Scotrail Class 385 Discussion

[railfan100]

is the Class 385 multiple working situation within class only does anyone know?

 

[Clansman]

is the Class 385 multiple working situation within class only does anyone know?

Most likely so, although it will be able to couple to any EMU in the Scotrail fleet in the event of an emergency so I believe.

The 385s will be the only electric passenger train operating on the newly electrified lines for Scotrail so its not like they will be in any situation to work in multiple with another EMU. The only line they will share is the Cathcart Circle, and even then 380s never work multiple with 314s so it's highly unlikely the 385s will ever have to work in multiple on a service.

 

[380101]

is the Class 385 multiple working situation within class only does anyone know?

within class only. Will be able to be coupled to 380 and 334 in failure situations only.

note: 334 fleet currently being fitted with delner couplers at Shields depot.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Another reason why 387s were never likely to be chosen is that the E&G platforms are, at great expense, being extended to 8x23m. The 20m bodyshells of the 387s mean that an 8-car set would only be equivalent to a 7x23m EMU. 9x20m was never going to happen, as it could only be done with 3x20m units and these would have wasted space on extra cabs, accessible toilets and a more split up first class area.

 

[Goldfish62]

Did the 458 have air con tho?

Of course.

 

[Class377/5]

Another reason why 387s were never likely to be chosen is that the E&G platforms are, at great expense, being extended to 8x23m. The 20m bodyshells of the 387s mean that an 8-car set would only be equivalent to a 7x23m EMU. 9x20m was never going to happen, as it could only be done with 3x20m units and these would have wasted space on extra cabs, accessible toilets and a more split up first class area.

23m version is available, called the Aventra platform (which is an updated Electrostar design).

Of course.

That's interesting variation. Thanks for confirming that to me.

 

[Goldfish62]

That's interesting variation. Thanks for confirming that to me.

I went to a presentation by Stagecoach at the time that they were ordered and they said then that the units would be minimum spec with no frills. They obviously realised their error nearky 20 years later.

 

[800001]

385102 sat outside Hitachi, Newton Aycliffe today, doesn't look like has internal fittings as yet.

 

[SC318250]

385102 sat outside Hitachi, Newton Aycliffe today, doesn't look like has internal fittings as yet.

I think that is the unit that is to go north to Shields Depot for certification before returning for internal fitting

 

[Clansman]

Posted by Scotrail 5 days ago. Judging by the title there's going to be 4 videos regarding the 385s...

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdSa7QOvxXA[/youtube]

 

[800001]

I think that is the unit that is to go north to Shields Depot for certification before returning for internal fitting

385001 and 385102 both outside together today in front of each other, lots of people in Suits and orange jackets walking around them. (001 also no internal fittings by the look of it).

 

[ld0595]

I've read on scot-rail that there is some testing with a Class 67 on 06/12. If all goes well, 385001 will be dragged to Shields depot on 09/12.

 

[SC318250]

On way to Shields 2 late

 

[ld0595]

Quick look on Flickr shows that it's 385102 all Saltired up being dragged tonight by 67105.

Source

 

[Clansman]

Quick look on Flickr shows that it's 385102 all Saltired up being dragged tonight by 67105.

I'll bite first...I love the look! They wear the livery well I must say.

I recall someone mention the idea of a nickname for the 385s - to me they are "Spartans".

Looking great, although I wish the same could be said for the interior...

 

[gsnedders]

This would appear to be the movement.

 

[jopsuk]

Fine looking unit!

 

[childwallblues]

More trips to Scotland in 2017!

 

[XC90]

Fine looking unit!

The door stuck on the front makes it look hideous. 170's 314 318 334 class's dont have them and they are not necessary. The doors undoubtedly restrict the drivers view just as they do on the 380.

 

[najaB]

170's 314 318 334 class's dont have them and they are not necessary.

How do you propose that passengers and staff get between coupled units without a gangway connection?

 

[Clansman]

On the Scotrail website, it mentions Berwick Upon Tweed in one of the routes listed, I've not heard anything about Berwick services (except North Berwick) if anyone is able to shed some light on it?

https://www.scotrail.co.uk/about-scotrail/new-trains

 

[me123]

^IIRC, are they not planning on running some local services down to Berwick-upon-Tweed? Perhaps with some of the additional stops added at East Linton and Reston?

 

[NotATrainspott]

On the Scotrail website, it mentions Berwick Upon Tweed in one of the routes listed, I've not heard anything about Berwick services (except North Berwick) if anyone is able to shed some light on it?

https://www.scotrail.co.uk/about-scotrail/new-trains

This was a priced option in the ITT and the plans for reopening Reston and East Linton stations are tied to it. It's just an extension of the current Dunbar terminating service.

 

[47271]

How do you propose that passengers and staff get between coupled units without a gangway connection?

Quite so. One of the more annoying features of 170s on E&G services at the moment is the uneven distribution of passengers throughout peak time six car sets. You jump on at the back at the last minute and stand for most of the journey full in the knowledge that there'll be masses of space in the front unit. And there are the issues of consistent ticket checks and passage of the refreshment trolley.

I'm sure that gangways are unhelpful to drivers all round vision but it's incorrect to say that they're 'unnecessary' on the main route that these trains are going to be used on.

 

[me123]

Quite so. One of the more annoying features of 170s on E&G services at the moment is the uneven distribution of passengers throughout peak time six car sets. You jump on at the back at the last minute and stand for most of the journey full in the knowledge that there'll be masses of space in the front unit. And there are the issues of consistent ticket checks and passage of the refreshment trolley.

I'm sure that gangways are unhelpful to drivers all round vision but it's incorrect to say that they're 'unnecessary' on the main route that these trains are going to be used on.

I don't think gangways necessarily help the issue, in all fairness. I've been on plenty of three car trains (170s and the EMUs) where people will happily stand in the front carriage whilst I've had several seats to myself in the rear.

Edit: some replies to the above post have been moved to The problem of uneven passenger loadings on some long trains.

 

[najaB]

I don't think gangways necessarily help the issue, in all fairness. I've been on plenty of three car trains (170s and the EMUs) where people will happily stand in the front carriage whilst I've had several seats to myself in the rear.

At least they had the option to move down the train. When a double 170 or 170-158 combo turns up, it's a risk trying to move between them at stations.

 

[MadCommuter]

At least they had the option to move down the train. When a double 170 or 170-158 combo turns up, it's a risk trying to move between them at stations.

It seems odd that the 318s had their gangway connections removed and now new units come with them.

I don't see an issue with no connections. It's easy for ticket examiners / conductors to switch between units at stations. Although the trolley is not so easily moved. I don't use services with a trolley, but if there's demand for a second unit, would there be sufficient demand for a second trolley?

 

[XC90]

How do you propose that passengers and staff get between coupled units without a gangway connection?

The same way they do on the units with no gangway doors.

Also, why still paint the fronts yellow? Its no longer required. It would be good for Abellio to make these units look different and put their stamp on it.

 

[najaB]

The same way they do on the units with no gangway doors.

So in other words, only at stations. Making revenue protection and safety tasks much harder than they need to be.

 

[380101]

The same way they do on the units with no gangway doors.

Also, why still paint the fronts yellow? Its no longer required. It would be good for Abellio to make these units look different and put their stamp on it.

The final spec for the livery was signed off before the lighting regulations were changed.