Scotrail Class 385 Discussion

[gingertom]

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.

does anyone know it Hitachi is using the same traction equipment as the Javelin, with not quite so many bogies powered so 100mh top speed instead of 140? Can't really see them redesigning a winning formula.

 

[John R]

Remember that the franchise commitment is for gangwayed stock. Whilst a stop-gap might be tolerated without, I doubt TS will let Hitachi off the hook by allowing full front ends without a huge penalty flowing through the system to them.

 

[Clansman]

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.

So long as Abellio fail to meet franchise conditions, procuring other units as a long term solution would some how be quicker and more beneficial than holding out for the 385s, and that cascading 'English cast offs' becomes politically acceptable up here.

 

[gsnedders]

Remember that the franchise commitment is for gangwayed stock. Whilst a stop-gap might be tolerated without, I doubt TS will let Hitachi off the hook by allowing full front ends without a huge penalty flowing through the system to them.

AFAIK, TS has no contract with Hitachi, and as such no direct recourse against Hitachi. I'd expect TS to have a contract with Abellio (as the ScotRail franchisee), who themselves have a contract with Caledonian Rail Leasing (as a ROSCO, to provide 385s to Abellio ScotRail), who themselves have a contract Hitachi (to construct the 385s).

 

[gingertom]

So long as Abellio fail to meet franchise conditions, procuring other units as a long term solution would some how be quicker and more beneficial than holding out for the 385s, and that cascading 'English cast offs' becomes politically acceptable up here.

not enough 379s.

 

[Clansman]

not enough 379s.

...which kills the 'beneficial' argument stone dead.

 

[47271]

There's something that's confusing me slightly here in terms of who's responsible for the 385 shambles, apologies if the point has been covered already.

Did Abellio not agree to order the stock from Hitachi as part of their franchise proposal - just like the HST refurbs - which was then accepted by Transport Scotland? So are they not more rather than less part of the problem, depending on how far down the line they got with the design at the time they were appointed to the franchise?

Like I say, sorry if we're going over old ground, but I'm interested in the answer in terms of how the situation may play out over the next (for goodness sake) 18 months.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

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.

This might in fact be one of the easier things to solve - on the Underground's S Stock the stop boards are designed and positioned so that the rear edge of the cab front window lines up with the stop mark on the board when the train is in the correct position. A solution like this would be fairly straightforward.

 

[Domh245]

Did Abellio not agree to order the stock from Hitachi as part of their franchise proposal - just like the HST refurbs - which was then accepted by Transport Scotland? So are they not more rather than less part of the problem, depending on how far down the line they got with the design at the time they were appointed to the franchise?

Who are "they" - Transport Scotland or Abellio? In either case, I still feel that it's a bit of a push to try and pin "more rather than less" blame on them - they aren't the rolling stock design experts, so why should it fall to them to spot that the curved windscreen could cause problems down the line? They're responsible for things like specification, financing, and carrying out due diligence, but expecting them to check the design for what is a fairly small thing like the shape of the windscreen is ridiculous IMO.

Further to that, the design at the stage of contract awards and signing will have still been very much up in the air and they'll have had a couple of different variations on it, no doubt. It is also worth noting that DCA-Design only did the (interior) Cab design in "2016" a short while after the first bodyshell started appearing at the end of January 2016, which should give some idea of when things were getting finalised.

 

[47271]

Who are "they" - Transport Scotland or Abellio? In either case, I still feel that it's a bit of a push to try and pin "more rather than less" blame on them - they aren't the rolling stock design experts, so why should it fall to them to spot that the curved windscreen could cause problems down the line? They're responsible for things like specification, financing, and carrying out due diligence, but expecting them to check the design for what is a fairly small thing like the shape of the windscreen is ridiculous IMO.

Further to that, the design at the stage of contract awards and signing will have still been very much up in the air and they'll have had a couple of different variations on it, no doubt. It is also worth noting that DCA-Design only did the (interior) Cab design in "2016" a short while after the first bodyshell started appearing at the end of January 2016, which should give some idea of when things were getting finalised.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear in my post. By 'they' I meant Abellio.

It's just that in my mind it's difficult to detach Abellio from basic flaws in the 385 design since, like the HST, it was an integral part of their franchise proposal. But you're right, there's no reason why they should be any more alert to a flaw like the windscreens than TS would be. I suppose all they're guilty of (in this context) is choosing a manufacturer who's bogged up.

 

[Steamysandy]

The question is how did Hitachi get it so wrong?After all they've been building trains for Japanese Railways for many years - at least two or three series are genetically known as Hitachi trains e g JR 651 Super Hitachi which is an express emu used North of Tokyo.Theres also a Fresh Hitachi series.
One thing both have in common is a High Level driving position like the Dutch Koplopers where the driver is placed centrally up on the roof which is impracticable for ScotRail.The indications are of a rushed design ,and perhaps based on the 380 but trying to give a twist to it which has fallen flat on its face -or gangway connection!

 

[Failed Unit]

Sorry, I wasn't very clear in my post. By 'they' I meant Abellio.

It's just that in my mind it's difficult to detach Abellio from basic flaws in the 385 design since, like the HST, it was an integral part of their franchise proposal. But you're right, there's no reason why they should be any more alert to a flaw like the windscreens than TS would be. I suppose all they're guilty of (in this context) is choosing a manufacturer who's bogged up.

That is my view. Hitachi are the ones that have failed clearly.

But Albellio / transport Scotland have to take some of the blame as they proposed and accepted a bid based on an unproven train design.

When you look at EMUs most of them have encountered problems during introduction periods from all manufacturers. Look at the 458 and it took a long time to sort. They took a gamble an it has backfired. Maybe they would be in the same position if they had taken an evolution of the existing Siemens / Bombardier products but at least the basic design works.

Interesting the point people saying Scotrail has no contract with Hitachi it is with the ROSCO. True. But wasn’t the ROSCO formed for this build? Or did other ROSCOs offer other products.

 

[Domh245]

Whilst Abellio proposed a bid utilising a new and unproven design of train, I still feel that they can't be assigned much blame. If they'd ordered new trains from "Domh245's new train building company ltd" then yes they'd be shouldering more of the blame, but they ordered it from a reputable manufacturer in Hitachi who should be capable of producing a train that works. Any new fleet will have teething problems and that will have been planned for to some extent in the timescales and what not, but those are usually things like the traction equipment shutting down if it is too sensitive, or the door software being overzealous, or the safety systems integration giving false positives. I cant remember a train (although no doubt someone will have an example) where there was a fundamental flaw in the design of the train that delayed it's introduction

As for the ROSCO, they are also financing the Caledonian sleeper new stock

 

[Highland37]

I agree. This is the fault of Hitachi and it's up to them to sort it out, as I am sure they are doing their best to do.

It may be that some kind of compromise is arrived at so that the trains actually come into service at some point. Legal action and disputes will not make introduction faster.

If I order a new van, which I am thinking of doing, and the contract is signed by my other half, I am going to go direct to the dealer if there is a problem. Not my partner.

 

[hexagon789]

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!

Several papers are saying 18 months now. I agree, it sounds like a major redesign is in the works, I guess we'll just have to see how long that actually takes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Several papers are saying 18 months now. I agree, it sounds like a major redesign is in the works, I guess we'll just have to see how long that actually takes.

Whoops.

Definitely time for some Class 365s then.

 

[hexagon789]

Whoops.

Definitely time for some Class 365s then.

Very definitely. They need something to over or else the bad publicity of late will get an awful lot worse. 365s are not that bad a train either!

 

[gingertom]

Whoops.

Definitely time for some Class 365s then.

on the subject of the senior Scotrail person who hinted at 365s for the Dec timetable change. There's legals and financials to sort out plus we have to consider where they are to be stabled and maintained- staff have to be trained and spare parts holding established for what is for a depot, a new train. All this takes time and December looks realistic to have this all sorted.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Software problems are also part of the class 385 issues causing non-acceptance.
While we are fixated with hard things like bolts and windscreens, it may be that the software issues are the really critical ones.
It can take a very long time to re-certify safety-critical software.

 

[Domh245]

It can take a very long time to re-certify safety-critical software.

Granted, but if we look at the 707s, which were also plagued with software issue the first one was delivered in December 2016 and had to have several software revisions whilst the testing was underway and yet the first one entered service in August. If this 18 month delay for entry into service is true, it almost certainly won't be down to software - indeed I suspect that whilst the fixes for the windscreen/bolts/whatever are being developed and introduced, the software can be fine-tuned, after all the trains are still running around during the day being driven by DBS drivers. Any software related delays once this 18 month delay is over would be wholly unacceptable IMO.

 

[43096]

Software problems are also part of the class 385 issues causing non-acceptance.
While we are fixated with hard things like bolts and windscreens, it may be that the software issues are the really critical ones.
It can take a very long time to re-certify safety-critical software.

They must have really, really screwed up the software (like completely fundamentally) if it's going to take 12 months+ to get that right.

 

[43096]

Any software related delays once this 18 month delay is over would be wholly unacceptable IMO.

That's a rather naïve statement, I think. New trains will need updates once they enter passenger service and experience is gained. I would refer you to the quote attributed to Helmuth von Moltke that "No battle plan ever survives first contact with the enemy.”

 

[gingertom]

I can't see the software having any major issues causing a show-stopper, unlike the windscreen. These will be fine tweaks, of which there will be many throughout the life of the product.

 

[Domh245]

That's a rather naïve statement, I think. New trains will need updates once they enter passenger service and experience is gained. I would refer you to the quote attributed to Helmuth von Moltke that "No battle plan ever survives first contact with the enemy.”

Fair point. I've nothing against them tweaking and updating software when they enter service and experience is gained, but if once the physical issues have been fixed they are delayed once again by major software issues it'll be beyond a joke. I was thinking more of the non-passenger side of the software such as AWS/TPWS integration and other bits that you can test without being in passenger service. With an 18 month delay they've not got any excuse if things like that aren't perfect. Even SDO software is something that they should be able to get working properly in that time, run the trains around opening and closing doors (with door barriers in the way of course) making sure that it functions properly.

 

[Highland37]

Yes. That is when it gets into Fyra territory.

 

[43096]

Yes. That is when it gets into Fyra territory.

There is a certain irony in Hitachi having bought the AnsaldoBreda factory where the Fyras were built!

 

[John R]

AFAIK, TS has no contract with Hitachi, and as such no direct recourse against Hitachi. I'd expect TS to have a contract with Abellio (as the ScotRail franchisee), who themselves have a contract with Caledonian Rail Leasing (as a ROSCO, to provide 385s to Abellio ScotRail), who themselves have a contract Hitachi (to construct the 385s).

Er, that's what I meant by "flowing through the system". TS will have no direct recourse, but they will have to agree any change to the Scotrail franchise, and any financial implications, and thus are in a strong position to dictate terms. Scotrail will not agree anything further down the chain if they find themselves picking up an additional franchise cost.

As for the more general "who's to blame?". It's clearly Hitachi. It was not unreasonable for a bid to include a new design of stock - that's relatively commonplace. Nor is it unreasonable for that design to have gangways - again commonplace. Nor unreasonable to use Hitachi given their track record, both in the UK and elsewhere. So nothing in that decision could be criticised, other than with the benefit of hindsight. It's just one almighty cock-up by Hitachi that could not have been foreseen.

 

[Failed Unit]

So i assume when bids were evaluated and the question about “demonstrating experience of delivering EMUs with corridor connections in the U.K.” was asked - Hitachi passed with flying colours.

We won’t dispute Hitachi have designed a dud.

But no-one forced anyone to buy it.

Looking at the other side of the coin. I think this is also unprecedented in the U.K. Unless you look back at the APT. But then it was a prototype that didn’t make it into production. (Even if components did). So you could argue that Scotrail’s can sit in their ivory tower. But would you buy a new car directly off the drawing board with no testing? - do you wait for others to find the faults first? You never know, it may have a blind spot that makes it impossible to park.

 

[YorkshireBear]

So no bid with an un proven train design should be accepted. Is what some of you are suggesting. They would have never invented the train if we thought like that.

Albellio and TS can not check train designs for specific technical details, if they could they would simply design the train themselves!

 

[Failed Unit]

So no bid with an un proven train design should be accepted. Is what some of you are suggesting. They would have never invented the train if we thought like that.

Albellio and TS can not check train designs for specific technical details, if they could they would simply design the train themselves!

No - what I am saying it Abellio / TS chose to take the risk of an unproven design and should therefore also take some of the responsibility for the problems they face.

A lot of trains are evolution of past designs followed up by prototypes. Look how many prototype rail-buses existed before the production versions.

This is our money. The 2nd places bid could have used proven technology and be delivering benefits now.