ScotRail’s New Trains Procurement Programme

[Bletchleyite]

I admittedly haven't been following the thread in question, but thanks for the heads-up regardless. I was well-aware of the 334s' issues in this particular respect, but not that the same applied to the 380s/385s.

Odd that 380s do, as they have the exact same traction package as 350s which don't have that problem.

 

[GLC]

The traction motors on the 385s also have a habit of overheating on the Cathcart Circle, and and individual unit can only be diagrammed twice around the circle before being sent on a faster duty.

This has been well documented on here but I'll try find a quote.

It's in the "ScotRail class 385" thread, in the latter pages, but I can't seem to quote it here. Starting at #4480, there is detail that all of 385, 380 and 334 have motors that overheat due to the regen braking.

Apologies for derailing the thread slightly, but I have never seen any evidence that the 380s and 385s can’t cope with repeated journeys on the Cathcart Circle, other than repeated claims on here. 334s yes, that was called out in a report when discussing 314 replacements, but not 380/385. 385s. I believe 385s have mostly liquid cooled components anyway so I would have expected them to have significantly more thermal headroom. A part of me wonders if this is a meme like 158s have broken air con. I would be happy to be proven wrong though

 

[Strathclyder]

Odd that 380s do, as they have the exact same traction package as 350s which don't have that problem.

Apologies for derailing the thread slightly, but I have never seen any evidence that the 380s and 385s can’t cope with repeated journeys on the Cathcart Circle, other than repeated claims on here. 334s yes, that was called out in a report when discussing 314 replacements, but not 380/385. 385s. I believe 385s have mostly liquid cooled components anyway so I would have expected them to have significantly more thermal headroom. A part of me wonders if this is a meme like 158s have broken air con. I would be happy to be proven wrong though

I can't claim to be an expert on this topic in the faintest possible sense. Like yourself, I'm happy to be corrected one way or the other.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Odd that 380s do, as they have the exact same traction package as 350s which don't have that problem.

380s are also diagrammed far more regularly around the Cathcart Circle than 385s, so I’d be surprised if they were restricted. They seem almost more common than the 318/320 fleet, I’ve found, and the same for services to Paisley Canal and Newton.

 

[Cowley]

The traction motors on the 385s also have a habit of overheating on the Cathcart Circle, and and individual unit can only be diagrammed twice around the circle before being sent on a faster duty.

This has been well documented on here but I'll try find a quote.

It's in the "ScotRail class 385" thread, in the latter pages, but I can't seem to quote it here. Starting at #4480, there is detail that all of 385, 380 and 334 have motors that overheat due to the regen braking.

The thread about 385s is here and post #4480 is here just for reference.

Obviously we don’t need to go over old ground, but if anyone wants to look at the discussion around that then you can use the links above.

(I’m gently saying let’s not go too far off topic here…)

 

[hexagon789]

It has annoyed me for sometime that I couldn't find the source of where I got the information re 334/380/385 traction motor restrictions as regards prolonged long-speed start-stop operation such as on the Cathcart Circle causing motor overheating issues and thus a maximum two trip restriction.

After going back through the ebtire 385 thread to the beginning I still couldn't find it. I subsequently discovered that it's in a different thread entirely. So, here is the original post, which I had thought was in the Class 385 thread, but it isn't. Hence the difficulty in finding it again.

Limited to 2 trips in a row due to the traction motors overheating as a result of the low speeds. 380s and 385s are also limited to 2 trips in a row for the same reason.

Could the class 707s be used for the Cathcart Circle Lines?

Split from the 385 discussion thread: I don't think many know the end plan for the 385s! They don't appear well suited to the Cathcart Circle at all- it would actually suit a more metro style unit with more standing room and walk through ability like the 707s. Are there not Circle diagrams that...

www.railforums.co.uk

(I believe the OP of this post, 380101, is staff, possibly even a driver? So should be in a position to know whether this restriction is indeed real.)

The thread about 385s is here and post #4480 is here just for reference.

Obviously we don’t need to go over old ground, but if anyone wants to look at the discussion around that then you can use the links above.

(I’m gently saying let’s not go too far off topic here…)

Hopefully my post below will clarify and resolve matters somewhat, @Cowley

 

[Cowley]

I’ll go with that @hexagon789.

 

[hexagon789]

I’ll go with that @hexagon789.

Cheers.

 

[Clansman]

Surprising to see TS go for a single fleet to cover everything from the Cathcart Circle to morning/evening I7C journeys and regional expresses. Standardised fleets to succeed the 158/170s and 318/320/334s was inevitable, but one to cover all is bold given the current nature of those routes.

We have yet to see publicly how a fully rotational fleet is going to be achieved without reducing capacity on current DMU routes.

Platform extensions around Strathclyde is surely inevitable. Without them, capacity is reduced drastically. And with a common fleet, the seating capacity around Strathclyde in any case is going to take a hit to maintain the current seating density and comfort levels on current DMU routes (which TS will in no way allow the reduction of).

 

[Dfatcontroller]

Surprising to see TS go for a single fleet to cover everything from the Cathcart Circle to morning/evening I7C journeys and regional expresses. Standardised fleets to succeed the 158/170s and 318/320/334s was inevitable, but one to cover all is bold given the current nature of those routes.

We have yet to see publicly how a fully rotational fleet is going to be achieved without reducing capacity on current DMU routes.

Platform extensions around Strathclyde is surely inevitable. Without them, capacity is reduced drastically. And with a common fleet, the seating capacity around Strathclyde in any case is going to take a hit to maintain the current seating density and comfort levels on current DMU routes (which TS will in no way allow the reduction of).

Are TS looking for "one class fits all" or "one supplier for multiple types of unit" ?

There's nothing to say that an I7C unit needs to look like a North Clyde replacement.
Some North Electric platforms can't be extended; some of the subterranean platforms really can't and what's the point of having a train too long for some of the key platforms? However, a 5-car EMU with longer individual vehicles which match the overall length of a 6-car 319/320/334 would have increased capacity if they had through corridor connections and the lack of intermediate driving cabs.

Something to think on........

 

[Peter0124]

The traction motors on the 385s also have a habit of overheating on the Cathcart Circle, and and individual unit can only be diagrammed twice around the circle before being sent on a faster duty.

This has been well documented on here but I'll try find a quote.

It's in the "ScotRail class 385" thread, in the latter pages, but I can't seem to quote it here. Starting at #4480, there is detail that all of 385, 380 and 334 have motors that overheat due to the regen braking.

The same 380 is diagrammed to run the Glasgow Central to Newton via Queens Park service basically all day though

 

[Clansman]

Are TS looking for "one class fits all" or "one supplier for multiple types of unit" ?

I think the word you're looking for is 'efficiency'. How to minimise the number of smaller fleets whilst maximising flexibility.

I thought they would have drawn the line at two seperate fleets to replace the 318/320/334s and 158/170s respectively given the infrastructure constraints.

There's nothing to say that an I7C unit needs to look like a North Clyde replacement.

Not the dedicated I7C stock itself, but whatever single fleet is going to work around Strathclyde is going to have to work a couple of I7C services each day to rotate each set around the network - as is the case now with everything DMU operated north of the central belt and around Fife.

Some North Electric platforms can't be extended; some of the subterranean platforms really can't and what's the point of having a train too long for some of the key platforms?

The subsurface stations aren't you're traditional underground stations where a tunnel has been bored and the stations have been cut and covered. It's all open. Looking at Glasgow Central, Anderston, Argyle Street, and Dalmarnock - there seems a decent amount of space between the track tappering back into the tunnel to potentiall fit an extra few meters of platform either side. The same applies for Bridgeton and Exhibition Centre which are constrained with tunnels at either end as well. Who knows?

However, a 5-car EMU with longer individual vehicles which match the overall length of a 6-car 319/320/334 would have increased capacity if they had through corridor connections and the lack of intermediate driving cabs.

Something to think on........

a 5 x 23m carriage EMU to replace 318/320/334s would still be a decrease on the 6 x 23m peak DMU formations seen on the 158/170 services.

Hence why it is surprising TS are going for one common fleet to replace all of those without mentioning anything infrastructurally that can offset the tradeoffs in doing so without major work.

 

[adrock1976]

Something that is absent from the report (and what would be the ideal stock replacement) regarding the Cathcart/Newton/Neilston lines is for Glasgow to bring back trams with that route being converted as a possible Phase II. The overhead line equipment dates back to 1960, which means that it has gone beyond its design life of 60 years.

Glasgow had the largest amount of tram cars (over 1000 according to an article in the local rag from last year or the year before) outside of London, when Glasgow was the Second City of the former British Empire. Glasgow should have brought back trams in time for when it hosted the Commonwealth Games in 2014, with the people who designed the tram system in Manchester doing Glasgow's as they are the experts in how to do it.

 

[Energy]

a 5 x 23m carriage EMU to replace 318/320/334s would still be a decrease on the 6 x 23m peak DMU formations seen on the 158/170 services.

Hence why it is surprising TS are going for one common fleet to replace all of those without mentioning anything infrastructurally that can offset the tradeoffs in doing so without major work.

Then 5 x ~23m units to replace the 6 car 318/320/334 services (on the platforms where 6 x 23m doesn't fit) and 2 ~23m 3 car units on the DMU services.

 

[snowball]

The notice quoted in the OP shows that some slippage has already happened. No new trains are supposed to be delivered before 2027, but the Zero Emission Energy for Transport report, discussed in the first three posts of this thread, had battery trains beginning to be introduced in 2026.

 

[Peter0124]

I have another argument against having walkthrough trains replacing the 318/320 etc:

A load of youths boarded the train I am on just now (a 320) and started playing loud music out of a speaker. Without having doors between coaches, wouldn't the whole train hear this?
What I did was move carriage and now it's quiet.

Basically I am very against having walkthrough trains unless there is atleast one end coach that has an interconnecting door (ie the quiet coach).

Can anyone tell me if it would be possible to hear people or loud crying babies up to 3/4 coaches away in a walkthrough train?

 

[mightyena]

I have another argument against having walkthrough trains replacing the 318/320 etc:

A load of youths boarded the train I am on just now (a 320) and started playing loud music out of a speaker. Without having doors between coaches, wouldn't the whole train hear this?
What I did was move carriage and now it's quiet.

Basically I am very against having walkthrough trains unless there is atleast one end coach that has an interconnecting door (ie the quiet coach).

Can anyone tell me if it would be possible to hear people or loud crying babies up to 3/4 coaches away in a walkthrough train?

From my experiences with 700s and 710s, not really. The noise fades out surprisingly effectively even with open gangways. You'd be able to hear people in the next carriage, but almost certainly not ~4 carriages down unkess they were being exceptionally loud.

 

[mcmad]

Surprising to see TS go for a single fleet to cover everything from the Cathcart Circle to morning/evening I7C journeys and regional expresses. Standardised fleets to succeed the 158/170s and 318/320/334s was inevitable, but one to cover all is bold given the current nature of those routes.

We have yet to see publicly how a fully rotational fleet is going to be achieved without reducing capacity on current DMU routes.

Platform extensions around Strathclyde is surely inevitable. Without them, capacity is reduced drastically. And with a common fleet, the seating capacity around Strathclyde in any case is going to take a hit to maintain the current seating density and comfort levels on current DMU routes (which TS will in no way allow the reduction of).

The notice says the plan is to precure 3 separate fleets, the suburban replacement for 318/20/34 and 158/70 replacement for electrified lines, then the fleet of (presumably) hydrogen for the rural routes then lastly a fleet for IC7 works by which time will be largely electrified

 

[Snow1964]

The notice says the plan is to precure 3 separate fleets, the suburban replacement for 318/20/34 and 158/70 replacement for electrified lines, then the fleet of (presumably) hydrogen for the rural routes then lastly a fleet for IC7 works by which time will be largely electrified

Also appears the notice refers to 65% of the fleet (about 675 carriages). This suggests a fleet of about 1040 vehicles. The other 35% would logically be class 380s and 385s

However what it doesn’t seem to exclude is the possibility of some other units being used for a few years in interim. As an example it looks possible that 15x units could be replaced by 170s on an interim basis, especially if the rural lines are towards the back of the queue and it will be nearer mid 2030s by time they get replaced.

 

[Clansman]

The notice says the plan is to precure 3 separate fleets, the suburban replacement for 318/20/34 and 158/70 replacement for electrified lines, then the fleet of (presumably) hydrogen for the rural routes then lastly a fleet for IC7 works by which time will be largely electrified

I know.

But anything that replaces 158s/170s will inevitabley work I7C diagrams to rotate the sets through the surburban journey cut off points where there isn't a through service - sich as Montrose/Arbroath.

As is the case now with the 158/170s.

 

[waverley47]

I know.

But anything that replaces 158s/170s will inevitabley work I7C diagrams to rotate the sets through the surburban journey cut off points where there isn't a through service - sich as Montrose/Arbroath.

As is the case now with the 158/170s.

I don't really see the issue with this.

It's a couple of journeys a day, as easily done ECS as in passenger service, and it needs to be done.

There is no point trying to adjust the suburban fleet so that it's more suitable on the one service it might undertake every month that goes between two cities. So what that they need to use two suburban units a day on intercity services? That's not the end of the world in any means.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't really see the issue with this.

It's a couple of journeys a day, as easily done ECS as in passenger service, and it needs to be done.

There is no point trying to adjust the suburban fleet so that it's more suitable on the one service it might undertake every month that goes between two cities. So what that they need to use two suburban units a day on intercity services? That's not the end of the world in any means.

I can't see ScotRail plumping for a suburban fleet along the lines of the junk that is the 720, though, nor really do they have the sort of crowding (in most cases) that would justify a LU style side-facing layout or a narrow one like the 700. Most likely it'll have an interior like the 195/331/380 etc, which are more than acceptable for a two hour trip. Crikey, I've done 4.5 hours (the through Liverpool to Bletchley via Brum) in a 350/1 once, it was absolutely fine. Comparable with a 170 which is what was running these services before the HSTs and are perfectly good regional express units.

 

[hexagon789]

I can't see ScotRail plumping for a suburban fleet along the lines of the junk that is the 720, though, nor really do they have the sort of crowding (in most cases) that would justify a LU style side-facing layout or a narrow one like the 700. Most likely it'll have an interior like the 195/331/380 etc, which are more than acceptable for a two hour trip. Crikey, I've done 4.5 hours (the through Liverpool to Bletchley via Brum) in a 350/1 once, it was absolutely fine. Comparable with a 170 which is what was running these services before the HSTs and are perfectly good regional express units.

I suspect the suburban fleet replacement will be almost certainly something like a 385. ScotRail seem to have completely gone off 2+3 seating and I understand Hitachi offers the design the 385 is derived from with battery capability. Seems like it could be done deal...

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect the suburban fleet replacement will be almost certainly something like a 385. ScotRail seem to have completely gone off 2+3 seating and I understand Hitachi offers the design the 385 is derived from with battery capability. Seems like it could be done deal...

The door position zealots might whine, but I can't see what would be unsuitable about 385s for the electric I7C services too, though you might want more First Class and a buffet counter. They are after all used on the flagship Edinburgh-Glasgow service.

 

[superkev]

To me Stradlers level boarding trains for Anglia and Merseyrail and Wales have rendered all previous trains obsolete.
In a world where every bus has a ramp, many powered and passenger operated, I see no place for previous trains with those ridiculously heavy not so portable ramps.
I hope Scotrail continue with forward thinking
K

 

[Clansman]

I don't really see the issue with this.

Providing the quality of the spec and capacity isnt a decrease, then neither do I.

The point I was getting is that going for a fleet that is fully rotational around the network but compatible with existing infrastructure is either going to lead to capacity decreases, or a decline in interior spec.

 

[XAM2175]

I hope Scotrail continue with forward thinking

brb founding a Stadler for Scotland lobby group

 

[mcmad]

To me Stradlers level boarding trains for Anglia and Merseyrail and Wales have rendered all previous trains obsolete.
In a world where every bus has a ramp, many powered and passenger operated, I see no place for previous trains with those ridiculously heavy not so portable ramps.
I hope Scotrail continue with forward thinking
K

not familiar with that far south but do these run on mixed traffic routes or are they restricted to passenger only lines?

 

[Glasgowbusguy]

Doing a bit of googling and searching it would appear that engines in the inter7city trains can be converted from diesel to hybrid hydrogen and diesel. These trains are perfect for this as current regs say that hydrogen must have a independent power car .
Over time as the technology improves it could become 100% hydrogen.
Alternatively they might make good candidates for battery conversation with new power cars

 

[Trainbike46]

not familiar with that far south but do these run on mixed traffic routes or are they restricted to passenger only lines?

They run on mixed routes, such as the great eastern mainline and the felixstowe branch. They have an extending step that bridges the gap between train and platform, it is really good

genuinely should be standard on all new trains