Scotrail Class 385 Discussion

[Clansman]

Who signed the final paperwork before the Class 385s were built?

Was it Keith Brown, Humza Yousaf, or Alex Hynes? Was it Hitachi? The buck has to stop with whoever signed for the Class 385s to be built.

None of them. Everything to do with the procurement of EMUs in the franchise commitment would've been down to the franchisee, and as such, it would've been representatives from Abellio after they were awarded it in the first place.

Abellio signed the dotted line, but ultimately it's Hitachi's fault.

Edit: Scrap that, 47271's got the right idea!

 

[Northhighland]

They are replacing life expired stock. That's the whole point of the order. Why don't you think the issue (the windows) is not the fault of the company that manufactured them?

Your obsession with supporting Humza come what nay is clouding your judgement. Your blindly following the line of blaming Hitachi despite several people pointing out that the issue here is wider than just the 385’s. The EGIP plan is way late and this is the last bit of the jigsaw and it is late as well. As many have said this was foreseeable and transport Scotland should have had a plan. That is not partisan politics just justifiable criticism.

I happen to agree with the poster above the lack of Holyrood talent is equal across all parties. Scottish politics would be better if there were less sycophants.

 

[InOban]

Who's now in Canada. Met him once. Nice man.
The problem is entirely Hitachi.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Your obsession with supporting Humza come what nay is clouding your judgement. Your blindly following the line of blaming Hitachi despite several people pointing out that the issue here is wider than just the 385’s. The EGIP plan is way late and this is the last bit of the jigsaw and it is late as well. As many have said this was foreseeable and transport Scotland should have had a plan. That is not partisan politics just justifiable criticism.

I happen to agree with the poster above the lack of Holyrood talent is equal across all parties. Scottish politics would be better if there were less sycophants.

It's a reaction to the normal political wrangling over absurd issues. The SNP get blamed for the weather or other things well outwith the control of anyone in Holyrood. As a result, people who support them have become hyper-sensitive. People are so used to defending the SNP against spurious newspaper-column-filling complaints that any situation where there might be a little more nuance gets caught up in the crossfire.

That Northern Echo article is a little odd. For one, it doesn't mention the introduction problems. If it said the trains would be introduced in the next two months alongside the fact that there have been windscreen problems, it would be a little more credible. Something to remember with articles like that is that regional journalists are thin and far between these days, often being responsible for lots of different papers under one umbrella company. A big chunk of the articles they write are just re-worded (if that) press releases. If this article is 'fresh' (as in, it hasn't been sitting around as a draft for months) then it's quite likely this 'next two months' thing is actually coming from the Hitachi Rail Europe press office. Whether or not the press office know what's happening is a different matter entirely!

 

[HainultLoop]

If I am right in thinking that the Scottish Government and the DfT had no say in the design of the train, only the specifications, then the blame should be laid at Hitachi's door, as the designers and engineers of the Class 385s. However, I think this raises questions as to whether governments should have more of a say with the design (if they have none at the moment) and whether they should be required to sign it off too, to avoid this kind of situation. Of course this would raise the question of the competency of governments to do this.

 

[Failed Unit]

If I am right in thinking that the Scottish Government and the DfT had no say in the design of the train, only the specifications, then the blame should be laid at Hitachi's door, as the designers and engineers of the Class 385s. However, I think this raises questions as to whether governments should have more of a say with the design (if they have none at the moment) and whether they should be required to sign it off too, to avoid this kind of situation. Of course this would raise the question of the competency of governments to do this.

Governments should have no say in rolling stock. Look at the IEP and class 700 when they get involved. No consideration for passengers comfort. Be interesting what would have got ordered by other bidders. Siemens? Bombardier? (Very doubtful) CAF?

That we will never know.

 

[gsnedders]

If I am right in thinking that the Scottish Government and the DfT had no say in the design of the train, only the specifications, then the blame should be laid at Hitachi's door, as the designers and engineers of the Class 385s. However, I think this raises questions as to whether governments should have more of a say with the design (if they have none at the moment) and whether they should be required to sign it off too, to avoid this kind of situation. Of course this would raise the question of the competency of governments to do this.

The whole issue here is likely caused by the fact they're gangway stock, which was a franchise requirement.

 

[Clansman]

The whole issue here is likely caused by the fact they're gangway stock, which was a franchise requirement.

The whole issue is that Hitachi failed to fulfill their obligations with the 385s to meet all the h&s requirements which would've been included in the contract they signed with Abellio in the first place. If gangway specification was such a problem then;

a) No manufacturer would want a contract
b) We wouldn't be seeing the surge in end-gangwayed rolling stock being newly built to order for TOCs down south of recent times.

 

[Failed Unit]

The whole issue here is likely caused by the fact they're gangway stock, which was a franchise requirement.

True but 2 proven designs existed in the 380 and 387.

 

[InOban]

But if I've read earlier posts, neither meet crash specs for new stock.

 

[Altnabreac]

I do feel your perspective on this is distorted by seeing any criticism of the Scottish Government as an attack on the SNP, compounded by your interest and apparent detailed knowledge of the rail industry . You seem to see blaming the Scottish Govt as a "Tory" ambush . That's nonsense with respect . Your too partisan and clearly have no perspective on the fact the SNP have done nothing but blame Westminster , or as you say "slagging off their enemies" for years. So lets park the politics and deal with facts .
Transport is delegated to Scotland , has been for years . Holyrood wants the decision making . It has it . As a member of the travelling public suffering from this flagship project slipping into farce , it is to Transport Scotland and Abellio I look . I have no relationship with Hitachi . Lets not forget the poor service is not just down to these delayed trains . Its been poor for years on my service . I have correspondence with Transport Ministers and Transport Scotland going back 2 years and I can assure you they are all over this project, all over the terms of the franchise , clearly state they are involved in its terms , its operation, its monitoring . If they have not planned for , or anticipated this kind of circumstance then its them we rightly blame . Its up to them to tackle the manufacturer , not for us . One for corporate lawyers and if the contract to build is poorly drafted , does not to cover the costs of the impact , then the blame again falls on the Transport Secy,. I had a meeting in Scotrail offices ( as an ardent complainer) in 2016 and I pointed out the risks of this project being delayed on the tracks or train build. I was assured it was all signed sealed and buttoned down . Now if a "punter" like me can anticipate a rail project going awry , why couldn't Scotrail , and plan for delays, perhaps an option to extend current leases with penalties from train builder ? So we should all focus our dissatisfaction at our Scottish Government charged with the Transport of Scotland and the operator they selected . Proudly selected according to the letter I have from Keith Brown who I challenged why Abellio with a poor track record was deemed a good choice for Scotland. KB is keeping his head down, has done for years !! He may have to look out a tin hat tho, unless Humza has it !

So like it or not , the blame will and rightly go in the first instance to those in charge of Transport and Rail operation. I would say the same in the unlikely circumstance Ruth was First Minister !!

Anyway . They may well have it all under control and there will be no impact and all will be well . But for now I will continue to endure overcrowding , dirty and delayed/cancelled trains as I have for years under Transport Scotlands watch . So please don't see this stance as anti snp. In my view there is not a lot of intelligence or talent in Holyrood , yellow, red or blue ! But the yellows are currently in charge . Perils of power .Live with it!

I think we can all tell you’re an ardent complainer.

One thing I would insert here as a factual correction is the full devolution of Transport. Some rail including Franchise specification and responsibility for funding rail enhancements is indeed devolved. (So you can lay any faults with the Scotrail Franchise specification at the Scottish Governments door)

Other parts of rail including safety and standards, structure of the industry and responsibility for supervising Network Rail and the SoFa / Enhancements process remain reserved to Westminster.

So issues like the excessive clearances required for electrification that caused delays / cost increases to EGIP, the existence of only Private Sector / foreign franchise bidders, the legal requirement to award the franchise to the highest scoring bidder and poor project management by Network Rail are not the responsibility of Scottish Government or Transport Scotland.

I’m sure professional whingers don’t make that distinction though and suspect that is frustrating if you are Humza Yousaf and are getting the flak for issues you cannot influence.

 

[Failed Unit]

But if I've read earlier posts, neither meet crash specs for new stock.

Really. New build 387s are coming out on great western at the moment. I know production is over but was there that much difference between that order placements and Scotrail’s?

 

[Domh245]

b) We wouldn't be seeing the surge in end-gangwayed rolling stock being newly built to order for TOCs down south of recent times.

The only gangwayed stock we've seen ordered recently are the new West Midlands Aventras and CAF DMUs, everything else has been non-gangwayed. (PS, down south being 'scottish' down south, ie south of Hadrian's wall?)

Really. New build 387s are coming out on great western at the moment. I know production is over but was there that much difference between that order placements and Scotrail’s?

As I understand it, the 387 had some sort of derogation that allowed it to get around certain regulations, effectively being a follow on 377. However, Abellio wouldn't have been able to order them necessarily - the 385 order comes to a total of 256 carriages, the initial 387 order only allowed for an additional 140 carriages beyond those ordered for Thameslink, (the 'speculative' Porterbrook order for an additional 80 vehicles was only placed in November 2015, and then June 2016 for the final batch of 23 GWR units). Given the size of the order, Bombardier probably would have offered an Aventra rather than a 387 (which in another mark against them for use on Scotrail only come as 4 car units, whilst the 385s will be coming as 3 and 4 car units)

 

[InOban]

Those are certainly the last 387s. I think, and there will posters who can confirm or deny, that they ordered on spec, just before bombardier retooled for the new model.

 

[380101]

The aim is to get them into service by the May timetable change from what I was told.

Having them into service for May is highly doubtful. Hitatchi have been aware of the windscreen issue since last year when DB cargo drivers raised issues. Since then the problem was meant to have been rectified. Rool forward to January 2018 and ScotRail invited the ScotRail drivers company council and ASLEF district organiser for Scotland to join the ScotRail Operations director and members of the Operarional safety and standards department on a test run from Glasgow Central. All of the above sat in the drivers seat whilst the 385 was in platform 3 and saw the issue first hand - 2 signals at the end of platform 3 when they should only have been able to see one. Then on changing ends after arriving in Paisley goods loop they all got to view 3 feathers and 3 green signals on the exit signal of the loop! Serious safety concerns were then raised by ASLEF over the windscreens, hence the driver training being suspended. To date ScotRail have not accepted the handover from Hitatchi on any of the 10 385s currently sitting in the yard.

The problem with the screen is the angles it is installed at. It will be hard to resolve as the 385s dont have a seperate cab structure like most other units have. So if they have to redesign the cab front it could mean Hitatchi having to manufacture 140 new driving vehicles!

 

[380101]

Those are certainly the last 387s. I think, and there will posters who can confirm or deny, that they ordered on spec, just before bombardier retooled for the new model.

One of the ROSCOs placed the 387 order on spec and ultimately GWR took them. I remember reading about it at the time in Rail Magazine.

 

[Domh245]

One of the ROSCOs placed the 387 order on spec and ultimately GWR took them. I remember reading about it at the time in Rail Magazine.

Ish, the ordering of the 387s was a bit of an odd one. There was the initial order for 29 units, and 35 units as options on that divided up between Gatwick Express and GWR 27 to 8. Then Porterbrook placed a speculative order for 20 more units after which c2c announced that they'd signed with Porterbrook for 6 of those units, and then a few months later, GWR took the rest, and managed to convince Porterbrook and Bombardier to order 23 more units. I did a little chart way back when to try and keep on top of it (and the cascades it'd trigger)

 

[47802]

One of the ROSCOs placed the 387 order on spec and ultimately GWR took them. I remember reading about it at the time in Rail Magazine.

If we kept ordering the same old designs then the trains would never improve, the latest designs are to be more fuel efficient and easier maintenance, but its really a pointless debate as 385 were chosen not 387's.

 

[Clansman]

Having them into service for May is highly doubtful. Hitatchi have been aware of the windscreen issue since last year when DB cargo drivers raised issues. Since then the problem was meant to have been rectified. Rool forward to January 2018 and ScotRail invited the ScotRail drivers company council and ASLEF district organiser for Scotland to join the ScotRail Operations director and members of the Operarional safety and standards department on a test run from Glasgow Central. All of the above sat in the drivers seat whilst the 385 was in platform 3 and saw the issue first hand - 2 signals at the end of platform 3 when they should only have been able to see one. Then on changing ends after arriving in Paisley goods loop they all got to view 3 feathers and 3 green signals on the exit signal of the loop! Serious safety concerns were then raised by ASLEF over the windscreens, hence the driver training being suspended. To date ScotRail have not accepted the handover from Hitatchi on any of the 10 385s currently sitting in the yard.

The problem with the screen is the angles it is installed at. It will be hard to resolve as the 385s dont have a seperate cab structure like most other units have. So if they have to redesign the cab front it could mean Hitatchi having to manufacture 140 new driving vehicles!

I agree, the complexity of the issue makes the May 'target' highly doubtful. Pretty embarrassing and comical that ScotRail staff experienced this first hand, not to mention the fact that the 385s had been advertised to everyone as the greatest thing since sliced bread before hand!

(PS, down south being 'scottish' down south, ie south of Hadrian's wall?)

It's just an expression us Scots use to say we're going to England or Wales, rather than down into the Borders or Dumfries etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The whole issue here is likely caused by the fact they're gangway stock, which was a franchise requirement.

No, it isn’t. The whole issue here is caused by Hitachi coming up with a faulty design.

 

[92002]

Having them into service for May is highly doubtful. Hitatchi have been aware of the windscreen issue since last year when DB cargo drivers raised issues. Since then the problem was meant to have been rectified. Rool forward to January 2018 and ScotRail invited the ScotRail drivers company council and ASLEF district organiser for Scotland to join the ScotRail Operations director and members of the Operarional safety and standards department on a test run from Glasgow Central. All of the above sat in the drivers seat whilst the 385 was in platform 3 and saw the issue first hand - 2 signals at the end of platform 3 when they should only have been able to see one. Then on changing ends after arriving in Paisley goods loop they all got to view 3 feathers and 3 green signals on the exit signal of the loop! Serious safety concerns were then raised by ASLEF over the windscreens, hence the driver training being suspended. To date ScotRail have not accepted the handover from Hitatchi on any of the 10 385s currently sitting in the yard.

The problem with the screen is the angles it is installed at. It will be hard to resolve as the 385s dont have a seperate cab structure like most other units have. So if they have to redesign the cab front it could mean Hitatchi having to manufacture 140 new driving vehicles!

Seems that Siemens and the 380s and the current delivery of 387s don't have any sighting problems. So the solution clearly lies with Hitachi.

An excellent example of the problems caused by ordering a train off the catalogue. Would have been a lot more prudent just to order more 380s.

However we are where we are.

 

[Domh245]

Would have been a lot more prudent just to order more 380s.

Again, that only works if they're being offered for sale by siemens, which they weren't

 

[superkev]

Dare I suggest that double yellows where counted as single yellows and that the trains could run at reduced speed. Better than no train at all.
K

 

[170401]

Dare I suggest that double yellows where counted as single yellows and that the trains could run at reduced speed. Better than no train at all.
K

Thats not really an acceptable answer as the signal issue is only one aspect of the problem. Many drivers have reported symptoms such as nausea, headaches etc after driving them.

 

[92002]

Again, that only works if they're being offered for sale by siemens, which they weren't

I understand that the First offering was more 380s. They however didn't get the contract and Abellio offered 385s with a view to buying more for Holland. They could of course have the 385s there.

 

[D365]

I understand that the First offering was more 380s. They however didn't get the contract and Abellio offered 385s with a view to buying more for Holland. They could of course have the 385s there.

That's what I never understood; aside from being assembled in the UK, what was the incentive of the Class 385 over the 380?

 

[92002]

That's what I never understood; aside from being assembled in the UK, what was the incentive of the Class 385 over the 380?

From a Scotland point of view it matters not whether the trains were built in Germany or England.

Apart from any price difference The 380s come with the insurance of peace of mind. More of the same.

 

[D365]

I'd love to know how Abellio sold themselves then, if the 380 offer should have had the advantage.

 

[Ginaro]

I remember seeing on twitter someone complaining about the lack of tables at the disabled spaces when the 380s were introduced on the E-G; Scotrail acknowledged this and said it would be improved on the 385s along with other things, so it would never have been as simple as just building more 380s.

 

[AlistairCowell]

I understand that the First offering was more 380s. They however didn't get the contract and Abellio offered 385s with a view to buying more for Holland. They could of course have the 385s there.

I think the platform height in Holland is rather too low for the 385s if Abellio does buy more for operating services there.