could at least 1 of the services each direction ex Mallaig/Fort William in each direction still share a path with an Oban service that didn't have have a third carriage? Obviously if there are lots more 153s being done than the thread title then that's a non starter. Just curious.

 

[43096]

I was more suggesting that as per the thread title Scotrail haven't got enough 153s coming into the fleet (due to some being Inverness based) to cover all possible services to Oban and Fort William on the potential revised timetable. In practice, say its 2 153s off Inverness each day and 2 on the West Highland routes (with a spare that can be sent to either end) then I would struggle to see more than say a third of West Highland services being able to have one attached. The question that then springs to mind is could at least 1 of the services each direction ex Mallaig/Fort William in each direction still share a path with an Oban service that didn't have have a third carriage? Obviously if there are lots more 153s being done than the thread title then that's a non starter. Just curious.

The problem is - as was posted above - that a set that splits at Crianlarich and goes to Fort William/Mallaig will get back to Crianlarich after the unit that went to Oban did. So you could end up with 3 cars going to Oban and getting back to Crianlarich to (try to) join with a 4-car, which is beyond the maximum platform length.

 

[waverley47]

I was more suggesting that as per the thread title Scotrail haven't got enough 153s coming into the fleet (due to some being Inverness based) to cover all possible services to Oban and Fort William on the potential revised timetable. In practice, say its 2 153s off Inverness each day and 2 on the West Highland routes (with a spare that can be sent to either end) then I would struggle to see more than say a third of West Highland services being able to have one attached. The question that then springs to mind is could at least 1 of the services each direction ex Mallaig/Fort William in each direction still share a path with an Oban service that didn't have have a third carriage? Obviously if there are lots more 153s being done than the thread title then that's a non starter. Just curious.

So the problem with the west highland is that service uptake is incredibly uneven. The first morning trains northbound and the evening trains southbound are incredibly packed in the summer, often with people standing as far as Crianlairich. The first southbound train is usually empty though as far as Ardlui, with some people making the trip into Glasgow from Argyll.

The first Oban is four coaches throughout so not as bad, but the first splitting service is only 2 cars to Oban. Splitting the service gives you three cars to Oban, which is a third increase in capacity, especially bike space.

Obviously, the quieter services can still share paths, but as noted above the timings are uneven, so you may end up trying to join 7 coaches at Crianlairich which wouldn't work. The general assumption is that these will be tacked onto the end of the morning services, and wait for evening returns.

The units are basically there to give the flexibility to beef up very busy services, and will spend the rest of their lives tacked onto the ends of 156s to give extra space for sports equipment. The final distribution of these between Oban and Fort Bill services is meaningless really, as they'll end up visiting both, but splitting the timetable means that both routes can be needed up when all five arrive at cockerhill

 

[47827]

The problem is - as was posted above - that a set that splits at Crianlarich and goes to Fort William/Mallaig will get back to Crianlarich after the unit that went to Oban did. So you could end up with 3 cars going to Oban and getting back to Crianlarich to (try to) join with a 4-car, which is beyond the maximum platform length.

I understand the point there. It would take a lot of study of the plans and timetable recast to see if there were any services at all it would work with, but perhaps the plan may eventually include so many 153s all trains will need to be separated permanently. Perhaps something early morning or late evening, such as the last Queen St to Mallaig springs to mind as I'm guessing the 2 bike vehicles may not overnight on the West Highland and instead do say 1x Glasgow to Mallaig and return (08xx out for 16xx back from Mallaig) and a morning run up to Oban returning in the afternoon.

 

[scotraildriver]

Am aware of various things going into Craigendoran loop over the years. Indeed had a lengthy sit in it one Saturday evening on a late running landcruise to Oban, before another big delay at Crianlarich for the 20xx ex Oban to pass. It could be used theoretically. At the moment I imagine it's only used a little bit if something is late or if a freight needs to wait its path. Think its bi directional if my memory is working.

The loop there is used daily. The Alcans use it for a crew change and the 10.33 Qn St - Oban is booked into the loop to pass the southbound. It doesn't affect anything else.

 

[GusB]

My apologies, went back and checked and in the SA it's now signalled as a bi-directional move to passenger standards.

Could you explain what the "SA" is please?

 

[najaB]

Could you explain what the "SA" is please?

The electronic sectional appendix. It's Network Rail's documentation of the track, listing the mileage of junctions, signal boxes, speed level crossings and stations etc.

It also enumerates local rules and instructions, route clearances and permanent speed restrictions.

PDFs of the sectional appendix can be downloaded from here: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/indus...ators/national-electronic-sectional-appendix/

 

[GusB]

The electronic sectional appendix. It's Network Rail's documentation of the track, listing the mileage of junctions, signal boxes, speed level crossings and stations etc.

It also enumerates local rules and instructions, route clearances and permanent speed restrictions.

PDFs of the sectional appendix can be downloaded from here: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/indus...ators/national-electronic-sectional-appendix/

I know what the sectional appendix is. I was pointing out the use of jargon, which not everyone will understand.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Do the Class 153 units still have bodyshell and other problems?

 

[najaB]

I know what the sectional appendix is. I was pointing out the use of jargon, which not everyone will understand.

I figured as much, but gave the full explanation for anyone who didn't.