Not to mention, while yellow fronts aren't required they are still a good idea.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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
Clansman
Established Member
It's part of the Scotrail livery and interior colour scheme so it has it's own place if you like, rather than just being there because it needs to. Looks nicer with yellow than without to be honest.
Thats not the actual gangway doors. It's a solid sheet to protect them during testing and when being loco hauled.
Goldfish62
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 11,669
Have the lighting regulations actually changed? I may be wrong but I thought it was merely decided that the yellow panel was deemed no longer necessary with the pre-existing spec for lights on new build trains.
Excellent, glad to hear that was never an issue.
Clansman
Established Member
Post 251, shows the completed front end gangway.
Last edited:
It's all part of the Technical specifications for operating trains. Train lighting at the front must meet a certain standard ie; High Intensity headlights and high level "cyclops" light. If the train lighting meets that standard then yellow front panel is not required. There will be plenty of trains built in the last 10 years that have lights that meet the specs 380, 68 etc but will keep their yellow ends as it's not cost effective to repaint.
All new build will obviously meet the requirements. The 385 doesn't suit the yellow ends as it's such an ugly last minute design once TS demanded the gangway.
Clansman
Established Member
Any news regarding the tests, as there were runs around Wemyss Bay diagrammed for a couple of days ago?
Just a gentle reminder the thread title is Scotrail Class 385
Obviously some thread-drift is understandable but if anyone wishes to discuss something else (or reply to someone who has already gone off topic) please click the 'New Thread' button in the appropriate forum, if there isn't already an existing thread. Thanks
Obviously some thread-drift is understandable but if anyone wishes to discuss something else (or reply to someone who has already gone off topic) please click the 'New Thread' button in the appropriate forum, if there isn't already an existing thread. Thanks
The interior looks a great deal more brighter and the seats look comfortable than the IEP from the same factory.
Amazing how different two trains can be; one designed by civil servants the other obviously by railwaymen.
I know which one I would rather travel on.
Amazing how different two trains can be; one designed by civil servants the other obviously by railwaymen.
I know which one I would rather travel on.
Last edited by a moderator:
Southsider
Member
- Joined
- 10 Aug 2015
- Messages
- 848
Been a constant complaint from drivers of 380s for 6 years now and they basically copied the 380 cab for this new train. Some drivers that have been in the cab when it was at Shields depot say it's not any worse than the 380 view but the cab layout is not as good.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Unfortunately plenty of civil servants had their say on the 385 specification. The front end gangways that ScotRail didn't want for a start. Just the 380 problems all over again for drivers.
Clansman
Established Member
Have there been any previous complaints about the gangways on 150s? 156s? 158s? 318s?
Or even looking further afield to front gangwayed stock south of the border...
Is the driver visibility issue confined to the 380s and 385s specifically - and how so compared to previous examples mentioned?
Just curious as I'm perplexed how certain (often older) trains with front gangways can be viewed nostalgically, but then a new train comes along with similar specifications and everyone's quick to jump to point it out. I'm not denying that there are problems with driver visibility due to the gangways but I'm failing to see the balanced argument of it between new and old rolling stock in Scotland - never mind the rest of the UK.
Hopefully I've managed to confine this issue to the 385 topic without the need of a new thread
Or even looking further afield to front gangwayed stock south of the border...
Is the driver visibility issue confined to the 380s and 385s specifically - and how so compared to previous examples mentioned?
Just curious as I'm perplexed how certain (often older) trains with front gangways can be viewed nostalgically, but then a new train comes along with similar specifications and everyone's quick to jump to point it out. I'm not denying that there are problems with driver visibility due to the gangways but I'm failing to see the balanced argument of it between new and old rolling stock in Scotland - never mind the rest of the UK.
Hopefully I've managed to confine this issue to the 385 topic without the need of a new thread
Last edited:
As a driver of both class 380 and 156 the vision is much more restricted in the 380. This is very much due to the way in which the cab had to be laid out as a consequence of the gangway. In a 156 you are positioned much closer to the windscreen and can see alot more to the right. The 380 driving position is set much further back - largely due to crash regulations I imagine. The narrow windscreen and the side window being behind the driver in the 380 add to the feeling of it being restricted. The 318 gangways were that much of an issue they removed them (fairly easy on Mk3 based stock, although I'm sure the class 700 cab would fit onto the 380 easy enough since its the original 380 cab design!)
The layout of the 380 cab is OK but there is room for improvement in terms of where the DOO monitors are. Something which was mentioned numerous times to people involved with the 385 specification yet they still managed to make the same mistakes in the positioning of the DOO monitors. I haven't met a driver or manager yet that is happy with the 380 monitor position.
Speaking to on train ticket examiners it seems the only people who use the gangway corridors are fare dodgers as they are quite long and claustrophobic compared to the 156 or 158 gangway corridors and put alot of passengers off moving through the train.
before my time but longer serving drivers have mentioned bad draughts causing passenger discomfort, however I'm sure there was more to it than that. Makes for a nice open, airy feeling cab though.
Ridiculously small. Do they give drivers sufficient forward visibility for safety let alone to the right? Monumental cock-up in design.
Last edited by a moderator:
SpacePhoenix
Established Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 5,491
Would it have made much difference for drivers if the gangways could retract like they do on the 380s?
Forward visibility should be OK. Have heard it's better than the 380, but as bad for views to the right. Lack of an opening droplight side window hasn't gone down well with drivers.
Abellio never wanted a gangway either. Their original images of the AT200 didn't have the gangway, which had to be added on for promo stuff once they confirmed the deal to get them.
Photohunter71
Member
So, designed by civil servants then? Why weren't drivers consulted,or were they and their response was promptly binned because it didn't suit the Scottish government narrative?
I never said they were designed by civil servants; the specifications were laid down by civil servants as per the franchise tender etc. Drivers within ScotRail get consulted on a variety of things and then when the answers don't fit with what the company/TS want they get ignored. 380 DOO monitors are one of many things we've complained about due to their poor positioning yet they put the 385 monitors in the same place.
TH172341
Member
- Joined
- 22 Aug 2010
- Messages
- 401
Have to say those cabends look truly awful - no finesse or practicality in that design at all. Fine, it means passengers can walk through between units but the driver's cab visibility is woeful. Compared to a full width cab it's not very good at all, or even compared to say 172/350s.
Rick1984
Member
- Joined
- 23 Aug 2012
- Messages
- 1,076
Shame about gangway as they'd look cracking without it.
Could they have built fixed 8-car sets for Glasgow to Edinburgh or would that have not provided adequate flexibility?
Could they have built fixed 8-car sets for Glasgow to Edinburgh or would that have not provided adequate flexibility?
they are planned to be used on at least 5 routes so a fixed formation would be no use for the likes of the Cathcart Circle or Shotts line.
Rick1984
Member
- Joined
- 23 Aug 2012
- Messages
- 1,076
I thought as much.
Shame they can't have a separate E-G fleet
Shame they can't have a separate E-G fleet
Clansman
Established Member
Would limit flexibility though unfortunately although 6-car fixed sets would definitley be suited when the Glasgow Suburban EMUs come up for replacement. Could easily be a Desiro City.
Last edited:
- Status