Why did Scotrail order 380s and not 350s?

[py_megapixel]

If Scotland wanted a fleet of 100mph 25kV EMUs with doors at thirds and end gangways, and had selected Siemens (which was evidently the case, otherwise such a fleet would not have been built), then why would they not order 350s?

By that point, the 350 was already a proven design and they're among most reliable units in the country - I don't understand what the point would be in spending money to reinvent the wheel and create a new design when they could have simply ordered a 350 but with the interior to Scotrail spec (which wouldn't have been a huge difference anyway).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Fairly sure the 350 was not on offer by then. I understand ScotRail did push Siemens to deliver the 380s with the proven traction package from the 350 though.

 

[py_megapixel]

Fairly sure the 350 was not on offer by then. I understand ScotRail did push Siemens to deliver the 380s with the proven traction package from the 350 though.

Um... TPE got their 350s in 2014; the 380s were delivered in 2010-11?

 

[Scotrail314209]

Fairly sure the 350 was not on offer by then. I understand ScotRail did push Siemens to deliver the 380s with the proven traction package from the 350 though.

I believe the purpose for the 380s was to be able to run in multi-car configurations to make the most of capacity, and I don't think Siemens offered a 3 car 350. I The 380 carriages are also slightly longer at 23 metres rather than 20 for the 350. I also believe the specification was for the now cancelled GARL. If GARL wasn't cancelled I think 350s would've been ordered.

 

[Domh245]

Um... TPE got their 350s in 2014; the 380s were delivered in 2010-11?

The 350/3-4 OJEU tender specifically asked for units that could work with LM's existing fleet. I'm sure that given the chance, they'd have rather offered something else (possibly 380s) for that contract, but were constrained by the bid requirements.

 

[Kieran1990]

Isn’t the 380 basically a suburban version of 444 with 2/3 doors, as they are the same length per carriage?
Personally a real shame no more 444’s were ordered but for the A/C brilliant regional/ long distant emus

 

[Bletchleyite]

Isn’t the 380 basically a suburban version of 444 with 2/3 doors, as they are the same length per carriage?

Different bodyshell - indeed one that only seems to have been used for the 380s, as it has Electrostar-like sloping sidewalls, whereas all previous and subsequent Desiros have near-vertical sidewalls.

Personally a real shame no more 444’s were ordered but for the A/C brilliant regional/ long distant emus

Yep, a "Class 344" would for me be basically the perfect regional express EMU. Though to be fair the Class 397 is, give or take CAF "build quality", pretty close to being that.

To me the 444 as built (not as messed up by SWR) is the best rolling stock in the UK from my perspective as a passenger.

 

[py_megapixel]

To me the 444 as built (not as messed up by SWR) is the best rolling stock in the UK from my perspective as a passenger.

What have SWR done to mess up the 444s? I've not been to that bit of the country for a while

 

[dgl]

What have SWR done to mess up the 444s? I've not been to that bit of the country for a while

gone for 2+2 seating in 1st class using seating that's worse than that in standard, removed the guards office and the buffet area (although that was rarely used despite it in theory being a good idea).

 

[RailWonderer]

It was specified by Scotrail to have sloping end cabs. Siemens thus had to create a fully new design. A streamlined deisgn included a pendolino style slanted bodyshell rather than the normally straight Siemens one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It was specified by Scotrail to have sloping end cabs. Siemens thus had to create a fully new design. A streamlined deisgn included a pendolino style slanted bodyshell rather than the normally straight Siemens one.

As in they specified the slopey sides? I wonder why on earth they did that? Extra width perhaps?

You could have put a fibreglass moulding onto the front of the 185 body without faffing about changing the whole shape.

 

[D365]

It was specified by Scotrail to have sloping end cabs. Siemens thus had to create a fully new design. A streamlined deisgn included a pendolino style slanted bodyshell rather than the normally straight Siemens one.

Not sure how true this is.

 

[91103eastcoast]

I may remember incorrectly, but weren't the 350/3 and 350/4 order a follow up option to the 350/2s when London Midland ordered those? I seem to remember Siemens were reluctant to build more 350s and only did since they had to to fulfil the contract for a follow on order to the 350/s/

 

[Domh245]

I may remember incorrectly, but weren't the 350/3 and 350/4 order a follow up option to the 350/2s when London Midland ordered those? I seem to remember Siemens were reluctant to build more 350s and only did since they had to to fulfil the contract for a follow on order to the 350/s/

It wasn't an option, but LM did tender for units that were fully compatible with the existing 350s, rather forcing their hand

 

[RailWonderer]

Wayback Machine

Intrestingly it claims it was to conform to the latest crash safety standards, but here: https://schoenemanndesign.co.uk/tag/desiro/
It implies Scotrail wanted a streamlined design.

https://schoenemanndesign.co.uk/portfolio/siemens-gangway-cab-concept/

The 350/3 and 4 follow on order had grandfather rights for the /2 and /1 fleet so it got waived.
Given the costs of leasing trains around that time I wonder how much Scotrail are paying for them. Eye watering I would guess.

 

[Kite159]

It was specified by Scotrail to have sloping end cabs. Siemens thus had to create a fully new design. A streamlined deisgn included a pendolino style slanted bodyshell rather than the normally straight Siemens one.

Slanted bodyshells to allow DOO cameras to be fitted more easily than the straight sides of a 350?

 

[Scotrail314209]

380s did look and still look rather strange. But they seem to be a lot more better than 350s. To me a 350 seems very crammed, maybe due to the shorter carriage lengths when a 380 seems more spacious.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Slanted bodyshells to allow DOO cameras to be fitted more easily than the straight sides of a 350?

700s have straight bodysides and DOO cameras.

 

[Neptune]

I seem to recall that the 380 is a halfway house technology wise between a Desiro and a Desiro City.

Also it has been mentioned in other threads that Scotrail’s preference is for 23m vehicles.

 

[Alfie1014]

I seem to recall that the 380 is a halfway house technology wise between a Desiro and a Desiro City.

Also it has been mentioned in other threads that Scotrail’s preference is for 23m vehicles.

Correct, Siemens were aware that the Desiro (classic) was heavy (overweight?) and had very long door opening and closing cycles and as such would not be practical for both proposed Crossrail and Thameslink orders. The 380 design was a classic pretty much under the solebar with many of the new innovations of the Desiro City incorporated into the the bodyshell.

 

[Mikey C]

Scotrail do seem to have a slightly oddball selection of post privatisation EMUs

The 334, which may end up being the only Juniper in service if the 458/5s don't find another user
The 380 which is very different from other Desiros
The 385 which has been chosen by no other operators yet