Class 320/4 Rolling Stock Lease

The Lease is being modified in accordance with regulation 86(1)(b) of the Utilities Contracts (Scotland) Regulations 2016 as additional supplies not included within the original procurement have become necessary, and a change of contractor cannot be made for economic or technical reasons and would cause significant inconvenience or substantial duplication of cost for SRT, because: 1. The modification has become necessary: there is a need to secure the ongoing operation of the Lease, which includes lifeline services in Glasgow suburban areas, while SRT carries out a full procurement for an enduring rolling stock solution using emerging technologies (including batteries and network electrification). 2. A change of contractor cannot be made for economic or technical reasons: this is because: a. the Fleet has specific characteristics and technical features that are designed to interoperate with the rail infrastructure and SRT’s other fleets and are required for operation on the Glasgow Suburban Lines. For example: (i) Along with ScotRail’s other existing fleets, the Fleet is the only fleet which is fully accepted for operation on these lines, without incurring expensive and operationally disruptive gauging works. (ii) Fixed front end gangways, which are fitted to a number of EMU fleets, are not accepted by driver unions and are not permitted on the South Glasgow route due to obscuring vision of off-side starter signals. (iii) any alternative Fleet would require an extensive programme of train crew and engineering staff training, incurring significant training which would create significant additional (and disproportionate) training workload at a time when SRT is already engaged in an intensive programme of recruitment for future fleet cascades and new trains and therefore does not have the capacity to commence a training programme for an additional new fleet within the necessary timeframe. b. SRT’s analysis has confirmed that there are no alternative available fleets that contain the necessary technical features and could meet these requirements. Other potential available fleets have insufficient trains or would be too long to replace the existing 3-car Cl320/4 and do not have the network/depot/safety compatibility required to operate on the relevant routes. c. In the event that an alternative existing fleet with suitable performance and technical characteristics was available (which in SRT’s view is not the case), and that fleet could be adapted to accommodate the necessary technical features, this would result in substantial duplication of cost, significant inconvenience and extra time out of service, which would be disproportionate in the context of an interim solution.