Why did the SWT Class 458/0s receive RVAR modifications while the Scotrail Class 334s did not?

[RacsoMoquette]

Hello all, I was intrigued to understand that when SWTs Class 458/0s initially were being designed, which coincided with the formation of the RVAR Disability Legislation of 2005. even with this Alstom continued the produce the Juniper family with areas of the design being not compliant. (Interesting that competing families akin to the Desiro or Electrostar did not hold non compliancy! Typical Alstom of the millennium) With this the the areas of concern being the height of the original PIS dot matrix display housings not being sufficient, the disabled access lavatory's being an unacceptable shape, the passenger open-close door buttons being to high and the lack of a doorway illuminator. The were many more areas of concern. Ultimately the 458/0s were administered an RVAR exemption until 2010. Upon which the 460 conversions occurred and modifications were given to oddly only heightening the PIS dot matrix displays and changing the original red LEDS to orange. Other than that, I think that was the only modification.
It baffles me that the Scotrail Class 334s did not receive any RVAR extensions nor incompliancy, those units are the closest of the Junipers to original internal condition ( which they are apart from an interior refurbishment) however they have not been altered internally once regarding RVAR modifications. Might this be due to different regulations in Scotland? If anyone could bear any information to why this may be it would be extremely useful!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Mar 2024 ==

Information sources regarding SWT Class 458/0 non RVAR Compliancy: https://assets.publishing.service.g...144a/070911-class-458s-pb-covering-letter.pdf
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/933/pdfs/uksiem_20060933_en.pdf https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/933/pdfs/uksiem_20060933_en.pdf

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Mar 2024 ==

Interestingly the is no such concerns regarding the Scotrail (then NX Class 334s)

 

[3RDGEN]

Hello all, I was intrigued to understand that when SWTs Class 458/0s initially were being designed, which coincided with the formation of the RVAR Disability Legislation of 2005. even with this Alstom continued the produce the Juniper family with areas of the design being not compliant. (Interesting that competing families akin to the Desiro or Electrostar did not hold non compliancy! Typical Alstom of the millennium) With this the the areas of concern being the height of the original PIS dot matrix display housings not being sufficient, the disabled access lavatory's being an unacceptable shape, the passenger open-close door buttons being to high and the lack of a doorway illuminator. The were many more areas of concern. Ultimately the 458/0s were administered an RVAR exemption until 2010. Upon which the 460 conversions occurred and modifications were given to oddly only heightening the PIS dot matrix displays and changing the original red LEDS to orange. Other than that, I think that was the only modification.
It baffles me that the Scotrail Class 334s did not receive any RVAR extensions nor incompliancy, those units are the closest of the Junipers to original internal condition ( which they are apart from an interior refurbishment) however they have not been altered internally once regarding RVAR modifications. Might this be due to different regulations in Scotland? If anyone could bear any information to why this may be it would be extremely useful!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Mar 2024 ==

Information sources regarding SWT Class 458/0 non RVAR Compliancy: https://assets.publishing.service.g...144a/070911-class-458s-pb-covering-letter.pdf
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/933/pdfs/uksiem_20060933_en.pdf https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2006/933/pdfs/uksiem_20060933_en.pdf

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Mar 2024 ==

Interestingly the is no such concerns regarding the Scotrail (then NX Class 334s)

The Juniper & Coradia units where designed to the draft regulations, by the time they became law certain details had been changed which caused some none compliance with the units. This is mentioned at the top of page 8 of the "EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE RAIL VEHICLE ACCESSIBILITY (GATWICK EXPRESS CLASS 458 VEHICLES) EXEMPTION ORDER 2006460" document; "As is the case with the fleet of Class 460 trains, the Class 458 trains were built during the development and formulation of the current RVAR regulations. When these regulations were completed and first issued, there were a number of areas where the Class 460 and Class 458 trains were non-compliant". Numerous mods where made to the fleets, if practical, but some would be far to expensive for the benefit hence the acceptance of none compliance.

 

[RacsoMoquette]

Also, why did the Class 334 not receive orange dot matrix LEDs akin to the SWT 458/0s and /5s and the GX Class 460? they also still bear their original PIS housings while the latter two had theirs heightened.

I also find it interesting that the Washwood Heath facility constructed LU 1995 and 1996 Tube Stocks were built and were generally reliable after introduction. I assume Alstom still utilised their antiquated construction equipment with poor attention to quality control? this makes me question why Alstom at the same facility with the same equipment could produce the Coradia Junipers to be so abysmal? it is extremely mystifying to one!

 

[Deepgreen]

The 458s had some work done but their destination indicators at the front are next to useless - tiny and illegible unless you are standing close to the train. I cannot understand the philosophy behind such indicators - are they genuinely thought to be useful to passengers, or just a legal tick box? The 442s were even worse, and the 700 family are dire from an illumination point of view (they cannot be read in normal cloudy daylight, let alone sunshine). IF they are supposed to be useful then the train end design needs to change to allow space for sensible-sized displays that are light-sensitive to allow legibility in all conditions. Oh for the days of SR headcodes - legible from beyond the platform and known by most passengers as bus routes would be (and extremely rarely wrong).

 

[RacsoMoquette]

I agree I think exterior dot matrix destination display indicators are a bit megre, what I do not understand regarding the Class 700s it for such a modern train why the window displays do not show scrolling calling points en route. Instead they just show the destination of the service in almost eligible print. I agree it is to faint to properly read when above ground, and just simply to small! Even Electrostars as early as the 357s and 377s had window DMIs with scrolling calling points, why could the Desiro Cities not do it?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Mar 2024 ==

The only Sufficient front exterior that I can think of is that of the Networkers and full width windows Class 170s, 357s and 360s. At least they were large and bright, especially the 465s and 365s you could see the destination display from even before the train enters the platform!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Mar 2024 ==

I personally think that the Post Privatisation Train Family's best PIS displays is probably that of the Siemans Desiro, I just find the green flip dot LEDs reliable and visible from a distance, especially on the exterior