Scotrail Class 385 Discussion

[NotATrainspott]

ScotRail is not busy enough for fixed-formation sets. The big EMU orders recently have been for London and the South East but this is where trains are already at maximum length, and going for fixed-formation is the only way to increase capacity. Northern and the West Midlands part of London Northwestern Railway are getting 3-4 car EMUs very similar to the ScotRail ones. They're not getting corridor connections because they're not doubled up so much, or are urban stopping services without trolley services.

 

[takno]

ScotRail is not busy enough for fixed-formation sets. The big EMU orders recently have been for London and the South East but this is where trains are already at maximum length, and going for fixed-formation is the only way to increase capacity. Northern and the West Midlands part of London Northwestern Railway are getting 3-4 car EMUs very similar to the ScotRail ones. They're not getting corridor connections because they're not doubled up so much, or are urban stopping services without trolley services.

Corridor connections througout are desirable, and corridor connections on non-fixed formation units result in sub-optimal cabs. It also happens to be the case that fixed formation units gain a little capacity from not having any centre cabs, but that isn't the reason being suggested for having them here, so I'm not really sure why you think it's relevant.

 

[InOban]

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!

Short-term pain, while the problem is sorted, for long-term gain, a more flexible fleet. Trains such as these are to deliver a service, not look elegant. PAX will remember the inside, not the front end.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Corridor connections througout are desirable, and corridor connections on non-fixed formation units result in sub-optimal cabs. It also happens to be the case that fixed formation units gain a little capacity from not having any centre cabs, but that isn't the reason being suggested for having them here, so I'm not really sure why you think it's relevant.

The argument seemed to be that because most of the recent EMU orders involve fixed-formation sets, that these are now a better thing than separable ones with end gangways. I'm pointing out that the circumstances are very different. There is a strong case for the EGIP EMUs to have end gangways, and the only reason people are complaining about it is that there have been some problems. The 170s didn't get cabs because most of the services they were designed to run aren't doubled up. It's been almost 20 years since National Express was sorting out the E&G fleet and there's been plenty of change in the meantime.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

Except that both Bombardier and Siemens do offer corridor connections. So the result would have been Hitachi losing the order.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The argument seemed to be that because most of the recent EMU orders involve fixed-formation sets, that these are now a better thing than separable ones with end gangways.

Depends on context. Most of the metro orders have been fixed long formations, which is because that is proving (and has proven, on things like LU) to be the easiest way to run metro services. Most of the non-metro regional orders are not.

TBH I think I would have gone fixed formation for E-G, and chuck a load of Advances out there to fill them up off peak.

 

[Clansman]

TBH I think I would have gone fixed formation for E-G, and chuck a load of Advances out there to fill them up off peak.

Given how the 385/1s will presumable be concentrated on the EG for the eventual 8-car running, I'd agree and would've thought that an order of 8 & 6 car 385s would've done the trick, and would've suited the original design. Far wiser having greater flexibility with the current order at the end of the day though, as well as avoiding longer sets carrying air on non EG routes outwith the peaks.

 

[dubscottie]

Except that both Bombardier and Siemens do offer corridor connections. So the result would have been Hitachi losing the order.

When the 170's were first ordered, the gangway proposed by Adtranz was not compatible with the 15x units so there was little point in fitting one.

ScotRail had zero say in things at the time.

Couplings were the only thing they would do. It was the days of them giving a TOC what they had, not what the TOC wanted.

 

[gordonjahn]

This article on 314 failures: http://www.greenocktelegraph.co.uk/..._causes_double_breakdowns_on_Inverclyde_line/ claiming:

passengers will have to put up with the old carriages until at least early 2019

If they'll remain in service until early next year, is this an early indication that it'll be late 2018 before we see the 385s, December '18 timetable change, or maybe even May '19??

 

[gsnedders]

Given how the 385/1s will presumable be concentrated on the EG for the eventual 8-car running, I'd agree and would've thought that an order of 8 & 6 car 385s would've done the trick, and would've suited the original design. Far wiser having greater flexibility with the current order at the end of the day though, as well as avoiding longer sets carrying air on non EG routes outwith the peaks.

Are the 4-cars going to see much use outside of EG? If not, I'd have thought just getting fixed formation 8-car sets for EG would make sense (initially delivered as 7-car sets, with extra car to be inserted after platform lengthening, as has been done for the 345); with EMUs, the cost of moving empty air around is much reduced (see the sheer number of Glasgow suburban services that carry mostly air around during the evening).

 

[47802]

Except that both Bombardier and Siemens do offer corridor connections. So the result would have been Hitachi losing the order.

I know but that wasn't my point was it!

Apart from Scotrail there isn't much stock being built with a corridor connection at present even though some of it will work in multiple, ok we have the 717 with an emergency exit but I imagine that's a bit easier than a full corridor connection in a number of respects, then we have the WM stuff which we are going to have to wait a while to see if Bombardier and CAF have any issues with it.

Of course the big question with the 385's is, are they going to be able to find a fix without a significant redesign of the cab?

 

[NotATrainspott]

8-car fixed formation sets would be completely stuck if anything went wrong. Not much of the Scottish rail network is set up for 200m long EMUs.

With fixed-formation sets you need more trains to deliver the minimum required capacity. There is no business case for running 8 car sets all the time. When a 4-car set would suffice, the other 4 cars are better off being maintained.

 

[Clansman]

Are the 4-cars going to see much use outside of EG? If not, I'd have thought just getting fixed formation 8-car sets for EG would make sense (initially delivered as 7-car sets, with extra car to be inserted after platform lengthening, as has been done for the 345); with EMUs, the cost of moving empty air around is much reduced (see the sheer number of Glasgow suburban services that carry mostly air around during the evening).

No idea if they'll be used elsewhere, although the fact that there will be at least 8 x 385/1s spare from the 8-car operations on EG is telling.

But the current flexibility of having the majority of central belt services operable by 170s would no doubt have been viewed as an invaluable advantage which ScotRail would've sought to prolong once the 385s were in full service - hence why 3 and 4 car units were probably the preferred option for in the franchise.

 

[hexagon789]

No idea if they'll be used elsewhere, although the fact that there will be at least 8 x 385/1s spare from the 8-car operations on EG is telling.

But the current flexibility of having the majority of central belt services operable by 170s would no doubt have been viewed as an invaluable advantage which ScotRail would've sought to prolong once the 385s were in full service - hence why 3 and 4 car units were probably the preferred option for in the franchise.

While the flexibility of being able to run the 170s as 3 or 6-cars is useful, it also provides too simple a means to run 3-car units in the peak. By having 3 and 4-car 385s short forming in peaks is again possible, if you had fixed 8-car sets then you would have to run 8-coaches, admittedly though this arguably increases the chances of service cancellation as opposed to short-forming but you can't have everything.

 

[NotATrainspott]

While the flexibility of being able to run the 170s as 3 or 6-cars is useful, it also provides too simple a means to run 3-car units in the peak. By having 3 and 4-car 385s short forming in peaks is again possible, if you had fixed 8-car sets then you would have to run 8-coaches, admittedly though this arguably increases the chances of service cancellation as opposed to short-forming but you can't have everything.

There are already franchise penalties for running short formations. These are far more effective at ensuring ScotRail keep trains at proper length than any amount of arbitrary train length decision.

 

[hexagon789]

There are already franchise penalties for running short formations. These are far more effective at ensuring ScotRail keep trains at proper length than any amount of arbitrary train length decision.

I appreciate there are financial penalties for short-forming (thank goodness) bit it doesn't seem to improve matters. I realise that it was unlikely that longer 6/8-car 385s would've been introduced as it doesn't really operationaly suit ScotRail as such, I just felt that it may not have been a bad idea is all.

 

[Highlandspring]

Word on the street is that agreement has been reached between ASLEF/ScotRail/Transport Scotland for the units to be introduced into service while an alternate windscreen is sourced. Static driver training continues this week and 385016 and 385122 have been out doing testing/training runs today.

 

[380101]

Word on the street is that agreement has been reached between ASLEF/ScotRail/Transport Scotland for the units to be introduced into service while an alternate windscreen is sourced. Static driver training continues this week and 385016 and 385122 have been out doing testing/training runs today.

Certainly not what I heard yesterday after speaking to one of the 2 385 driver trainers. Hitatchi are currently working on a redesign of the front drivers side to be able to fit a totally flat screen - To involve moving the front panel at the screen back and could be up to 12months before it is sorted and approved by ORR etc for crash regs. Static yard training on 385s to continue and serious consideration to leasing the now surplus class 365 units to allow a temp cascade of 380s from Ayrshire/Inverclyde routes to the E-G. I dont see ScotRail defending any driver who has an incident and blames the windscreen for it so cant see ASLEF agreeing to drivers working 385s with windscreens that could potentially end their driving careers, nor can i see the guys in Op Standards signing off on them and being happy - especially seeing as the 2ic Op Standards has seen first hand the screen problems for himself.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Certainly not what I heard yesterday after speaking to one of the 2 385 driver trainers. Hitatchi are currently working on a redesign of the front drivers side to be able to fit a totally flat screen - To involve moving the front panel at the screen back and could be up to 12months before it is sorted and approved by ORR etc for crash regs. Static yard training on 385s to continue and serious consideration to leasing the now surplus class 365 units to allow a temp cascade of 380s from Ayrshire/Inverclyde routes to the E-G. I dont see ScotRail defending any driver who has an incident and blames the windscreen for it so cant see ASLEF agreeing to drivers working 385s with windscreens that could potentially end their driving careers, nor can i see the guys in Op Standards signing off on them and being happy - especially seeing as the 2ic Op Standards has seen first hand the screen problems for himself.

Whoops, what an almighty mess, though at least it's being dealt with now.

I'd imagine this will wipe out a fair whack of Hitachi's profit on the units...

 

[SC318250]

Now would you put the 365s on Ayrshire and Inverclyde routes, or services that only need 4 cars?
Do 365s have cameras that drivers can view to operate doors?
Do they also have SDO?

 

[superkev]

Could the currently being withdrawn 315's help out presumably being similar to the 314's
K

 

[Failed Unit]

Now would you put the 365s on Ayrshire and Inverclyde routes, or services that only need 4 cars?
Do 365s have cameras that drivers can view to operate doors?
Do they also have SDO?

Then may have to use one of those old fashioned things called a guard. I am sure modifying the trains to make it possible to work with a guard isn’t that hard considering Northern did it on the 319s. However unless the 385 are going to take a seriously long time to fix I doubt it will happen. Route clearance, training etc.

 

[Clansman]

IIRC most, if not all, stations between Glasgow and Ayr already have platform screens/mirrors fitted, from when the 318s regularly worked down that way before the 380s took over in 2011.

 

[Southsider]

Now would you put the 365s on Ayrshire and Inverclyde routes, or services that only need 4 cars?
Do 365s have cameras that drivers can view to operate doors?
Do they also have SDO?

Why not put them on Edinburgh to Glasgow where the problem lies?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why not put them on Edinburgh to Glasgow where the problem lies?

Publicity? People will accept random suburban EMUs on suburban type services, whereas the prime E-G route needs something a bit better?

 

[capital12]

Publicity? People will accept random suburban EMUs on suburban type services, whereas the prime E-G route needs something a bit better?

The 365s have been perfectly good units for journeys such as Kings Lynn-Cambridge-London, E-G is only 50 minutes. I think they’d be fine as a stop gap!!

 

[mcmad]

Believe that it is the E-G that is being considered for the 365's, not Ayrshire.

 

[gordonjahn]

Believe that it is the E-G that is being considered for the 365's, not Ayrshire.

Surely that's the obvious one - the 365s are 100mph units so get them route cleared and staff trained, operate as two units / 8 coach in the peak on the E&G (which meets the 8-coach target early, even though 8x20m is slightly shorter than 7x23m) then they can continue to get rid of the 314s and let all the other plans keep running instead of tearing up the whole rolling stock plan. I think they're DOO so some agreement would probably be needed with guards that it's a short-term measure (and please don't strike) but that's got to be better than either large-scale short-forming and trying to form a new strategy.

This also gives you a convenient extra cost element that you can point to and say "we had to lease these units at this price - and we've leased the number of units Hitachi were contracted to have provided by this date, so this is the cost we're looking for Hitachi to cover". Start messing about with other lines and attributing the cost could become more tricky; imagine Hitachi saying "well, you took 16 more 380 units from Ayrshire, but you could have done it with only 12, so we're only covering the 12".

 

[Bletchleyite]

You could I suppose have the guards act as a kind of super-OBS if they were willing to do so on a temporary basis, i.e. retain all of their present role *except* the doors and it was to remain the case that no guard = train cancelled. They could perhaps even dispatch at intermediate stations, I get the impression that that method of operation or something like it is used on some MUs in Germany and Switzerland, and it's not that far off the Voyager method.

 

[gingertom]

Believe that it is the E-G that is being considered for the 365's, not Ayrshire.

I think you're right. 365s on the E&G for however long it takes Hitachi to fix would be a good move. The 365s are decent units with modern 3-phase AC traction equipment with a decent amount of power plus regenerative braking, a pair 8x20 is about the same as 7x23 so will fit GLQ ok. Plus they are available and don't need much to make them fit for service. Ticks a lot of boxes