• 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!

Why did Scotrail order 380s and not 350s?

Status
Not open for further replies.

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
6,680
Location
Northern England
If Scotland wanted a fleet of 100mph 25kV EMUs with doors at thirds and end gangways, and had selected Siemens (which was evidently the case, otherwise such a fleet would not have been built), then why would they not order 350s?

By that point, the 350 was already a proven design and they're among most reliable units in the country - I don't understand what the point would be in spending money to reinvent the wheel and create a new design when they could have simply ordered a 350 but with the interior to Scotrail spec (which wouldn't have been a huge difference anyway).
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
98,336
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Fairly sure the 350 was not on offer by then. I understand ScotRail did push Siemens to deliver the 380s with the proven traction package from the 350 though.
 

Scotrail314209

Established Member
Joined
1 Feb 2017
Messages
2,359
Location
Edinburgh
Fairly sure the 350 was not on offer by then. I understand ScotRail did push Siemens to deliver the 380s with the proven traction package from the 350 though.

I believe the purpose for the 380s was to be able to run in multi-car configurations to make the most of capacity, and I don't think Siemens offered a 3 car 350. I The 380 carriages are also slightly longer at 23 metres rather than 20 for the 350. I also believe the specification was for the now cancelled GARL. If GARL wasn't cancelled I think 350s would've been ordered.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,425
Location
nowhere
Um... TPE got their 350s in 2014; the 380s were delivered in 2010-11?


The 350/3-4 OJEU tender specifically asked for units that could work with LM's existing fleet. I'm sure that given the chance, they'd have rather offered something else (possibly 380s) for that contract, but were constrained by the bid requirements.
 

Kieran1990

Member
Joined
29 Feb 2016
Messages
408
Location
Leeds
Isn’t the 380 basically a suburban version of 444 with 2/3 doors, as they are the same length per carriage?
Personally a real shame no more 444’s were ordered but for the A/C brilliant regional/ long distant emus
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
98,336
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Isn’t the 380 basically a suburban version of 444 with 2/3 doors, as they are the same length per carriage?

Different bodyshell - indeed one that only seems to have been used for the 380s, as it has Electrostar-like sloping sidewalls, whereas all previous and subsequent Desiros have near-vertical sidewalls.

Personally a real shame no more 444’s were ordered but for the A/C brilliant regional/ long distant emus

Yep, a "Class 344" would for me be basically the perfect regional express EMU. Though to be fair the Class 397 is, give or take CAF "build quality", pretty close to being that.

To me the 444 as built (not as messed up by SWR) is the best rolling stock in the UK from my perspective as a passenger.
 

dgl

Established Member
Joined
5 Oct 2014
Messages
2,421
What have SWR done to mess up the 444s? I've not been to that bit of the country for a while
gone for 2+2 seating in 1st class using seating that's worse than that in standard, removed the guards office and the buffet area (although that was rarely used despite it in theory being a good idea).
 

RailWonderer

Established Member
Joined
25 Jul 2018
Messages
1,630
Location
All around the network
It was specified by Scotrail to have sloping end cabs. Siemens thus had to create a fully new design. A streamlined deisgn included a pendolino style slanted bodyshell rather than the normally straight Siemens one.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
98,336
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It was specified by Scotrail to have sloping end cabs. Siemens thus had to create a fully new design. A streamlined deisgn included a pendolino style slanted bodyshell rather than the normally straight Siemens one.

As in they specified the slopey sides? I wonder why on earth they did that? Extra width perhaps?

You could have put a fibreglass moulding onto the front of the 185 body without faffing about changing the whole shape.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,503
It was specified by Scotrail to have sloping end cabs. Siemens thus had to create a fully new design. A streamlined deisgn included a pendolino style slanted bodyshell rather than the normally straight Siemens one.
Not sure how true this is.
 
Joined
30 Nov 2012
Messages
370
Location
UK
I may remember incorrectly, but weren't the 350/3 and 350/4 order a follow up option to the 350/2s when London Midland ordered those? I seem to remember Siemens were reluctant to build more 350s and only did since they had to to fulfil the contract for a follow on order to the 350/s/
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,425
Location
nowhere
I may remember incorrectly, but weren't the 350/3 and 350/4 order a follow up option to the 350/2s when London Midland ordered those? I seem to remember Siemens were reluctant to build more 350s and only did since they had to to fulfil the contract for a follow on order to the 350/s/

It wasn't an option, but LM did tender for units that were fully compatible with the existing 350s, rather forcing their hand
 

RailWonderer

Established Member
Joined
25 Jul 2018
Messages
1,630
Location
All around the network
Last edited:

Kite159

Veteran Member
Joined
27 Jan 2014
Messages
19,351
Location
West of Andover
It was specified by Scotrail to have sloping end cabs. Siemens thus had to create a fully new design. A streamlined deisgn included a pendolino style slanted bodyshell rather than the normally straight Siemens one.

Slanted bodyshells to allow DOO cameras to be fitted more easily than the straight sides of a 350?
 

Scotrail314209

Established Member
Joined
1 Feb 2017
Messages
2,359
Location
Edinburgh
380s did look and still look rather strange. But they seem to be a lot more better than 350s. To me a 350 seems very crammed, maybe due to the shorter carriage lengths when a 380 seems more spacious.
 

Neptune

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2018
Messages
2,543
Location
Yorkshire
I seem to recall that the 380 is a halfway house technology wise between a Desiro and a Desiro City.

Also it has been mentioned in other threads that Scotrail’s preference is for 23m vehicles.
 

Alfie1014

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2012
Messages
1,133
Location
Essex
I seem to recall that the 380 is a halfway house technology wise between a Desiro and a Desiro City.

Also it has been mentioned in other threads that Scotrail’s preference is for 23m vehicles.
Correct, Siemens were aware that the Desiro (classic) was heavy (overweight?) and had very long door opening and closing cycles and as such would not be practical for both proposed Crossrail and Thameslink orders. The 380 design was a classic pretty much under the solebar with many of the new innovations of the Desiro City incorporated into the the bodyshell.
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,890
Scotrail do seem to have a slightly oddball selection of post privatisation EMUs

The 334, which may end up being the only Juniper in service if the 458/5s don't find another user
The 380 which is very different from other Desiros
The 385 which has been chosen by no other operators yet
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top