Scotrail Class 385 Discussion

[fgwrich]

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

Perhaps because Hitachi have been desperate to get themselves with more of a foot in the door of British Railways than just the initial 395 order and so would have offered Abellio a very good deal. The IEP procurement still leaves a bad taste in the mouth of some (particularly around the costs of the things leading to the Insanely Expensive Project moniker) and by assembling them in the Newton Aycliffe plant they can justify themselves as being 'British'? And of course every new TOC wants to order something different, something new. Hence why we have the crazy situation down here in the south with SWR switching suppliers from Siemens to Bombardier rendering the admittedly expensive 707s redundant.

 

[Domh245]

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.

The idea about additional 380s does seem a little conjecture-y, do you have a source? Also, the idea of NS ordering a bunch of 385s for Holland seems entirely pointless, as anything ordered for the Dutch system would have so little in common with that ordered for the UK that there is little point treating one as a prototype for the other.

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

It was quite nice seeing it again, and how it's changed (and also thinking how much better my ability to present information is now)

As for the 385 v 380 question, casting my mind back to that sort of time, Siemens had pulled out of the Crossrail bidding the year previously as they didn't have the capacity to build and deliver the XR units alongside the Thameslink units. The 707s, which were ordered in September 2014 - the month before ASR were awarded the franchise, entered service mid last year, and so I can imagine that the timescales involved (first 24x 385s in service late 2017) were a big advantage in Hitachi's favour - if there were more 380s then they would only starting to enter service around now (working on the basis of the 380s following on from the 707s)*. I would also expect that the 385s will have been offered cheaper per vehicle than the 380s, if nothing else so that Hitachi can try to get a foothold in the market beyond Intercity.


*Yes, obviously the original timescales have since been blown out of the water, but you have to base these kinds of things on what information was available at the time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The idea about additional 380s does seem a little conjecture-y, do you have a source? Also, the idea of NS ordering a bunch of 385s for Holland seems entirely pointless, as anything ordered for the Dutch system would have so little in common with that ordered for the UK that there is little point treating one as a prototype for the other.

I doubt it is that. It'll be more that they got a better price for an intended bulk order.

 

[gsnedders]

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.

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

Oh I'm not saying that the franchise specification was at fault, but it's entirely plausible we would've avoided this (by virtue of quite plausibly not ordering gangway stock) if it weren't for the government, hence more government involvement wouldn't necessarily avoid such issues from occurring.

 

[92002]

The idea about additional 380s does seem a little conjecture-y, do you have a source? Also, the idea of NS ordering a bunch of 385s for Holland seems entirely pointless, as anything ordered for the Dutch system would have so little in common with that ordered for the UK that there is little point treating one as a prototype for the other.


Was a guy I met in a pub, who had too many one day and was on the First but team. I couldn't possibly say who.

It was quite nice seeing it again, and how it's changed (and also thinking how much better my ability to present information is now)

As for the 385 v 380 question, casting my mind back to that sort of time, Siemens had pulled out of the Crossrail bidding the year previously as they didn't have the capacity to build and deliver the XR units alongside the Thameslink units. The 707s, which were ordered in September 2014 - the month before ASR were awarded the franchise, entered service mid last year, and so I can imagine that the timescales involved (first 24x 385s in service late 2017) were a big advantage in Hitachi's favour - if there were more 380s then they would only starting to enter service around now (working on the basis of the 380s following on from the 707s)*. I would also expect that the 385s will have been offered cheaper per vehicle than the 380s, if nothing else so that Hitachi can try to get a foothold in the market beyond Intercity.


*Yes, obviously the original timescales have since been blown out of the water, but you have to base these kinds of things on what information was available at the time.

There probably now has been time to produce 380s, but I doubt it will come to that. A solution will no doubt be found.
Think the selection of Abellio had nothing to do with trains. More price and ideas.

 

[Highland37]

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!

Yes, please, let's deal with facts.

Firstly, the majority of transport is devolved, not the entirety which is why Network Rail is not under the control of the Scottish Government. That is a fact. It is not true that all of transport is devolved, significant aspects are not and if you look in another area (air travel) you can see that there also.

You are right to look to Abellio and Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government. They have ordered the trains and the trains are not currently fit for purpose and the reason for that is Hitachi.

You seem to be thinking that someone is asking you personally or the public to sort this out. I have heard no one suggest as much and given that the public agencies involved and Abellio did not know about this until 10 weeks ago, I would be delighted if you could inform us as to what they should be doing in that period that they are not currently doing.

You then imagine a problem (the quality of the contract terms) and extrapolate that to blaming the minister as if this has actually happened. You or I have no idea what is in the contract in this sense so why make up and issue that you don't know even exists?

Could you detail on what sense you thought the trains would be delayed two years ago?

I disagree with your idea about lack of talent at Holyrood. I don't think "talent" is a measure or even indicator of anything in this area. However, look at the incompetence elsewhere with Brexit if you need a good example. When I was a senior social worker, I often dealt with issues considerably more complex than the issue being discussed here and I can tell you that deal with Holyrood is like night and day relative to Westminster. not only is the system far superior, responsive and accessible, the knowledge is also there and that applies to all parties. When you are dealing with issues of child protection, it matters.

 

[380101]

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.

There is tables at the disabled spaces o. the 380s. They pull up out of the tip up seats and fold out. I imagine the 385 disabled spaces will be the same as they need the tables to fold out the way to facilitate room for wheelchairs to manoeuvre.

 

[Highland37]

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.

You are the one continually mentioning him and as I and others have pointed out, the issue is with poor design of a window which drivers have identified. If you think that is the fault of a person who isn't involved in the problem itself, maybe you should consider whether you understand the relationship between the parties involved.

I am plenty critical of the Scottish Government on issues outside of railways. But I can differentiate between the issues and don't need to get into wide generalisations.

 

[InOban]

A delivery path for Friday night has appeared since yesterday. Whether it actually happens, we'll see.

 

[Highland37]

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

Could it be that the 385 was originally designed without the gangways and the windscreen profile was such that the driver would not be looking out one extreme side of the glass and therefore the light would not have been distorted as much. Then, when the gangways were added, the approach was to keep the original windscreen design but add the gangway in which meant the driver now looks forward through what would have been the extreme left hand side on the non-gangway version?

Does that make sense?

 

[380101]

Could it be that the 385 was originally designed without the gangways and the windscreen profile was such that the driver would not be looking out one extreme side of the glass and therefore the light would not have been distorted as much. Then, when the gangways were added, the approach was to keep the original windscreen design but add the gangway in which meant the driver now looks forward through what would have been the extreme left hand side on the non-gangway version?

Does that make sense?

The original design of the 385 had no gangway - there are some computer generated images of it. It had a nice wide windscreen - looked curved from top to bottom. The actual 385 we have with gangway fitted has a totslly different shape to its front end. The original full width screen didnt come as close to the edge of the cab - similar to what the class 700 cab is like (original 380 cab without gsngway).

 

[Ginaro]

There is tables at the disabled spaces o. the 380s. They pull up out of the tip up seats and fold out. I imagine the 385 disabled spaces will be the same as they need the tables to fold out the way to facilitate room for wheelchairs to manoeuvre.

Found the tweets - I thought Scotrail replied saying things would change for the 385s but it appears they didn't: https://twitter.com/search?l=&q=from:SallyCEOIncScot since:2017-12-12 until:2017-12-13&src=typd

 

[NotATrainspott]

The original design of the 385 had no gangway - there are some computer generated images of it. It had a nice wide windscreen - looked curved from top to bottom. The actual 385 we have with gangway fitted has a totslly different shape to its front end. The original full width screen didnt come as close to the edge of the cab - similar to what the class 700 cab is like (original 380 cab without gsngway).

When was the ScotRail ITT released? Hitachi had plenty of time to design a gangway-equipped cab. It would be absolutely nonsensical to come up with a 100mph train design without end gangways being possible. The 'evidence' for the 'late addition' of the end gangway seems to be that a few alternative images were accidentally released at the time the franchise was awarded. Since the ScotRail livery has been around for years, it would have been very easy for Hitachi to generate all sorts of different concept photos for Abellio and other bidders which would otherwise seem to be more final.

 

[IanXC]

Can I remind members that this is a Traction and Rolling Stock thread, and ask that we try a little harder to stay on topic!

thanks

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could it be that the 385 was originally designed without the gangways and the windscreen profile was such that the driver would not be looking out one extreme side of the glass and therefore the light would not have been distorted as much. Then, when the gangways were added, the approach was to keep the original windscreen design but add the gangway in which meant the driver now looks forward through what would have been the extreme left hand side on the non-gangway version?

Does that make sense?

This does sound a distinct possibility. But that is Hitachi's problem, not ScotRail's nor the Scottish Government's - if Hitachi agreed to build a gangwayed cab, if they fail to do so that's nobody's fault but theirs. If they didn't think they could do it, they shouldn't have agreed to do it. And then the Scottish Government would have had to either choose a non-gangwayed cab or go back out to tender.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Found the tweets - I thought Scotrail replied saying things would change for the 385s but it appears they didn't: https://twitter.com/search?l=&q=fromallyCEOIncScot since:2017-12-12 until:2017-12-13&src=typd

380s don't have full sized tables at any seat, they are mini-tables for putting coffee on, not laptops. So the complainant in that only has a valid point to the extent that nobody has anywhere to put their laptop, not of any kind of discrimination.

385s do have proper tables in Standard, so so should the wheelchair space.

 

[Highland37]

Out of interest, it's obvious that a gangway makes operation of the train easier and more flexible (apart from the driver). How much are they used though on the 380s for example?

 

[gsnedders]

When was the ScotRail ITT released? Hitachi had plenty of time to design a gangway-equipped cab. It would be absolutely nonsensical to come up with a 100mph train design without end gangways being possible. The 'evidence' for the 'late addition' of the end gangway seems to be that a few alternative images were accidentally released at the time the franchise was awarded. Since the ScotRail livery has been around for years, it would have been very easy for Hitachi to generate all sorts of different concept photos for Abellio and other bidders which would otherwise seem to be more final.

The ITT was January 2014; the AT200 was officially launched in July 2014 (with CGIs of it in Queen Street); the franchise was awarded to Abellio in October 2014. The AT200 is described by Hitachi as having a "full cab gangway", which is how they also describe the AT300 (800/801/802).

Note that the AT200 is offered with 3 to 12 coaches, so the assumption was probably that like the 700 and 345 orders, units wouldn't be designed to split.

Out of interest, it's obvious that a gangway makes operation of the train easier and more flexible (apart from the driver). How much are they used though on the 380s for example?

On E–G, mostly by the guard and the trolley, AFAICT. (My sample size is terrible though, so don't take that as meaning much.) On Inverclyde, often mostly by the TE.

 

[takno]

On E–G, mostly by the guard and the trolley, AFAICT. (My sample size is terrible though, so don't take that as meaning much.) On Inverclyde, often mostly by the TE.

I guess the contrary question is how often the units get split. If it's really only to avoid lugging about fresh air in the very off peaks then it probably wasn't worth the bother of putting the middle cabs in. Obviously you start to have a more specialist fleet if you need 4 cars for other routes, but you're already getting more specialist with the HSTs anyway.

 

[InOban]

Yet again tonight's delivery seems to have been canned.

 

[AlexNL]

There's no point in delivering trains if they can't be accepted by the customer. I wouldn't count on any further deliveries until a solution has been found and implemented.

 

[InOban]

I quite agree. I thought that when a path appeared at short notice on RTT, they had a mod that they wished to try out.

 

[92002]

I guess the contrary question is how often the units get split. If it's really only to avoid lugging about fresh air in the very off peaks then it probably wasn't worth the bother of putting the middle cabs in. Obviously you start to have a more specialist fleet if you need 4 cars for other routes, but you're already getting more specialist with the HSTs anyway.

In diesel mode trains are 6 car from around 0700 to 0900. They then split to operate during the day till around 1600 till 1800 and split again till the end of service.

This however has not been taking place with the 7 car 380 sets. Guess till the line to Stirling, Allia and Dunblane

 

[92002]

Guess till the lines to Stirling ind Alloa and Dunblane are powered up there is nothing else for the units to do between the peaks. Currently the push is to electrify from Cumbernauld to Falkirk Grahanston and on to Polmont. With power going live today from Cumbernauld to Greenhill Lower. If that was extended to Falkirk Grahanston the one train an hour could go over to electric. Tye units could go for maintenance between the peaks.

 

[InOban]

I assume that the 380 has regenerative braking, so the energy cost of the running a train with excess capacity is quite low. Carrying fresh air in a dmu is not very green.

 

[92002]

I assume that the 380 has regenerative braking, so the energy cost of the running a train with excess capacity is quite low. Carrying fresh air in a dmu is not very green.

Like all modern EMUs the 380s have regenerative braking and it is is used. So the more 380s in use the better the effect will be.

 

[47802]

When was the ScotRail ITT released? Hitachi had plenty of time to design a gangway-equipped cab. It would be absolutely nonsensical to come up with a 100mph train design without end gangways being possible. The 'evidence' for the 'late addition' of the end gangway seems to be that a few alternative images were accidentally released at the time the franchise was awarded. Since the ScotRail livery has been around for years, it would have been very easy for Hitachi to generate all sorts of different concept photos for Abellio and other bidders which would otherwise seem to be more final.

Why would it be nonsensical it seems me that trying to design a gangway connection around the latest crash regulations is not particularly easy and that any design that does incorporate it will give a poorer view for the driver than a non corridor cab, so maybe the idea of corridor connections on cabs should be abandoned going forward.

Obviously in this situation Hitachi have agreed to this cab design and clearly its their problem to fix I don't think anybody would disagree with that, the only other new stock that appears to be having corridor connections is for West Midlands admittedly from different manufacturers it will be interesting to see if this has any impact on that.

 

[InOban]

W/o corridor connections you have fixed formation sets, so you would need two fleets, 8 coach sets for E-G and 6 coach sets for the rest. To allow for planned and unplanned maintenance, each fleet would have to be larger.

 

[47802]

W/o corridor connections you have fixed formation sets, so you would need two fleets, 8 coach sets for E-G and 6 coach sets for the rest. To allow for planned and unplanned maintenance, each fleet would have to be larger.

They seem to have managed with the 170's on the E&G for quite a number of years, and if all the bidders for the new trains had said we can not do a corridor connection they would have had no choice in the matter, obviously in this case Hitachi at least agreed to it but it will be interesting to see what the fix is.

 

[takno]

W/o corridor connections you have fixed formation sets, so you would need two fleets, 8 coach sets for E-G and 6 coach sets for the rest. To allow for planned and unplanned maintenance, each fleet would have to be larger.

Corridor connections and the ability to join/split units on the fly seem like a pretty expensive solution compared to possibly a single additional unit. It's a lot easier to decide that in retrospect having seen what a pain they've been of course!