-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Scotrail Class 385 Discussion
- Thread starter Clansman
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
hexagon789
Veteran Member
Thanks! I had heard of the curved windscreen problem but not the bolt issues. I assume that ScotRail would require a target of so many fault free miles before they could accept them formally, it is normally so for new trains. It sounds as though it could be some time before passengers see these in service trains......
Someone said 18 months in a previous post, hopefully they sort out the 385s long before that. Sadly I think even December would be rather optimistic.
Can I again remind members that this is a Traction and Rolling Stock thread for discussion of Scotrail Class 385 issues.
Topics relating to timetables and infrastructure should be posted in the appropriate threads in the appropriate sub forums.
I have moved some timetable related posts to this thread.
If you wish to discuss anything else, or if you wish to reply to someone else who has already done so, please create a new thread (if there isn't one already) in an appropriate forum to continue the discussion there.
Topics relating to timetables and infrastructure should be posted in the appropriate threads in the appropriate sub forums.
I have moved some timetable related posts to this thread.
If you wish to discuss anything else, or if you wish to reply to someone else who has already done so, please create a new thread (if there isn't one already) in an appropriate forum to continue the discussion there.
hexagon789
Veteran Member
Mmm, I wonder if anyone with any knowledge can confirm how the "adjustments" with the 385s are getting on?
Is 12-18 months potentially how long it must take to fix the issues etc?
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!
LT3001
Member
- Joined
- 31 Jan 2015
- Messages
- 50
So does that mean the 314s will have a stay of execution?
I'd guess so, but the 314s are being scrapped because of the high incidence of failures (because of their age) and spare parts are becoming scarce. As there are similarities between the 314 and the withdrawn 315s (same reasons?) it could be possible to cannibalise 315s for spare parts to keep the 314s running a while longer but that would need the Rosco's ok and money to change hands- surprise.
a_c_skinner
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 1,586
Someone who said he worked for Scotrail higher up thread was talking about contingency plans from the Dec 18 timetable so it does sound as if even after swapping the defective bolts there is a lot of work contemplated on the front ends. Another member posted an image of the units under construction speculated that a new frame could hold flat glass and that strikes me as a project that will take several months. Post #1409 seems to suggest (if well informed, and I did wonder if too much had been revealed for it to be from someone who is key) that SR are planning for potentially a long delay.
Northhighland
Member
- Joined
- 19 Aug 2016
- Messages
- 606
Surely 18 months would be an excessive time to take? Must be ways of speeding that up a bit? While safety is key and should never be compromised in any way, it can often be used as an excuse for pitifully slow process and procedure.
Southsider
Member
- Joined
- 10 Aug 2015
- Messages
- 759
Given last year’s press assault on Scotrail over very little they’ve been noticably quiet on this issue which is very real in terms of short forming and overcrowding. Ironically the situation is only going to get worse as more electrification is completed in the next few months and more DMUs go off lease. I appreciate the commercial, logistical and technical issues involved but I’m disappointed that Scotrail aren’t making visible efforts to bring in replacement stock from down south sooner than December. This is perhaps due to the absence of press and political pressure - I wonder what the reasons are?
Another Question if I may
The gangway requirement. Hindsight is a wonderful thing I know, but had it not been specified I assume a good chance we would have some sets in operation by now?. Can I ask, without it a full cab would it have presumably been cheaper?. Less to maintain and go wrong in use ? Better driver environment . Small cabs must be grim to work in and visibility must be compromised to an extent but within accepted safety criteria.
What are the benefits in use ? I am assuming when two sets are connected passengers and conductors can pass between the two sets. Is that such a big advantage? The 170 6 car sets are hardly a chore if the conductor has to nip onto the platform to pass thru.
There must be more reasons for this gangway requirement ?
For now I think they are living on borrowed time and on my route things are for now unchanged from the usual issues and even slightly better tbh. I suspect it just a matter of time before the press cover it but I assume when there is an announcement from SR . It's inevitable and not unfair for any flagship project that gets delayed or over budget to get pelters in the press . I suspect this could get to Edinburgh Trams proportions, not least as it's a bigger project affecting more than just Edinburgh. I hope not as bad as the Scottish parliament building. 10 times over initial budget 3 years late and now so pricey to maintain its long term future is now questioned! So in terms of embarrassing failures it's not that bad . Yet !
Highland37
Established Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2012
- Messages
- 1,259
Please! Can we keep on topic and leave paranoid political rantings out of it? The future of the Scottish Parliament building is not being questioned by anyone other than the most extreme ultra yoons.
Keep on topic and there would be no reason to reply to such nonsense! I am learning lots about the 385 issue and don't need the thoughts of someone on a parliament building. Start another thread for that.
I assume it's a combination of passenger convenience and revenue protection.
In the case of the former, someone can get on in any carriage and (theoretically, at least) move to any other to find a seat/a place to stand. For the latter, it means the guard isn't "trapped" in one set between at least two stations.
I mentioned in a previous post that it's somewhat ironic the 318s had their gangways removed, ostensibly to improve driver visibility and comfort. Yet here we are a little more than a decade later discussing problems with a brand new EMU, almost certainly caused by the requirement for a gangway.
Thank you. These don't seem major plus points. I suppose the buffet trolley is another plus point when it can pass thru , but it's hardly essential on a journey of circa 50 mins to offer catering such that it is. Indeed given scot Gov valid and welcome initiatives on reducing alcohol consumption and tackling obesity in Scotland a case could have been made to not have catering on such a short journey, leaving aside the litter and cleaning benefits as well . Less food consumption on trains is welcome given the traveling publics ability to fail to reach for a bin with in arms reach to deposit the carry on burger carton or coffee cup.
There must be more benefits to the gangways surely ?
I assume there is no safety issue on a guard unable to access a carriage underway given its common practice now.
As I said hindsight is great , but from what you say this gangway specification isn't just a new issue.
Altnabreac
Established Member
I think ideally for issues of capacity, reliability and cost the best solution is fixed formation units of the maximum length required. In this case that would probably be a mixture of 8 car and 6 car EMUs for different routes. This is what we see happening more on new orders in SE England like Crossrail where capacity is being maxed out.
However that reduces flexibility to run shorter formations during the day, reducing operating costs and removing the option of performing daytime maintenance between the peaks.
At Queen Street there is also the issue that only a limited number of the platforms will be able to take the 8 coach trains so even if platform extensions and SDO allowed a uniform 8 coach fleet to be delivered elsewhere Queen St would remain an issue.
I'd like to see Scotland stating an aim of moving towards 8 x 23m fixed formation units as the standard train length over the next 20 years but it is a long term thing to aim at and there would good reasons why the 385 order did not go down that route.
As said though even with the 3/4 car units there was a choice available of gangway or no gangway to be made.
Northhighland
Member
- Joined
- 19 Aug 2016
- Messages
- 606
It smells a bit off to me. I would think we will see some news come out that will cast doubt on the nat trolls certainty that this all Hitachi's fault. Had they been able to push all the blame on Hitachi there would be political posturing going on with the usual suspects trying to show how effective they are in holding contractors accountable. The silence would lead me to suspect there is more to this than meets the eye. Time will tell.
I’ve definitely been in a 158+170 with the guard in the first unit.
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.
In the event of a 385 train failure where it is stranded for example and the aircon fails there are proceedures to be followed that are truly farcical. First the staff must appoint a monitor for each door and issue them with a hi viz vest and a whistle. Next a plastic sheet is attached around the door areas, solid to waist height and mesh to the top of the door to allow air into the train. Next the doors are released to allow airflow. The monitor must stay at the doors to prevent self evacuations like we have seen recently.
An absolute joke and tedious routine that could be avoided by simply inserting two lockable hopper windows per coach.
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.
In the event of a 385 train failure where it is stranded for example and the aircon fails there are proceedures to be followed that are truly farcical. First the staff must appoint a monitor for each door and issue them with a hi viz vest and a whistle. Next a plastic sheet is attached around the door areas, solid to waist height and mesh to the top of the door to allow air into the train. Next the doors are released to allow airflow. The monitor must stay at the doors to prevent self evacuations like we have seen recently.
An absolute joke and tedious routine that could be avoided by simply inserting two lockable hopper windows per coach.
Last edited:
Some may bend the rules to chase revenue but this should never happen. They must be in the rear incase the train splits ETC. However it is not unusual on busier services for another Guard to be deployed as assistance so perhaps this is what you have witnessed.
Last edited:
Says who?
If only there were some sort of electrified connection over the Clyde between Bellgrove and Shields...
Seriously, the full Crossrail discussion aside that's one short stretch of infill that looks absolutely insane not to do now.
This is nonsense, what if two 158's split? What difference would it make whether the stock was gangwayed or not?
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.
Story reached the Daily Express today. Information sounds very similar to SR001's post 1409 but includes a quote from Scotrail looking at "immediate options".
https://www.express.co.uk/scotland/936895/Scotland-bullet-trains-delay-scotrail-hitachi
https://www.express.co.uk/scotland/936895/Scotland-bullet-trains-delay-scotrail-hitachi
Another year of delay for Scotland's 'bullet trains'
SCOTLAND’S new fleet of electric trains could be delayed for at least another year amid safety fears. A whistleblower yesterday warned the small number of ScotRail’s Class 385s remain “grounded” over concerns about their curved windscreens.
By Tom Martin
PUBLISHED: 21:30, Sun, Mar 25, 2018 | UPDATED: 10:28, Mon, Mar 26, 2018
NC
Fears are that Hitachi could take up to 18 months to make modifications
It is feared that Japanese manufacturer Hitachi could take up to 18 months to make modifications to run on the flagship route.
The first 385s were meant to be in service last September with Transport Minister Humza Yousaf previously promising that they would “transform the experience of users”.
Hitachi said the sleek new 385s – which can reach speeds of 100mph – would be “inspired by Japanese bullet train design, but built with British know-how”.
But manufacturing faults and delays to electrification of the line put their introduction back to this month.
However in a further blow, drivers’ union Aslef revealed the “fishbowl” windscreens were causing problems, with drivers reporting seeing multiple signals, instead of just one.
It is now thought the 10 trains built and delivered so far have been mothballed at the Millerhill depot near Edinburgh.
A ScotRail source said: “The 385s have all been grounded and they will be out of service for 12 to 18 months.
“The drivers are seeing reflections in the glass so they are not meeting railway safety standards.
“They have been testing them with two drivers in the cab but now they have all been ditched and Hitachi will have to go back to the drawing board to reconfigure the design.”
Hitachi Rail Europe signed a £375million contract to provide and maintain 70 trains for ScotRail in March 2015.
The deal was to build 46 three-car and 24 four-car electric trains to run on the Edinburgh-Glasgow and Stirling-Alloa-Dunblane routes.
The delayed introduction and leases running out on older diesel trains have forced ScotRail to cut the number of coaches on some trains between Glasgow Queen Street to Edinburgh via Falkirk High.
GETTY
Hiroaki Nakanishi, chief executive of Hitachi Ltd., speaks at the launch of Hitachi Rail Europe
ScotRail, run by Dutch firm Abellio, has introduced a reduced £13 anytime day return fare for travel on the Glasgow Queen Street to Edinburgh via Airdrie route, which is almost half the current price.
The fare is available until May 19 but it is not known when the new trains will enter service.
Scottish Labour’s transport spokesman Colin Smyth said: “Safety must be paramount, so it’s beyond belief that it’s only recently that problems with the train screens have been spotted.
“Maybe if ScotRail consulted their staff and unions more, the design could have been right from the start.”
ScotRail said it was looking at “immediate options to increase the number of electric trains” between the cities while it awaited the new trains.
A spokeswoman added: “Our focus remains on helping our manufacturer, Hitachi Rail Europe, to safely introduce these brand new electric trains into passenger service, as soon as possible.”
A spokesman for government agency Transport Scotland last night said: “Passengers and ministers are equally frustrated that these new trains have not yet entered service, particularly as the line is electrified and already has some existing longer trains running.
“While officials and ScotRail have worked hard to alter existing leases and secure more rolling stock, it is imperative Hitachi identify a swift solution to the current and well-documented technical problems which are delaying service introduction, as well as other manufacturing issues.”
a_c_skinner
Established Member
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 1,586
I'd not seen that when I posted a while ago, but it fits and makes sense. How on earth did we get to this without prototyping?
What happens if a 334+334 to split? They operate DOO, so there's never a safety-trained member of staff in the rear (well, not never, there might be by virtue of staff travelling).
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.
- Status