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......
The figure of 12-18 months is repeated in today's Scottish edition of the Sunday express.
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?
So does that mean the 314s will have a stay of execution?
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.
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?
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 !
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 ?
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.
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?
When in multiple Guards must stay in the rear train if there is no gangway, i.e. 2x170 or 170+158.
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.I’ve definitely been in a 158+170 with the guard in the first unit.
When in multiple Guards must stay in the rear train if there is no gangway, i.e. 2x170 or 170+158.
Would move from Glasgow QS to Shields not be better going:
Glasgow QS-Springburn-Stepps-Coatbridge-Bargeddie-Shields or is it down to route knowledge
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.
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.This is nonsense, what if two 158's split? What difference would it make whether the stock was gangwayed or not?
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.”
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).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.
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.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).