Class 380 on Airdrie-Bathgate over Class 350

[FrozenPoints]

With the well document problems of the Class 380, I pondered the inevitable.

Why with such a reliable, and fairly new stock class, the Class 350, was it not ordered for Scotland?

Surely it would cost less than buying/leasing brand spanking new rolling stock model. Well, not that I am complaining to an extent.

Unless in Scotland, there is a specific technical criteria that the 380s do that the 350s do not, I am scratching my head.

 

[me123]

Well, first of all, Class 380s were never ordered for Airdrie-Bathgate, and indeed they aren't even cleared to operate on this line! The 380s were ordered for Glasgow-Inverclyde/Ayrshire services (as well as operating on GARL), to allow a cascade putting the 334s on the Airdrie-Bathgate services.

The units are 23m compared to the 20m that other Glasgow EMUs are (and, indeed, compared to 350s). As such, they need platform extensions or SDO. SDO is included in the 380s, and I believe isn't in the 350s, which could be one reason for them going with a new class. There's also the "sleeker" front-end design with the gangway (perhaps not to everyone's tastes!).

Ultimately, I'm led to believe that similar units will be ordered for EGIP to operate on the Glasgow-Edinburgh route etc

You may want to have a look through this thread, where the new trains have been discussed ad nauseum for the last 9 months!

 

[rail-britain]

Class 380 units also have other technical changes
The driving ends are also cosmetically different
There were other specifications, which the Class 350 does not meet
Basically, the Class 350 was used as a template and that is where the similarity ends

Due to the reliability of the Class 350 this was the grounds for the order, Siemens making assurances they could meet these requirements

The Class 380 is also a test bed for future EMU deliveries which Scotland will require, primarily a similar 125mph EMU and further 100mph EMU in due course

 

[Pumbaa]

The shortest answer is the 350 design is no longer acceptable for crash standards, especially at the front end with the redesigned cab. The 350/2 add-on order and potential /3 add-on (which is set to be announced by the end of the month along with the TPE franchise extension and the deal to create the spin-out Manchester - Scotland franchise) are allowed because they are simply fleet additions, rather than whole new fleets.

 

[rail-britain]

The shortest answer is the 350 design is no longer acceptable for crash standards

One of the reasons why travelling in EMUs I make every effort to travel in the either of the rear two carriages

 

[junglejames]

One of the reasons why travelling in EMUs I make every effort to travel in the either of the rear two carriages

Bring back loco haulage, and we wont need to worry

 

[FrozenPoints]

Surely if their design is no longer acceptable for crash standards - they should be pulled from service (If I was the Daily Mail)

Who makes these rulings? If there is any link?

 

[ainsworth74]

Surely if their design is no longer acceptable for crash standards - they should be pulled from service (If I was the Daily Mail)

Not acceptable for new build stock (for a new fleet rather than expanding a present one), grandfather rights mean that stock that doesn't meet modern standards can remain in service. Otherwise we would be looking at replacing just about all the rolling stock in the country every 5 years or so I would have thought!

 

[FrozenPoints]

Imagine that! I would love new rolling stock. Although I get to use Class 390, 395, 185, 375s and if I am desperate PACERs. Yuk!

 

[rail-britain]

Surely if their design is no longer acceptable for crash standards - they should be pulled from service (If I was the Daily Mail)
Who makes these rulings? If there is any link?

Don't mention Class 142 then!
Already proven to be completely useless in a crash, never mind a high speed crash
Sadly a complete fleet withdrawal would have serious financial implications

 

[sprinterguy]

Bring back loco haulage, and we wont need to worry

Until the loco of a following train goes into the rear of your train, then you're stuffed!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

One of the reasons why travelling in EMUs I make every effort to travel in the either of the rear two carriages

That seems incredibly over the top! Just because crashworthiness standards have moved on to the next stage doesn't mean that the slightly older stock is unsafe and will fall apart at the first gust of wind: Modern trains are still incredibly safe, and perfectly suitable for service for the rest of their working lives.

Plus, given how massively unlikely a major head-on collision is, such a course of action is overcompensating a bit isn't it? Sitting at the rear of the train would have done you no favours in the Potters Bar derailment, or for that matter, moving away from EMUs, the Hatfield accident. Additionally, moving even further away from EMUs, I wouldn't have liked to have chosen to sit at the back of the suburban train involved in the 1952 Harrow and Wealdstone disaster!

 

[DarloRich]

One of the reasons why travelling in EMUs I make every effort to travel in the either of the rear two carriages

Unless you get a rear end shunt!

I have only been on 2 380's so far and apart from the new front end and the longer carriage design there is little visual difference with the 350 in all honesty.

The 334's seem to be doinga good job and when painted in the new livery look new so i bet people wouldnt realise the newer stock has gone on the Inverclyde line & the Ayrshire coast line and not the expensive A2B route!

still get the odd 318 through Lochwinnoch! (which i also quite like)

Glasgow does ok for stock really!

 

[O L Leigh]

One of the reasons why travelling in EMUs I make every effort to travel in the either of the rear two carriages

Hmm. Just to take a few examples.

A Cl365 hit a John Deere tractor on White Horse Drove Crossing at 90mph and suffered very minor damage in the impact. There was some deformation of the cab floor and damage to the cab front, but the only damage in the passenger saloon was the sliding door to the first class area behind the cab jumped it's runners.

Of the vehicles that formed the Cl365 that went "off roading" at Potters Bar, it was the REAR coach that ended up on it's side on the platforms.

The lead coach of the HST that was involved in the Southall crash suffered very little damage. It was actually the SECOND coach in the formation that got totalled.

I think you're making something out of nothing, but if it makes you feel safer then please continue to do as you will.

O L Leigh

 

[GB]

Much like aircraft accidents there is no seating formula or guarantee of not getting hurt or killed in an accident and it comes down to circumstances on the day.

 

[YorkshireBear]

Much like aircraft accidents there is no seating formula or guarantee of not getting hurt or killed in an accident and it comes down to circumstances on the day.

Im pretty sure i heard that sat adjacent to wings is slightly better (generally) because the fuselage is stronger there to hold the wings.

But that is very general.


I dont think id change where i sat to accomodate for stuff like that, if we crash we crash, but as a personal preference i like to face backwards.

 

[kylemore]

I've never been happy about sitting in the front car of any multiple unit since the Paisley head on smash in 1979 when an Ayr - Glasgow DMU which had run a signal rode up and over a Glasgow to Wemyss Bay EMU flattening most of the leading car with I think 5 or 6 fatalities.
I caught the previous train by the skin of my teeth otherwise I might have been on it.
I was sitting on the ferry at Wemyss Bay when it was announced that there would be a delay due to an "incident" with the connecting train, eventually we sailed without any further explanation.

 

[SouthEastern-465]

I'll sit in the front of any loco/EMU/DMU is doesn't bother me, its actually my favorite spot in a bus or train. I could not care less about a train crashing into anything if its going to happen it will nothing I can do, I would also trust most of todays EMUs crash worthiness.

Anyway whats happened to the orginal thread its drifted off to this crap about where people sit in trains!

 

[Aictos]

It doesn't bother me where I sit after all a seat is a seat even if it means using the vestibule floor.

If a accident is going to happen then it will affect me no matter where I sit so why worry?

 

[O L Leigh]

Well, wherever you lot choose to sit, I shall be arriving at the accident before any of you.

O L Leigh