nat67
Established Member
They should have keeper hold of the 365's for a bit longer I reckon.
To counter balance the shortage of stock movements and scrapping's.
To counter balance the shortage of stock movements and scrapping's.
Agreed. I think the 365s, whilst not perfect, di a very useful job and should have been kept on until the entire fleet of 385s was delivered and accepted into service before handing them back. It's not like they have anywhere to go...Given how short of DMU/HST's Scotrail are it is crazy that over 75% of the Glasgow - SDA services are still DMU based. These should have been changed over to EMU to free up the 170's even if it meant keeping the 365s on the Edinburgh side for longer.
Even though they don't need them now they have enough Class 385 trains? Doesn't seem too smart, given their poor performance.
If they still need to use diesels then there's not enough 385s in service yet to cover the diagrams. Retaining the 365s until there were would have been cheap insurance.Given how short of DMU/HST's Scotrail are it is crazy that over 75% of the Glasgow - SDA services are still DMU based. These should have been changed over to EMU to free up the 170's even if it meant keeping the 365s on the Edinburgh side for longer.
At this point, i wonder if even the most resolute of advocates of this scheme still think it is a good idea?
Retaining them would have a negative impact on performance.If they still need to use diesels then there's not enough 385s in service yet to cover the diagrams. Retaining the 365s until there were would have been cheap insurance.
Only because ScotRail couldn't be arsed to maintain them properly. Presumably that is as opposed to the negative impact on performance of not having enough crews trained on 385s now the 365s have gone.Retaining them would have a negative impact on performance.
Do you have any actual evidence that the fitters at Shields “couldn’t be arsed to maintain them properly” as you so disparagingly put it? Presumably they were working to the appropriate VMIs. I know that obtaining spare parts was proving very, very difficult for example. Perhaps you know different...?Only because ScotRail couldn't be arsed to maintain them properly.
If they still need to use diesels then there's not enough 385s in service yet to cover the diagrams. Retaining the 365s until there were would have been cheap insurance.
Or possibly because the units need to work to Perth as part of their diagrams.Or possibly could be perhaps not everyone who works these routes are electric trained yet.
Given how short of DMU/HST's Scotrail are it is crazy that over 75% of the Glasgow - SDA services are still DMU based. These should have been changed over to EMU to free up the 170's even if it meant keeping the 365s on the Edinburgh side for longer.
Okay thanks, that's useful to know, not so much for myself but for when I'm surrounded by bewildered passengers clutching non existant reservations.If it's booked for an HST, the reservations will be for an HST. If a 170 (or worse, a 158) that turns up, there won't be any seat reservations (as well as being short formed).
I have to say, the basic cleanliness of HST coaches isn't an issue for sets departing from Inverness - the cleaning staff treat all types of train with the same high level of care.
Do you have any actual evidence that the fitters at Shields “couldn’t be arsed to maintain them properly” as you so disparagingly put it? Presumably they were working to the appropriate VMIs. I know that obtaining spare parts was proving very, very difficult for example. Perhaps you know different...?
As one of many suffering the consequences of the early removal of the 365 on grounds of alleged issues of maintaining them albeit they did to me provide reliable service unlike the position now with cancelled services . I am perfectly happy to accept the views here it was the right decision for Scotrail. It may be more debatable if that was in the passenger interest which I hope we all accept is paramount. But what is not acceptable is the manner of the implementation. Scotrail just don't explain actions. Warn customers. Inform them of the anticipated and duration of impact. They just cancel trains. End off! To those using our railway for the first time as a few of my fellow passengers are in these past weeks they are incredulous that you have trains but no drivers. By any standards of management competence anywhere in the world it's a failure. Certainly a failure of communication which Abellio accept they were poor at. Vowed to not repeat the mistakes of the past , then promptly do it again. Scotrail stand out as a body without any capacity to learn any capacity to change attitude or approach to transition. They are either chronically accident prone or cynical about the contract with the public and TS.
As with HST. The same applies. There is no candour in their dealings just same old story. To not fix the easy stuff they can fix like train cleaning shows that cynicism. Now as predicted I travel on a new 3 week old dirty train! Why?
I'm told there are train inspections under Squire. It ain't working!
So rather than us rail users and or enthusiasts on here attack each other on the details or technical reasons of x y and z. We should be challenging our politicians to do better. To demand better, to be better .
The rail industry has many fine people working for it. But it can't go on telling us it's got high levels so customer satisfaction when the reality is not
This post is pretty much spot on. The catalogue of failure documented shows that the passenger is not at the centre of decision making in any way at all.
No business can flourish if it continually ignores the needs of it’s customers.
I had experience before Christmas of an Inverness Edinburgh train terminating at Perth due to staff shortages. Just abandoned in Perth station with little assistance.
The whole culture is wrong. Passengers interests must be better represented. We pay sweetly for this service it should be run to provide the service needed.
I feel passenger reps should be at the decision making table. This would sharpen the process and focus on the need to provide a decent reliable service and communicate honestly and effectively with the public.
Second refurb made it into service today,so that's two out today.. Two have been delivered and only one has ever seen a passenger.
I'm genuinely interested in the answer to this - @Highland37 is the latest of many to mention "call out Wabtec" (or words to that effect). Whilst they have failed to deliver to the originally published timescales (bearing in mind that "we" as the public have no sight of any assumptions that were made when agreeing dates and any change which may have been outwith Wabtec's control) I'm unsure what people think "calling them out" will do?
Will the Chief Engineer of Wabtec's apology help the trains come quicker? Will it spur the lads on the shop floor to work faster? Will it make Abellio or ScotGov suddenly pump huge amounts more money into the programme and magic up some engineering resource to speed things up?
I'm no apologist for Wabtec and I agree that looking from the outside the contract has been poorly executed. But I work in a field of Rail Engineering where original deadlines for work have been missed because the client instructed contractors to make certain assumptions regarding their asset condition. When after contract award they find the assumptions are incorrect it pushes the programme and cost up, due to more design and construction works being required than were originally programmed in or budgeted for. If the client has told you to as a contractor to assume something and it's not as they've said, how can you be blamed for it!
It's an awful situation and it doesn't seem to be getting better, but blaming people will do no good. I can guarantee that no-one is sitting there feeling great about the contract, and the amount of anger directed towards them isn't going to help them do a better or faster job.
My point is that recognising the issue is part of the remedy. Whilst Scotrail's management of this has been abysmal, like they are in many other areas, it is not their fault that the trains have not been delivered. It also not the fault of the Scottish Government or Transport Scotland.
A contractor is responsible for what they have agreed to deliver. If they are instructed to deliver something, it is up to them to decide whether they can or cannot deliver it. If they agree to do something after giving advice that they are uncertain, that in no way relieves them of their obligations. It's a contract. So in short, the contractor is under no obligation to deliver anything other than what they have agreed to.
We know that set three is still at Doncaster and that corrosion etc is not stopping it leaving. Something else is.
I'd also say that I don't think Wabtec are able to deliver this. At best, they might be able to bang some sets out sporadically.
So blame isn't helpful but recognising the issues is. Scotrail have been awful but this is not their fault and when the passengers are faced with an inferior service, moving to the road (they are!) and the reputation of the railway is getting worse (it is!), then it is fair, but tough to blame that on the company that has in in the main, been responsible for it.
No business can flourish if it continually ignores the needs of it’s customers.
The whole culture is wrong. Passengers interests must be better represented. We pay sweetly for this service it should be run to provide the service needed.
The points made about assumptions of asset condition are very interesting but also worrying. How could people involved in rolling stock planning/maintaining/ overhaul not know that a HST coach nearly approx 40 years might be in a bad condition and need lots metal work done to it prior to interior and prm/tsi refurbishment.
This post is pretty much spot on. The catalogue of failure documented shows that the passenger is not at the centre of decision making in any way at all.
No business can flourish if it continually ignores the needs of it’s customers.
I had experience before Christmas of an Inverness Edinburgh train terminating at Perth due to staff shortages. Just abandoned in Perth station with little assistance.
The whole culture is wrong. Passengers interests must be better represented. We pay sweetly for this service it should be run to provide the service needed.
I feel passenger reps should be at the decision making table. This would sharpen the process and focus on the need to provide a decent reliable service and communicate honestly and effectively with the public.
Surely a train that occasionally breaks down still performs better than no train at all?Only because ScotRail couldn't be arsed to maintain them properly. Presumably that is as opposed to the negative impact on performance of not having enough crews trained on 385s now the 365s have gone.
Look at they other week when something broke down between Dundee and Aberdeen it messed up stuff for hours. It will make other Trains capped what ever happens.Surely a train that occasionally breaks down still performs better than no train at all?
M
I'd also say that I don't think Wabtec are able to deliver this. At best, they might be able to bang some sets out sporadically.
So blame isn't helpful but recognising the issues is. Scotrail have been awful but this is not their fault and when the passengers are faced with an inferior service, moving to the road (they are!) and the reputation of the railway is getting worse (it is!), then it is fair, but tough to blame that on the company that has in in the main, been responsible for it.