Scotrail Class 385 Discussion

[mde]

(cleverly engineered by ScotRail as they knew ASLEF would go public about it).

You mean they wanted ASLEF to shout in public before admitting there was an issue? Interesting PR exercise that.

 

[hexagon789]

You mean they wanted ASLEF to shout in public before admitting there was an issue? Interesting PR exercise that.

The way ScotRail is run these days, nothing would surprise me!

 

[SC318250]

Thanks for clearing up the early training runs on Inverclyde line, about sightings

Anyway think Scotrail need to shout now, and say there is a major problem and what they are trying to do... as just saying short formed will go down like a lead balloon

 

[marks87]

The issue is present even with single signals. For example - the signal at the end of platform 3 at Glasgow Central was viewed as multiple signals by several drivers, Ops Director, Ops Safety guy and ASLEF officials which resulted in ASLEF making a public statement about the issue (cleverly engineered by ScotRail as they knew ASLEF would go public about it). The initial testing at Gourock last year did uncover this issue but the drivers doing the testing didnt report it initially along with the nausea and sore heads they were getting from looking out the windscreens. It was DB cargoUK drivers doing the initial testing.

When I read the first line of your post, I wondered if there might be a solution that involved changing the signals, assuming that wouldn't be too much a case of the tail wagging the dog. The 385s could then only be cleared on routes with these different "compatible" signals.

But if there's also problems with nausea and sore heads, it seems the solution will need to be the windscreen.

 

[hexagon789]

But if there's also problems with nausea and sore heads, it seems the solution will need to be the windscreen.

It's really sounding bad now, looks like a quick fix is out of the question if quite serious things such as driver's feeling nauseous are occurring.

 

[380101]

You mean they wanted ASLEF to shout in public before admitting there was an issue? Interesting PR exercise that.

Thats basically whats happened - Im sure the head honchos of ScotRail were hoping it would come across as "train drivers union ASLEF doesnt want new trains introduced". Instead, it kinda backfired on them and people are now asking serious questions over the issue.

 

[hexagon789]

Instead, it kinda backfired on them and people are now asking serious questions over the issue.

As they rightfully should.

 

[385001]

For a driver who currently drives electric traction it would be typically 1-3 days depending on differences to systems such as brakes, whether the driver is used to using a combined power brake controller etc. There is no limit to how many traction types someone can sign.

If the driver doesn't sign electric units then it would be a full course, typically two or maybe even three weeks.

Thanks for this.

Sounds to me that the driver training planned for the 385s could be changed to 365s. And then a 1-3 days course when the 385s are ready.

Or is this too simplistic?

I appreciate there may be extra training costs but presumably Scotrail could attempt to reclaim this from Hitachi?

And we get the benefit of the wires and DMU cascade to other routes.

 

[hexagon789]

I appreciate there may be extra training costs but presumably Scotrail could attempt to reclaim this from Hitachi?

They can try, I doubt they'll be successful there mind you.

And we get the benefit of the wires and DMU cascade to other routes

Hopefully we do, soon. Lord knows it's badly needed.

 

[mde]

The way ScotRail is run these days, nothing would surprise me!

Instead, it kinda backfired on them and people are now asking serious questions over the issue.

Actually, this is probably the reaction they wanted, in an odd sort of way - you know, no such thing as "bad news" and all. By having a big issue become prominent it's hammering home the case to their suppliers for compensation.

Of course, it's neither there nor here, it's not resolving the issue, but, it could be worse.

 

[gordonjahn]

Thanks for this.

Sounds to me that the driver training planned for the 385s could be changed to 365s. And then a 1-3 days course when the 385s are ready.

Or is this too simplistic?

I appreciate there may be extra training costs but presumably Scotrail could attempt to reclaim this from Hitachi?

And we get the benefit of the wires and DMU cascade to other routes.

I’ve been banging this drum for a couple of weeks. If at all possible, this should be the plan - don’t delay all the other cascades and retirements due to a manufacturer issue and isolate the impact so it’s also clear exactly what costs Hitachi are on the hook for (assuming the risk is on their side of the contract). Mess about with other lines and you have to start estimating and calculating the consequential costs.

Keeping the 314s in service longer looks appealing - they’re only going to scrap - but even they need 385s in place for withdrawal.

As many have said it’s got to be down to the delay - if it’s weeks then the quickest and best solution is to wait it out. If it’s months then grab any fleet you can, and 365s look like a good option if route clearance is obtained and doors can be guard operated from a non-driving cab.

 

[lammergeier]

Thanks for this.

Sounds to me that the driver training planned for the 385s could be changed to 365s. And then a 1-3 days course when the 385s are ready.

Or is this too simplistic?

I appreciate there may be extra training costs but presumably Scotrail could attempt to reclaim this from Hitachi?

And we get the benefit of the wires and DMU cascade to other routes.

I agree. If the delays are foreseen to be as long as rumoured then I would be surprised if driver training is cited as a reason why the 365s couldn't be used.

You're right about the training - those who have never signed electrics would have to have the full electrics course (which they would need anyway for 385s) but could then convert to the new stock in 1-3 days. Those signing electrics already would only need 1-3 days so in every case extra training requirements is fairly short.

Of course, if the delays are thought to be shorter and a remedy is within reach then it may not be worth the time and money to use the 365s - better to take the short term hit on short-forming.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's all fine and well putting the blame solely on Hitachi for the faults, but whoever wanted a gangway included whether that be the Scottish Government or TS, surely have to take a proportion of the blame for changing the designs.

Not really - if Hitachi were not confident they could deliver properly they should have refused.

 

[Stopper]

Is there actually going to be a solution to this? There’s always been massive overcrowding on the E-G services and now some are even worse. It can’t go on like this.

 

[47802]

Is there actually going to be a solution to this? There’s always been massive overcrowding on the E-G services and now some are even worse. It can’t go on like this.

Well clearly they are having to manage the situation for now, the key questions will be how long its going to take to fix, when are the next batch of units going to Northern, and the delivery timescales for the HST's which also seems to be behind schedule. If HST delivery was outstripping DMU departure then it would help the situation but it looks as though it will be the other way around.

 

[TRAX]

I honestly don't know how they could change the shape of the windscreen without more or less expensively modifying the shape of the body and perhaps even the whole gangway assembly ?

 

[gingertom]

Well clearly they are having to manage the situation for now, the key questions will be how long its going to take to fix, when are the next batch of units going to Northern, and the delivery timescales for the HST's which also seems to be behind schedule. If HST delivery was outstripping DMU departure then it would help the situation but it looks as though it will be the other way around.

is it not the case that the 170s displaced by the HSTs will simply go off-lease to save cash, than be used to help with the shortages caused by the late arrival of the 385s?

 

[Christmas]

What about just doing away with the gangway completely and fitting the standard cab? Is it really worthwhile having the gangway for a handful of services Monday to Friday? Additionally if the time taken to couple and uncouple the 385 is as drawn out as the 380 then the turnaround times at Waverey or Queen Street will be compromised. The 380 coupling procedure is a very drawn out affair as anyone can see for themselves at Glasgow Central every evening.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What about just doing away with the gangway completely and fitting the standard cab? Is it really worthwhile having the gangway for a handful of services Monday to Friday? Additionally if the time taken to couple and uncouple the 385 is as drawn out as the 380 then the turnaround times at Waverey or Queen Street will be compromised. The 380 coupling procedure is a very drawn out affair as anyone can see for themselves at Glasgow Central every evening.

Does this relate to the fold-back gangway? If not, it will make little difference whether there is a gangway or not in those terms.

And if you're not going to couple or uncouple, you could just rebuild them into fixed formation 8 car sets with the non-gangway cab, which I really think makes more sense. If that's awkward for the depot, have them splittable in the middle without cabs.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

365s have I think always worked DOO on GN/SE, so maybe don't have guard's panels.
If they need rewiring like 319s did, that would rule them out for Scotrail, at least on E&G.

 

[hexagon789]

365s have I think always worked DOO on GN/SE, so maybe don't have guard's panels.
If they need rewiring like 319s did, that would rule them out for Scotrail, at least on E&G.

I wouldn't mind 365s as such, I'd just travel via the Benhar route as I normally do, but if they need to be modded I think that rather puts the kaibosh on that.

 

[Christmas]

So the solution is to start leasing 315s as soon as possible. They require the least amount of time to train staff on and their interiors are better than the 314. If passengers are made aware that they are temporary then then fallout shouldn't be too bad. This could release 380s from Inverclyde runs and possibly some Ayrshires subject to DOO equipment being temporarily installed where necessary.

When are ScotRail losing more 156s? Another headache fast approaching?

 

[a_c_skinner]

Is this an issue with other curved windscreens? Only the 442s immediately spring to mind. Is this inherent with curved glass (my physics says it might be). Will it mean better replacement glass or a design where the glass is flat?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is this an issue with other curved windscreens? Only the 442s immediately spring to mind. Is this inherent with curved glass (my physics says it might be). Will it mean better replacement glass or a design where the glass is flat?

I believe the intention is to modify the cab to allow for a flat window.

 

[gsnedders]

What about just doing away with the gangway completely and fitting the standard cab? Is it really worthwhile having the gangway for a handful of services Monday to Friday? Additionally if the time taken to couple and uncouple the 385 is as drawn out as the 380 then the turnaround times at Waverey or Queen Street will be compromised. The 380 coupling procedure is a very drawn out affair as anyone can see for themselves at Glasgow Central every evening.

Removing the gangways definitely means replacing the entire cab section, if not the entire bodyshell. At this point, it's probably harder to do that than getting the gangway cab working.

365s have I think always worked DOO on GN/SE, so maybe don't have guard's panels.
If they need rewiring like 319s did, that would rule them out for Scotrail, at least on E&G.

They have guards panels in the cabs only; I don't think any of the EG stations are sufficiently curved such that the dispatch needs to be gone from a specific point, though?

And if you're not going to couple or uncouple, you could just rebuild them into fixed formation 8 car sets with the non-gangway cab, which I really think makes more sense. If that's awkward for the depot, have them splittable in the middle without cabs.

Presumably for the depot you could have some small fold-out control panel without it meeting mainline crash safety regulations?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Presumably for the depot you could have some small fold-out control panel without it meeting mainline crash safety regulations?

Yes, that kind of thing was my thought.

 

[TRAX]

Is this an issue with other curved windscreens? Only the 442s immediately spring to mind. Is this inherent with curved glass (my physics says it might be). Will it mean better replacement glass or a design where the glass is flat?

The front part of the 442 windscreen is flat. On the 385, the whole window is curved in all possible ways.

 

[hexagon789]

The front part of the 442 windscreen is flat. On the 385, the whole window is curved in all possible ways.

It is not curved at the corner where it bends around 90 degrees?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is not curved at the corner where it bends around 90 degrees?

It is, but you don't look out of that bit at signals.

 

[hexagon789]

It is, but you don't look out of that bit at signals.

Forgive me but how so, I could be completely wrong but wouldn't one view look out of the corner at a signal on a curve perhaps?