ScotRail’s New Trains Procurement Programme

[Ex-controller]

And that is what will be needed.
Much like Greater Anglia sorted / sorting all their platforms for better level boarding and lengths... as we'll likely never have double deck trains in this country, longer units are the only way and that means longer platforms.
No point in skimping out what will be required... that is simply the price that must be paid.

Many stations in the west of Scotland are underground or with island platforms and have no additional space to extend. The likes of Argyle Street and Anderston won’t be getting extended anywhere.

 

[Trainbike46]

Many stations in the west of Scotland are underground or with island platforms and have no additional space to extend. The likes of Argyle Street and Anderston won’t be getting extended anywhere.

That's what SDO is for though

 

[Ex-controller]

That's what SDO is for though

At Argyle Street?!

 

[Trainbike46]

At Argyle Street?!

I meant that if both of these apply:
-Longer trains are needed or desirable
-Platforms cannot be lengthened to accommodate the longer trains

SDO is the solution. Clearly lengthening platforms if preferable, but if not possible SDO is preferable to running with trains that are too short

SDO gets used on some LU trains. if only a small number of doors is off the platform (say first pair and last pair), that's okay even at busy stations

 

[Peter0124]

SDO gets used at Shieldmuir and Bellshill doesn't it?

 

[Clansman]

Many stations in the west of Scotland are underground or with island platforms and have no additional space to extend. The likes of Argyle Street and Anderston won’t be getting extended anywhere.

18 metres is all that's required on those platforms. No easy task.

From a glance at using these stations (Argyle Street, Glasgow Central and Anderston), when a 6-coach is occupying a platform there is at least 6 or 7 metres of spare platform on the tail end, as well as space between the tracks tapering at either end of the stations (also visible on YouTube clips). There is also, on one or two of them, space between the track and the station wall to perhaps extend the curve of the track outwards slightly to buy an additional few metres.

Not sure about Charing Cross, but Dalmarnock, Exhibition Centre, Glasgow Queen Street, and Bridgeton all have space to extend.

Taking this into account, you could, in theory, fit all the doors of a 6 x 23m coach unit on the platforms by only extending into the track tapering and thus negating the need to completely rebuild the stations and tunnels?

Slim margins though, admittedly. But if you sort out the central Glasgow stations, then the orbital suburban ones you could get away with having one set of doors at either end locked.

Are you familiar with the platform measurements and structural nature of the tunnels to be able to say if the above is doable?

 

[Energy]

18 metres is all that's required on those platforms. No easy task.

From a glance at using these stations (Argyle Street, Glasgow Central and Anderston), when a 6-coach is occupying a platform there is at least 6 or 7 metres of spare platform on the tail end, as well as space between the tracks tapering at either end of the stations (also visible on YouTube clips). There is also, on one or two of them, space between the track and the station wall to perhaps extend the curve of the track outwards slightly to buy an additional few metres.

Not sure about Charing Cross, but Dalmarnock, Exhibition Centre, Glasgow Queen Street, and Bridgeton all have space to extend.

Taking this into account, you could, in theory, fit all the doors of a 6 x 23m coach unit on the platforms by only extending into the track tapering and thus negating the need to completely rebuild the stations and tunnels?

Slim margins though, admittedly. But if you sort out the central Glasgow stations, then the orbital suburban ones you could get away with having one set of doors at either end locked.

Are you familiar with the platform measurements and structural nature of the tunnels to be able to say if the above is doable?

6 x ~23m would be preferable but if not possible then 5 x ~23m is a similar length to the current 6 x 20m while not requiring a special fleet of 20m units.

 

[InOban]

The 'old' subsurface stations such as CentralLL, QSLL and Charing Cross have station boxes significantly longer than the platforms because the steam engines sat beneath a ventilation shaft. There should be no difficulty in lengthening the platforms. The new stations (Argyll St, Anderston) were presumably not future proofed with platforms any longer than was necessary at the time.

 

[Peter0124]

The 'old' subsurface stations such as CentralLL, QSLL and Charing Cross have station boxes significantly longer than the platforms because the steam engines sat beneath a ventilation shaft. There should be no difficulty in lengthening the platforms. The new stations (Argyll St, Anderston) were presumably not future proofed with platforms any longer than was necessary at the time.

Where's the ventilation shaft at Central LL?

 

[InOban]

Thinking about it I don't know
But there must have been some way of letting the fumes out.

 

[Ex-controller]

I meant that if both of these apply:
-Longer trains are needed or desirable
-Platforms cannot be lengthened to accommodate the longer trains

SDO is the solution. Clearly lengthening platforms if preferable, but if not possible SDO is preferable to running with trains that are too short

SDO gets used on some LU trains. if only a small number of doors is off the platform (say first pair and last pair), that's okay even at busy stations

SDO wouldn’t be appropriate at Argyle Street. It’s a principal City Centre station with too much passenger flow, you’d need to give each train at least 2 minutes at the station so everyone could get off or on whilst moving between carriages, and that’s before loadings at Central are considered.

 

[hexagon789]

Thinking about it I don't know
But there must have been some way of letting the fumes out.

I understand that there weren't proper ventilation shafts and that was one of the many issues with the line as it was.

Electrification was planned as early as 1898, but despite a bill passing parliament nothing happened.

Condensing engines were used in this period, but seemed to fall out of favour.

The smoky atmosphere led to some accidents, one report after an accident in 1949 stating that drivers seemed "used to travelling the line without being able to see many of the signals".

 

[Clansman]

SDO wouldn’t be appropriate at Argyle Street. It’s a principal City Centre station with too much passenger flow, you’d need to give each train at least 2 minutes at the station so everyone could get off or on whilst moving between carriages, and that’s before loadings at Central are considered.

Is that S for Single, or S for Selective?

The latter works just fine on the London Underground, so if it came down to disabling 1 set of doors, there shouldn't be any major issue with dwell times.

Single door opening is a different story understandably, but if the latter is managable for the tube, it's doable for Argyle Street.

 

[Rick1984]

I think a fixed formation of 6x20m or 5x23m would be adequate. Walk through carriages would help too.

 

[Dm126]

The ventilation at Central Low Level was at the west end of the station. On old maps you can see the platform ends and point work in the open. When the site was redeveloped it was covered over but presumably the space still exists.

 

[Trainbike46]

Is that S for Single, or S for Selective?

The latter works just fine on the London Underground, so if it came down to disabling 1 set of doors, there shouldn't be any major issue with dwell times.

Single door opening is a different story understandably, but if the latter is managable for the tube, it's doable for Argyle Street.

It's Selective door opening. And I wasn't suggesting things like only opening the doors on 2 out of 12 carriages, but doing what happens at some tube stations, where the first doors on the first carriage and the last doors on the last carriage don't open. That allows for an extra coach, while every coach still has a door on the platform.

 

[James Kevill]

Since there's been going on about rolling stock replacement, will the 40 Class 334 Junipers be replaced as well?

 

[Energy]

Since there's been going on about rolling stock replacement, will the 40 Class 334 Junipers be replaced as well?

I believe so, SR said they want to keep only 2 out of 11 EMU leases, which leaves the 385s and 380s only. Keeping the 334s would mean a replacement will be needed in 20 years time.

 

[Strathclyder]

The ventilation at Central Low Level was at the west end of the station. On old maps you can see the platform ends and point work in the open. When the site was redeveloped it was covered over but presumably the space still exists.

Indeed, this is what it looked like in July 1976 after the line was first closed and before it was reopened as part of the Argyle Line project (clearly whatever had there before had been flattened), prior to the Westergate block being built on the site in the mid/late 80s.

 

[yorkie]

Just a gentle reminder this is a thread for updates regarding ScotRail’s New Trains Procurement Programme

Any posts of a speculative nature belong in Speculative Discussion, thanks

Edit: some posts have been moved to a new thread, at the link below:

Could other operators make use of unwanted stock from Scotrail?

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/scotrail%E2%80%99s-new-trains-procurement-programme.235459 I’m surprised that SR are looking to replace their 334s which won’t even be 30 years old by the time they are replaced. I still see them as modern stock. It makes total...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[JumpinTrainz]

I hope the plan is to remove the Class 380s and 385s work on the Cathcart/Paisley Canal/Neilston/Newton routes. I find them to be unsuitable.

It would be good to have a more unified fleet on the North Clyde (including A-B), Argyle and Cathcart/Newton/Neilston/Paisley Canal services. Perhaps the shorter services including the newly electrified Barrhead and EK electrification would benefit from a sub fleet of a more spacious lay out inside for short journey’s. The same style could be argued for the other lines but I think the A-B would benefit from tables - something the 334s really lack especially given their longer distance towards Edinburgh. The other lines could do without them.

 

[Razorblades]

I hope the plan is to remove the Class 380s and 385s work on the Cathcart/Paisley Canal/Neilston/Newton routes. I find them to be unsuitable.

It would be good to have a more unified fleet on the North Clyde (including A-B), Argyle and Cathcart/Newton/Neilston/Paisley Canal services. Perhaps the shorter services including the newly electrified Barrhead and EK electrification would benefit from a sub fleet of a more spacious lay out inside for short journey’s. The same style could be argued for the other lines but I think the A-B would benefit from tables - something the 334s really lack especially given their longer distance towards Edinburgh. The other lines could do without them.

One wonders what level of pre-work SRT/ TS has completed at this stage in the process; have they got a couple of interior specifications/ layouts/ configurations in mind already and drawn-up/ sketched/ rendered as artist's impressions?

Have they established the basic performances/ acceleration/ top speed/ braking performance for a suburban fleet and a regional one, perhaps?

 

[Peter0124]

I hope the plan is to remove the Class 380s and 385s work on the Cathcart/Paisley Canal/Neilston/Newton routes. I find them to be unsuitable.

It would be good to have a more unified fleet on the North Clyde (including A-B), Argyle and Cathcart/Newton/Neilston/Paisley Canal services. Perhaps the shorter services including the newly electrified Barrhead and EK electrification would benefit from a sub fleet of a more spacious lay out inside for short journey’s. The same style could be argued for the other lines but I think the A-B would benefit from tables - something the 334s really lack especially given their longer distance towards Edinburgh. The other lines could do without them.

I disagree selfishly because I quite like the 380s working the Newton services. As long as tables are kept on the replacement fleet.

 

[JumpinTrainz]

One wonders what level of pre-work SRT/ TS has completed at this stage in the process; have they got a couple of interior specifications/ layouts/ configurations in mind already and drawn-up/ sketched/ rendered as artist's impressions?

Have they established the basic performances/ acceleration/ top speed/ braking performance for a suburban fleet and a regional one, perhaps?

I wonder too. It would be nice for passengers to be consulted also. On services that are more like a metro service (ie Cathcart Circle) they would benefit from more standing room if it’s just a hop on and off after a few stations.

Services out to Lanarkshire and beyond (ie Edinburgh) would benefit from something like the 380s and 385s with a mix of tables and a mix of 2 seater and 4 seater bays around a table.