From Scotrail


After many years of feeling and seeing trains shrinking in general, it's good see some lengthening.   There have been past cases of growing but what we have seen over recent decades has been shorter, though more frequent trains.

Last week, I was on the Kyle line.  In my youth there were 5 trains a day on the line (3 to Kyle and 2 from Kyle) and I can recall wondering if there was a scrapyard at Kyle.  These days there are 8 trains - 4 each way - but they are just two carriages long as against perhaps 4 to 6 in the past.

Is 2 cars enough? For the trains I was on, in my carriages, yes, it was.  But for other services I'm told by staff it can be hard to find a seat.   The "problem" with longer trains, if you like, is that the extra capacity is needed only for a small proportion of trains even if it affects a larger proportion of passengers.

Making trains longer should be cheaper than running more trains, but while frequency remains below a certain quantum, you'll get far, far more growth and passenger on a 2 x 2 car service than a 1 x 4 car service. 

 
Don't get too excited, Grahame!

In the case of the West Highland line, this is simply one train a day in each direction will now have one of the converted class 153s (24 extra seats, plus plenty of room for bikes, skis etc.) added. I assume that it is just stations beyond Crianlarich that have been extended where necessary, as south of there (if its anything like the service I used a few years ago) some of the trains will be 4x2 car units, dividing or joining 2 sets of 2 at Crianlarich when the Oban and Fort William services part or join, some of the Oban trains being 2 units. If I recall correctly, the class 156 units are about 150 seaters, so a 300 (or 450 until Crianlarich) seat train to or from Glasgow gets a modest number of extra seats on one trip a day.

On the Kyle line, my recollection from a trip in 1981 was that the trains were 4 coach trains, consisting of Mk1 corridor stock. The seconds would therefore have each held potentially 64 passengers, 32 in the brake coach, but presumably there was either a first class coach (48 in an open coach, 36 if corridor) or a composite (56), so the nominal capacity of each train was between 166 and 220), whereas a class 158 is (I think) 138. However, outside crowded peak commuting trains, 4 people sitting across the bench seat of a second class Mk 1 compartment was unusual (and not that pleasant!), so it was actually more like 156 to 168. It looks like the capacity has actually increased, but presumably at the eastern end at peak times (Inverness commuters?) the trains struggle with the demand.

Did that last train to Kyle you mention in the old 3 out, 2 back service pattern simply return empty to Inverness? I do though recall getting up very early for my trip from Kyle to Inverness in 1981, joining the workers from the Applecross oilrig yard on the Kyle ferry to get to the station from our holiday accommodation on Skye, so it seems unlikely that there was not a train stabled overnight for this service.

 

Ironically not - the struggle is between Kyle of Lochalsh and Dingwall with leisure / tourism traffic, even this early in the year.  Train manager reporting as we returned (I was in front carriage) Duirinish to Plockton that the rear carriage was heaving with a group, and later in the day I came across the same 158 on the Invergordon to Inverness shuttle - its next working - with paper reservation still in place Stromeferry to Inverness.  TM explained that the turn around of the set at Inverness was a tight one and he hadn't had time to remove them.

There are now 13 trains a day inbound from Dingwall to Inverness, three before 9 a.m. and seeing a couple of them come in they had a healthy but not huge number of passengers.    Probably the same outbound - 3 trains in 90 minutes just after 5 p.m. but no personal report from me.

 
My only trip to Kyle was in the early 1980s, I think, and was. both ways, in the Beaver Tail observation car, added to four Mark 1s.

 
I would argue that there is a much greater need for longer trains on lines like the Kyle line. My reasoning is that on what are essentially 'tourist lines' the demand to have a window seat will be much greater than on a commuter line. It can be frustrating to travel up to somewhere scenic, and find you can't get near a window to get the best view possible.

Many services run long trains to stations with platforms that are not long enough for all doors to open, so I don't see why longer platforms per se are necessary before longer trains are introduced.

 

Yes, BUT ...

My first argument would be for seats that line up with windows!

And I am very conscious that fares per mile tend to be lower, and fewer trains operating, pushing the economics of these lines into needing far more support per passenger or mile than many other lines.   I also thing of the people travelling and they tend to be paired up, so window seat and one looking over that seat past their partner, may not be all that bad.

I do celebrate that the trains that bring commuter into Inverness in the morning are they used for the day trip trains out, then get back into Inverness to take the commuters home.

Longer trains - yes, with through corridors trains (e.g. 158) single-door stations like Conon Bridge and Beauly work.  Only up to a certain number of passengers using each train though.  Might be fine for a re-opened Holt or Beanacre, but not for a Devizes Gateway