Scotrail Class 385 Discussion

[Domh245]

I do really think that CrossCountry should be approached to offer relief on the peak E&G with Voyagers. This could be implimented very quickly.

You mean that same CrossCountry notorious for their short and cramped services? If they had the spare stock to offer relief services to other TOCs they would be using it themselves!

 

[marks87]

That's one of the reasons unions have been fighting against DOO for years. The powers that be obviously think that leaving passengers to fend for themselves is acceptable. The scenario I am referring to means drivers deal with the leading portion and guards deal with the rear portion.

As has been pointed out, this is a thread dedicated to 385s so let's get back on topic.

To be fair, given that one of the issues seems to be a direct consequence of having a gangway, I think it's relevant to discuss the merits of there being one - which includes the positioning of staff throughout a train.

 

[route101]

Would still be a while if 365s are to come , still think we will just endure short forms till then.

 

[gordonjahn]

Still no official word on whether 315s or 365s will be brought to Scotland. I do really think that CrossCountry should be approached to offer relief on the peak E&G with Voyagers. This could be implimented very quickly.

Do the Voyager sets really sit about in Edinburgh for a couple of hours around the peaks to allow them to make the return journeys to Glasgow? I'm not convinced they do, and XC aren't going to hire in trains to dig ASR out of a hole.

 

[TEW]

I see that you also challenged this in another thread regarding two Voyagers working in multiple. Unless you have trained as a Guard, I suggest you ask a Scotrail CTM for guidance.

It may be a Scotrail rule, but it is not the same on all TOCs. On SWR,GWR and ATW for example it is entirely acceptable for the guard to move between and travel in different units of coupled multiple units without gangways.

 

[Clansman]

It may be a Scotrail rule, but it is not the same on all TOCs. On SWR,GWR and ATW for example it is entirely acceptable for the guard to move between and travel in different units of coupled multiple units without gangways.

From what I've seen some ScotRail guards normally switch between coupled units at principle stations.

 

[170401]

I see that you also challenged this in another thread regarding two Voyagers working in multiple. Unless you have trained as a Guard, I suggest you ask a Scotrail CTM for guidance.

Yes, I'm still waiting on an answer on that thread too and as I don't have access to a Scotrail "CTM" I am asking you although your response suggests that you are somewhat lacking in your knowledge of the rules and have found yourself out of your depth.

 

[scotraildriver]

It's not a rule, but it's generally better for the guard to be in the rear set in case there are passcoms activated or other passenger issues, especially on late night trains. Otherwise a line blockage may be needed (depending on location) to allow the guard to return to the rear set and deal with it, causing significant disruption .

 

[Christmas]

Yes, I'm still waiting on an answer on that thread too and as I don't have access to a Scotrail "CTM" I am asking you although your response suggests that you are somewhat lacking in your knowledge of the rules and have found yourself out of your depth.

One of the things I hate about forums such as this is that when certain members are presented with information they were not aware of they immediately dismiss it at being false. This is often expressed with a level of aggression or ridicule that would simply not happen in a face to face situation for fear of certain consequences...
You don't have access to a Scotrail CTM so I have to assume you don't work there and have therfore not heard of local instructions.

 

[MatthewRead]

That's one of the reasons unions have been fighting against DOO for years. The powers that be obviously think that leaving passengers to fend for themselves is acceptable. The scenario I am referring to means drivers deal with the leading portion and guards deal with the rear portion.

As has been pointed out, this is a thread dedicated to 385s so let's get back on topic.

Still no official word on whether 315s or 365s will be brought to Scotland. I do really think that CrossCountry should be approached to offer relief on the peak E&G with Voyagers. This could be implimented very quickly.

It would seem more logical for Scotland to use their own fleet of EMU's i.e 318's and 320's not anything from England like the 315's and 365's as their time would be very short lived what with all the driver training to be done

 

[greyman42]

It would seem more logical for Scotland to use their own fleet of EMU's i.e 318's and 320's not anything from England like the 315's and 365's as their time would be very short lived what with all the driver training to be done

Does Scotland have enough spare units in it's own fleet to do this?

 

[D365]

It would seem more logical for Scotland to use their own fleet of EMU's i.e 318's and 320's not anything from England like the 315's and 365's as their time would be very short lived what with all the driver training to be done

Yes and what would replace the 318/320 fleet on their existing diagrams?

 

[tomuk]

365s replace 387s at Great Northen

387s to Greater Anglia (West Anglia) (no training same as 379s)

317s and or 315s to Scotrail (no training same as 314s/318s)

 

[The_Engineer]

Still no official word on whether 315s or 365s will be brought to Scotland.

Are the options for temporary stock limited to these classes? I am uncertain if any Class 321s are off-lease, but they could be made suitable for ScotRail use more easily. Remove a car to make more Class 320s. Class 315 and 365 are more unfamiliar in equipment type and spares.

 

[D365]

365s replace 387s at Great Northen

387 SDO capability will be required shortly.

 

[Domh245]

387 SDO capability will be required shortly.

Doesn't it also leave GN short of stock, at least until the thameslink programme comes to completion (presuming the 387s return afterwards)

 

[Alfie1014]

365s replace 387s at Great Northen

387s to Greater Anglia (West Anglia) (no training same as 379s)

317s and or 315s to Scotrail (no training same as 314s/318s)

So that’s at least four TOCs and three ROSCOs involved in the transaction, plus DfT and TS all adding time and cost to the equation. In addition to that GA are currently struggling (and have been since the turn of the year) with their own fleet availability, (also they no longer operate 315s - TfL Rail or London Overground do). Tonight there were 8 short forms on GA, 7 on the EMU fleet so freeing up units from this neck of the wood is highly unlikely. The reality of the railway today is that ‘shuffling’ stock around that’s subject to contracts and leases takes time and costs money in legal fees, contract and lease variations which all come at a price that someone has to pay.

 

[Failed Unit]

Likewise on the harsh note, why should other TOCs arrange cascades among themselves to help out Scotrail? That wouldn't be considered if it was the other way around?

I would be interested to see the deal Hitachi put on the table when the 385s were ordered. (But clearly this will never be made public) But in my very harsh little world, Scotrail made thier bed when they ordered an unproven design of rolling stock. I know no-one knew the 379s would come off lease. But many fleet managers take the view let others do the testing of the design, we wil take the follow on orders.

I guess considering how late these issue were discovered a prototype wouldn't have helped.

It sounds like what they are are doing to ease the pain is looking at what is available off lease. Expecting other TOCs to assist is crazy. It isn't as if any TOC has spare rolling stock. However as another example, why should Northern Passengers keep the pacers longer so Scotrail can have the 170s / 158s for longer. It wasn't thier TOC that ordered the unproven design (well actually they did, we don't know if the 195s will work yet )

 

[Bletchleyite]

The whole 385 project seems poorly designed. Apart from the terrible visibilty for drivers there are no opening windows in the cab, purely aircon. My understanding is that the 380 has both and in fact many drivers run with the aircon off and the cab window open because they prefer fresh air. The lack of opening windows in the cab will also be an issue in depots where drivers have to listen for whistles and look out of windows for positioning ETC.

This leads me on to the lack of opening windows in the saloons. The 158 and 380 have windows that can be opened by the train staff in the event of aircon failure to allow the train to remain in service. The 385 has no opening windows anywhere. Utter folly.

350s and 380s don't either, and it hasn't been a great problem. They just installed aircon that is actually, genuinely reliable. Having to install barriers in the very unlikely event of powered-down stranding (as long as they actually do) is no great disaster. From a personal point of view, in extensive travel throughout my life I have experienced one (and only one) lengthy stranding without power ever.

But as for the 385, not only is the cab window layout poor, so is that in the passenger saloon. There appears to have been no effort whatsoever gone into a decent view, with a bodyshell apparently intended for pocket doors used for plug with very little modification.

 

[Christmas]

350s and 380s don't either, and it hasn't been a great problem. They just installed aircon that is actually, genuinely reliable. Having to install barriers in the very unlikely event of powered-down stranding (as long as they actually do) is no great disaster. From a personal point of view, in extensive travel throughout my life I have experienced one (and only one) lengthy stranding without power ever.

But as for the 385, not only is the cab window layout poor, so is that in the passenger saloon. There appears to have been no effort whatsoever gone into a decent view, with a bodyshell apparently intended for pocket doors used for plug with very little modification.

380s have 2 lockable hopper windows per coach and the 350 at least gives the driver the option of a fliw of fresh air in their cab. Aircon is noisy and can affect certain respiratory conditions so giving drivers no choice isn't really progress to me. Even the 390 has opening cab windows.

 

[Bletchleyite]

380s have 2 lockable hopper windows per coach

I sit corrected, I didn't notice them when I rode on one, and no other UK Desiro (WMT and SWR at least) has opening windows.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

12-18 months sounds like a redesign of the front end and cab, with testing to ensure it meets crash resilience requirements before rolling out. If it was a simple fix we'd have heard about it by now with ideas of timescales. Hitachi's PR dept has been very quiet!

Hitachi must have a full-cab design for the 385s, as it was in the initial PR for the order. They also have full-cab designs for 395s and 800s.
If they bid AT200s for the EMU orders which went with full-cab designs (Northern, TPE, GA) there will also be suitable designs.
They will surely not have to start from scratch if the solution is to go with a full-cab front end.
A 12-18 month delay would be a real blow to Hitachi and the procurement process, to have got this far with a major design fault (if indeed that is confirmed).
With the costs involved, it will surely go legal before anything is resolved.

 

[Failed Unit]

At what point can Scotrail walk away? Say look we don’t want the 385s anymore. We will take the 379s once Greater Anglia have done with them. We have a good deal off the ROSCO.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There aren't enough 379s (30x4-car), and they won't be available for 2 years or so.
If the contract is torn up, you would normally go to the second-placed bidder and reopen negotiations.
But there's a huge amount at stake, not least for the 385 "Rosco" (Caledonian Rail Leasing).

 

[gsnedders]

At what point can Scotrail walk away? Say look we don’t want the 385s anymore. We will take the 379s once Greater Anglia have done with them. We have a good deal off the ROSCO.

All depends on the contract Abellio ScotRail have with Caledonian Rail Leasing (the ROSCO that ordered the 385s). AFAIK, ScotRail will have no contract with Hitachi.

 

[Christmas]

As other users have pointed out, the cab is integral to the whole coach structure so grafting a full width cab on may not be an option. It has been suggested that perhaps entirely new driving cars may have to be produced.

 

[Failed Unit]

Not the first time Scotrail have got burnt. If I recall 170470 and 471 were compensation for delivery issues.

 

[43096]

As other users have pointed out, the cab is integral to the whole coach structure so grafting a full width cab on may not be an option. It has been suggested that perhaps entirely new driving cars may have to be produced.

As with all these things, froth and wibble fills the space where truth isn't known. It's a wait and see position currently.

 

[Christmas]

Another issue with the cab is the positioning of the cab doors. The driver sits forward of the cab window which will cause problems when trying to stop next to marker boards on platforms. Visibility is compromised as the side window actually sits behind the driver. This is even more important on tight platforms which hold XX coaches and no more. As for stopping in the right place with the platform on the offside, forget it.
All in all a very poorly thought out cab. Aesthetics over safety and practicality and it's all coming back to bite them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

All in all a very poorly thought out cab.

Passenger cabin, too. Just a really badly designed train from start to finish - a very poor attempted clone of the excellent Class 380.

Hopefully not as much of a dud as Ansaldo-Breda's finest.