• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Class 318 - was unit 318270 an additional unit?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
10 Jan 2018
Messages
276
As we may or may not know, unit 318270 had vehicles 77288 + 62890 + 77289, and was not numbered sequentially like 318250 to 318269.
According to the British Rail At Work: Scotrail book by Colin Boocock, it was mentioned that 20 Class 318 units would be built.

Is it true that 318270 was added to the original order of 20 units?

Also, is there a reason it is being numbered 318250 to 318270, rather than something like 318201 to 221 or even 318301 to 321. My guess is that it was to do with the ScotRail numbering policy because there were Class 314 units being numbered 314201 to 216. ScotRail would order Class 320 units a few years later, and they would be numbered 320301 to 322.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,162
As we may or may not know, unit 318270 had vehicles 77288 + 62890 + 77289, and was not numbered sequentially like 318250 to 318269.
According to the British Rail At Work: Scotrail book by Colin Boocock, it was mentioned that 20 Class 318 units would be built.

Is it true that 318270 was added to the original order of 20 units?
Was electrification of the Largs branch authorised later than the main Ayr/Ardrossan scheme, with an additional unit being ordered at that time?
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
2,924
Location
The Fens
As we may or may not know, unit 318270 had vehicles 77288 + 62890 + 77289, and was not numbered sequentially like 318250 to 318269.
According to the British Rail At Work: Scotrail book by Colin Boocock, it was mentioned that 20 Class 318 units would be built.

Is it true that 318270 was added to the original order of 20 units?
Yes. 20 units were originally ordered in 1984 for the Ayrshire electrification.

I haven't yet been able to find anything to explain why an extra unit was added more than a year later.
 

Falcon1200

Established Member
Joined
14 Jun 2021
Messages
3,577
Location
Neilston, East Renfrewshire
I haven't yet been able to find anything to explain why an extra unit was added more than a year later.

318270 was added to the order later because, originally, Ardrossan South Beach/Largs was not to be wired but served by a DMU shuttle. When common sense prevailed and money found to complete the electrification an additional set was required to maintain the planned timetable.

Also, is there a reason it is being numbered 318250 to 318270, rather than something like 318201 to 221 or even 318301 to 321.

Yes, the 318s were indeed numbered 250-270 to avoid conflict with the 314s (we usually referred to sets by the last three digits only). What I cannot explain is why they were not numbered 251-271, ie starting with a 1 as per the other fleets !
 

Scotrail314209

Established Member
Joined
1 Feb 2017
Messages
2,346
Location
Edinburgh
318270 was added to the order later because, originally, Ardrossan South Beach/Largs was not to be wired but served by a DMU shuttle. When common sense prevailed and money found to complete the electrification an additional set was required to maintain the planned timetable.
And look at how busy the Largs services are! I'm glad that didn't happen.
 

Strathclyder

Established Member
Joined
12 Jun 2013
Messages
3,178
Location
Clydebank
Was electrification of the Largs branch authorised later than the main Ayr/Ardrossan scheme, with an additional unit being ordered at that time?
Aye, that was indeed the case. @Falcon1200 details it in post #4. It's something I've always wondered myself, nice to finally have a conclusive answer.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,865
318270 was added to the order later because, originally, Ardrossan South Beach/Largs was not to be wired but served by a DMU shuttle. When common sense prevailed and money found to complete the electrification an additional set was required to maintain the planned timetable.



Yes, the 318s were indeed numbered 250-270 to avoid conflict with the 314s (we usually referred to sets by the last three digits only). What I cannot explain is why they were not numbered 251-271, ie starting with a 1 as per the other fleets !

This policy seemed to be common in most BR-era AC EMUs within a given region. For instance from the ER you have 3096xx, 3127xx and 3158xx, all numbered presumably to avoid conflicts in the last three digits.

On the LM I definitely remember the 304s began at 001, and the unit displayed a small '304' above a large '0xx'. I think the 310s were then numbered starting where the 304s left off.
 
Last edited:

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,162
On the LM I definitely remember the 304s began at 001, and the unit displayed a small '304' above a large '0xx'. I think the 310s were then numbered starting where the 304s left off.
Yes, the 304s were 001-045, then the 310s followed on as 046-095. The same applied on the Scottish Region where the 303s were 001-091 and the 311s followed on as 092-110.
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
2,924
Location
The Fens
This policy seemed to be common in most BR-era AC EMUs within a given region. For instance from the ER you have 3096xx, 3127xx and 3158xx, all numbered presumably to avoid conflicts in the last three digits.
Class 312s did not start out as 3127xx. When new the GN units were 312001-026, the GE units were 312101-119 and the LM units were 312201-204.

Also on the ER 306001-092 overlapped with 313001-064.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,531
Also on the ER 306001-092 overlapped with 313001-064
313s weren't based on the Anglia side though. Didn't the ones that got sent to work the Walton on the Naze line get renumbered to a higher number series for a while (although as that was after the 306s had gone it wasn't connected with number clashes)?
 

LT02 NVV

Member
Joined
12 Nov 2019
Messages
272
Location
Glasgow
318270 was added to the order later because, originally, Ardrossan South Beach/Largs was not to be wired but served by a DMU shuttle. When common sense prevailed and money found to complete the electrification an additional set was required to maintain the planned timetable.



Yes, the 318s were indeed numbered 250-270 to avoid conflict with the 314s (we usually referred to sets by the last three digits only). What I cannot explain is why they were not numbered 251-271, ie starting with a 1 as per the other fleets !
Interesting, the only other time I can think of that happening with Scotrail was with the Class 334s, which, had a lot of teething troubles, as the units had loads of problems, which lead to unit 001 running away from the platform with 005, and coming off the rails at the Central Junction.
Images for Context here:


This lead to Alstom giving Scotrail 2 Extra 334 units (039 & 040), and I also believe Scotrail also ordered 2 SPT Livery Class 170 Turbostars (470 & 471) from ADtrainz as well.
 

Neptune

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2018
Messages
2,445
Location
Yorkshire
I don’t think it was directly as a result of the run away incident but they ordered 38 and got 2 additional units due to the issues at introduction. I’m sure 170470/471 were also something to do with this despite being from a different manufacturer but can’t be certain what the ins and outs of it were.
 

LT02 NVV

Member
Joined
12 Nov 2019
Messages
272
Location
Glasgow
I don’t think it was directly as a result of the run away incident but they ordered 38 and got 2 additional units due to the issues at introduction. I’m sure 170470/471 were also something to do with this despite being from a different manufacturer but can’t be certain what the ins and outs of it were.
Yes, I know, I was just listing a teething trouble they had.
 

ginge8991

Member
Joined
22 Jan 2014
Messages
68
I don’t think it was directly as a result of the run away incident but they ordered 38 and got 2 additional units due to the issues at introduction. I’m sure 170470/471 were also something to do with this despite being from a different manufacturer but can’t be certain what the ins and outs of it were.
I’m sure Alstom financed all or at least the majority of the initial lease costs of the 2 Class 170s as part of the goodwill gesture which included the extra pair of 334s.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top