Could the Transpennine Express get High Speed Class 43/91?

[Bevan Price]

can i mention 442s

Yes.

Which scrapyard are they going to ???

 

[380101]

So a forward thinking person is an idiot because Siemens couldn't make the front end look nice?

I probably worded it badly. I personally don't care what a train looks like. All I care about is how safe and easy it is to drive. The front end gangway on a 380 comprises driver vision, which ultimately comprises safety. Nearly every driver that drives them has this opinion regarding the gangways.

A "forward thinking person" who had no training driving experience and specified front end gangways to increase revenue collection opportunities. Passengers rarely, if ever use them except for fare dodgers.

The driving position is cramped, DOO cctv screens are poorly located and there is absolutely no visibility to the right hand side. Particularly dangerous when working over the 2 level crossings in Ardrossan if they have failed and we have to operate under local instructions ie; stop at crossing, check it's clear (impossible due to lack of vision to right) sound horn and proceed. Revenue collection and passenger ease of use should NEVER come before safety. Yet this is what happened with the 380 and now also with the 381 (AT200)

 

[Peter Sarf]

Is the drivers vision from a 380 obscured to the right because the unit end gangway sticks so far forward ?. Its probably all air in that gangway so a gangway connection that folded back back level with the windows when not in use might have helped. Might have been a technical nightmare to create. Given that almost all the trains in the South East have gangway connections between units I can only imagine the view forward and right out of the cab window is the problem on 380s ?.

 

[380101]

Is the drivers vision from a 380 obscured to the right because the unit end gangway sticks so far forward ?. Its probably all air in that gangway so a gangway connection that folded back back level with the windows when not in use might have helped. Might have been a technical nightmare to create. Given that almost all the trains in the South East have gangway connections between units I can only imagine the view forward and right out of the cab window is the problem on 380s ?.

It's a combination of the gangway and the cab interior layout due to the gangway that causes the problems with the views to the right. The class 700 cab is what the original 380 cab was like before the gangways were specified by transport Scotland.

 

[jopsuk]

Is the drivers vision from a 380 obscured to the right because the unit end gangway sticks so far forward ?. Its probably all air in that gangway so a gangway connection that folded back back level with the windows when not in use might have helped. Might have been a technical nightmare to create. Given that almost all the trains in the South East have gangway connections between units I can only imagine the view forward and right out of the cab window is the problem on 380s ?.

Poor visibility was the reason given for the GE's Class 360s getting a full width cab rather than being 350s. Quite why it's considered such a problem on the GEML but less so on the WCML and SWML I'm not sure.

Further back, were there complaints about visibility from the 455 and 317 cabs? Only explanation I can see for why the 456 and 321 fleets got full width and the 319 got an emergency door but no corridor. Similarly the following SE fleets, the Networkers, got full width cabs. Bet SWT Guards and Revenue protection on SWT inners curse the lack of connection on the 456s.

 

[D365]

Poor visibility was the reason given for the GE's Class 360s getting a full width cab rather than being 350s. Quite why it's considered such a problem on the GEML but less so on the WCML and SWML I'm not sure.

I understood it to be a requirement set by the unions for DOO. Although the Class 317, for example, seems to cope perfectly fine.

 

[Domh245]

I understood it to be a requirement set by the unions for DOO. Although the Class 317, for example, seems to cope perfectly fine.

It copes fine, but it isn't perfect. The 360 provides even better visibility. Just because something works, doesn't mean it can't be done better.

 

[notadriver]

I understood it to be a requirement set by the unions for DOO. Although the Class 317, for example, seems to cope perfectly fine.

Don't those other TOCs have full guard operation ?

 

[jopsuk]

I understood it to be a requirement set by the unions for DOO. Although the Class 317, for example, seems to cope perfectly fine.

And the 379s, using bodyside camera/in cab monitor system?