Class 387

[47802]

Me neither. I'm intrigued by this development though, am to I assume it's a precautionary move against the 387/1s not being released by GTR on schedule?

I doubt it given the current electrification progression on GWR more likely the Thameslink units are going elsewhere maybe GN

 

[D365]

Or have there been further issues reported in testing of the Class 700s?

 

[samuelmorris]

I doubt it given the current electrification progression on GWR more likely the Thameslink units are going elsewhere maybe GN

If that was the case, the risk would be having the 387/1s sitting around unused for a while until the electrification was sufficiently advanced. I don't see how the solution to that risk is to order yet more units, doesn't make any sense to me...

 

[47802]

If that was the case, the risk would be having the 387/1s sitting around unused for a while until the electrification was sufficiently advanced. I don't see how the solution to that risk is to order yet more units, doesn't make any sense to me...

My guess is that the Thameslink units are now staying on GTR in some form or other we know that GN is rumoured which will allow 365's or some 377's to be cascaded elsewhere.

If the C2C units form part of GWR's new build then that will of course keep 6 units occupied elsewhere for a few years and the delivery of the new units maybe a bit slower than the originally proposed transfer of Thameslink units and 8 new units. Under the original plan some Thameslink units were already supposed to start transferring but now it would appear the first units will be the new 8 units that were due to be built, admitidly Thameslink don't yet appear to be in a position to start cascading units anyway.

 

[43096]

You asked where the other 14 are going. At present there is no other 14. All Porterbrook has to do is place an order for 9 more 387s, loan first 6 to c2c (GWR will be fine with its initial 8 this summer) and send them to GWR in 2019 when more wiring will be done. That still gives GWR 31 units in a years time where as originally it was getting the remaining units about that time, before wiring delays we know know too.

What we know so far....

29 x 387/1 in service with GTR. Were to go to GWR, but not now.
27 x 387/2 in delivery to GTR for GatEx.
8 x 387 (were to be 387130-137) for GWR in build at Derby.
20 x 387/3 Porterbrook "speculative" about to start build. 6 to go to c2c, then transfer to GWR. 14 go new to GWR.
9 x 387 to be ordered for GWR to give 37 sets total for GWR.

So, the big question is, what happens to 387101-129 once the 700s replace them on Thameslink?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

So, the big question is, what happens to 387101-129 once the 700s replace them on Thameslink?

MML to Corby in due course perhaps. The OLE is to be Series 1, which is of course specified for 3 pantographs at 110mph.

 

[JamesRowden]

Might they replace the Class 90s on the GEML?

 

[samuelmorris]

Interesting idea. They'd need more than 29 though, to Mr knowledge there are 15 loco hauled sets which means like for like they'd need 45 4-car units I think?

 

[47802]

Might they replace the Class 90s on the GEML?

I'm sure that idea would go down well not! I think they would be looking for something with a bit more intercity style ambience and probably 5x23m units.

I would imagine it will facilitate some form of cascades to bring more capacity to the network where required.

They could go to Corby but you wouldn't need 29 units.

I would have thought it would have made sense for GWR to have a single fleet of 387's but people are saying this new order replaces and doesn't add 387's and GWR still get the 365's.:roll:

 

[AM9]

I'm sure that idea would go down well not! I think they would be looking for something with a bit more intercity style ambience and probably 5x23m units.

It would be fine to use 12-car 387s on the xx:30 slower trains to Norwich and their up returns. Their far better acceleration would keep them out of the increased services south of Ipswich as well as improving end-to-end times. They would also provide much more capacity in the peak hours than any end door stock with shorter dwell times as well.

 

[JonathanH]

It would be fine to use 12-car 387s on the xx:30 slower trains to Norwich and their up returns. Their far better acceleration would keep them out of the increased services south of Ipswich as well as improving end-to-end times. They would also provide much more capacity in the peak hours than any end door stock with shorter dwell times as well.

There would be a bit of temptation for the operator to use 8-car formations on some services.

It would be interesting to know whether anyone has ever assessed the loadings on Norwich-line services to see whether 5 12-car and 6 8-car workings (ie 27 diagrams for 30 units) could just about cover the demand through the day with peak demand covered by 321s / 360s*. The release of 317s / 321s from the Kings Cross routes could backfill the necessary rolling stock required.

(* I'm sure 360s could be cleared north of Stowmarket if necessary)

 

[47802]

It would be fine to use 12-car 387s on the xx:30 slower trains to Norwich and their up returns. Their far better acceleration would keep them out of the increased services south of Ipswich as well as improving end-to-end times. They would also provide much more capacity in the peak hours than any end door stock with shorter dwell times as well.

Of course even if you go for 5 carriage 23m train you don't have to go for end doors but lets not get into another debate about end doors etc. this is meant to be about 387's, and really I don't see the Norwich route as a likely option for these trains.

 

[LLivery]

They wont go Norwich, isn't 125mph units specified in the ITT?

Corby doesn't need 29 unless they all go 12 car all day. You can't split them between c2c and Corby as there isn't enough. Southern Region could replace the worst of the 455s but 5 (or fixed 10 car) sets should really be the aim there. If they went Anglia, you could replace the worst of the 317s but thats not even half of the 317s Anglian fleet. Maybe GWR take a few more then send the rest to the MML?

 

[D365]

If we assume (is it now confirmed?) that GWR will be taking on the 8 387s currently under construction, the initial 20 Porterbrook 'speculative' units and another 9 units from their option for a further 20 units (80 carriages). Could Great Northern take the 11 units remaining from the second 'speculative' order and combine that with the 29 ex-Thameslink units, for a total of 40 to replace the currently proposed 365 and 377/5 fleet?

There are no plans to replace the Class 455 fleets, but Southern will be reducing their reliance on them i.e. using their 377s more intensively.

 

[swt_passenger]

They wont go Norwich, isn't 125mph units specified in the ITT?

The Anglia ITT does not mention a 125 mph speed, or indeed any other specific speed for the route.

 

[AM9]

They wont go Norwich, isn't 125mph units specified in the ITT?

Which part of the GEML could make use the 125mph capability of any train let alone require it?
If there's a plan to lift speed limits on the line in the future, when do you think that trains capable of running at a mere 110mph would become unsuitable?

The 387s have about 35 years expected life in them. I can't think that they would be seen as too slow for the GEML in their service lifetime.

 

[jimm]

I would have thought it would have made sense for GWR to have a single fleet of 387's but people are saying this new order replaces and doesn't add 387's and GWR still get the 365's.:roll:

GWR is only due to take 21 of the 365s, for Oxford stoppers/the remaining GWR relief-line duties east of Reading, plus the branches that are wired, where 110mph capability would be wasted. So if there are going to be 29 new-build 387s for GWR, if confirmed, that looks like a straight swap for the 29 GTR ones that were due to transfer, not instead of the 365s.

387s instead of 365s would only really make sense if someone decides they do want a single type of emu for all the GWR Thames Valley services, that GWR now needs 66 four-car emus instead of 58 - before a single electric service has run - and that they don't mind using a brand-new 110mph unit to shuttle up and down between Slough and Windsor all day.

It would be fine to use 12-car 387s on the xx:30 slower trains to Norwich and their up returns. Their far better acceleration would keep them out of the increased services south of Ipswich as well as improving end-to-end times. They would also provide much more capacity in the peak hours than any end door stock with shorter dwell times as well.

It would be fine? The 387s might be fine for St Albans-London but I suspect the people of Norwich expect something better suited to a 90-minute or more journey to London than an outer-suburban emu - and would all pile on to the xx:00 trains instead, assuming they get intercity stock in your scheme.

 

[ScotGG]

Class 376 from SE to Southern replacing 455 and 387s to SE with high density 12 car trains?

 

[southern442]

The 387s have about 35 years expected life in them. I can't think that they would be seen as too slow for the GEML in their service lifetime.

Agreed. There aren't any bits of the GEML that have higher speed limits than 100mph (which is why AGA sometimes use 321's and 360's on Norwich trains) so 110mph 387's would be fine for the route speed-wise, and you could still raise the speed limits in places if you wanted to and promote faster journey times.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It would be fine? The 387s might be fine for St Albans-London but I suspect the people of Norwich expect something better suited to a 90-minute or more journey to London than an outer-suburban emu - and would all pile on to the xx:00 trains instead, assuming they get intercity stock in your scheme.

(Note: If you regularly visit the Class 387 and Class 700 threads (particularly in the past) you will see me and a number of other members going on about the design of the EMU's, so what I am about to say may seem a little strange)

Yes, I don't like the seats on these trains, I don't think they are very comfortable, and I don't like the fact that trains with this style of seating are going to be used on long journeys. However, when you say outer suburban EMU, one would imagine that an outer suburban train would have 2+3 seating and maybe a small table in the bays, and that would be inappropriate for Norwich to London. However that is not the case with the 387's, that have 2+2 seating with armrests and full size tables, much like the intercity stock on the line at the moment, plus they have plug sockets. As long as someone does something about the first class, they will fit right in and nobody will notice much of a difference.

 

[47802]

GWR is only due to take 21 of the 365s, for Oxford stoppers/the remaining GWR relief-line duties east of Reading, plus the branches that are wired, where 110mph capability would be wasted. So if there are going to be 29 new-build 387s for GWR, if confirmed, that looks like a straight swap for the 29 GTR ones that were due to transfer, not instead of the 365s.

387s instead of 365s would only really make sense if someone decides they do want a single type of emu for all the GWR Thames Valley services, that GWR now needs 66 four-car emus instead of 58 - before a single electric service has run - and that they don't mind using a brand-new 110mph unit to shuttle up and down between Slough and Windsor all day.

Stuff about 110mph being wasted on some services I suspect is fairly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things there are plenty of trains on routes which frequently don't use the top speed of the train.

I think it remains to be seen exactly what's going to happen on GWR some people are saying GWR are still getting 365's others say not, there is also the proposed additional 9 AT300's for GWR which may also reduce the overall EMU requirement.

 

[jimm]

Agreed. There aren't any bits of the GEML that have higher speed limits than 100mph (which is why AGA sometimes use 321's and 360's on Norwich trains) so 110mph 387's would be fine for the route speed-wise, and you could still raise the speed limits in places if you wanted to and promote faster journey times.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


(Note: If you regularly visit the Class 387 and Class 700 threads (particularly in the past) you will see me and a number of other members going on about the design of the EMU's, so what I am about to say may seem a little strange)

Yes, I don't like the seats on these trains, I don't think they are very comfortable, and I don't like the fact that trains with this style of seating are going to be used on long journeys. However, when you say outer suburban EMU, one would imagine that an outer suburban train would have 2+3 seating and maybe a small table in the bays, and that would be inappropriate for Norwich to London. However that is not the case with the 387's, that have 2+2 seating with armrests and full size tables, much like the intercity stock on the line at the moment, plus they have plug sockets. As long as someone does something about the first class, they will fit right in and nobody will notice much of a difference.

Just because a train can hit 125mph does not mean that it is the speed the train is running at most of the time. Many miles of the routes worked by HSTs and 22xs - and to be worked by the Class 80x family - have lower speed limits than 125mph.

I'm sure Hitachi, Bombardier or whoever will happily supply a set limited to 110-115mph for Greater Anglia that looks the part of an intercity train - that's the whole point of modular concepts like the A-Train and Aventra, providing horses for different courses from the same basic platform.

What long journeys will they be working on GWR? Paddington-Oxford and Newbury come in under an hour now on journeys worked by 90mph Turbos, with electric performance likely to save a good few minutes on each route. I don't consider a sub-one hour journey to be long.

No, I wouldn't imagine an outer-suburban emu would have 3+2 seats - that sort of layout is inner-suburban, as is a 2+2 layout with lots of standing room, like the LM 172s.

But a 2+2 layout with 1/3, 2/3 doors and grab rails all over the place is not inter-city. Just because the 387s match the speed profile of the Norwich line does not mean that they are suitable for journeys that are going to be 90 minutes, even on the fastest run, never mind the services making more stops.

 

[AM9]

It would be fine? The 387s might be fine for St Albans-London but I suspect the people of Norwich expect something better suited to a 90-minute or more journey to London than an outer-suburban emu - and would all pile on to the xx:00 trains instead, assuming they get intercity stock in your scheme.

Not when they get fed up with standing to Ipswich. The train with plenty of empty seats then starts to look a lot more comfortable. The railway has been changing since the '60s:
First the SOs all became TSOs
2nd class compartments were disappearing fast on MKIIs and were all gone on MKIIIs
First class compartments are very rare on MKIV and post stock
End doors will become rare outside stock dedicated to journeys where stops average about 30mins or more apart or low density branch-line stoppers*

*See TPE 185s & 350s, GatEx 387s etc..
With Norwich commuters calling for a 90minute run to London, the line will have average journey times no longer than many other London outer suburban routes. It may be unfortunate for Norwich that there's nowhere to go beyond there and traffic beyond Ipswich is hardly brisk all day but that's the way it is. If it's '80s style rolling stock that they want then better be careful of what they wish for in journey time reduction.

 

[Bishopstone]

As we're having a day of speculation, I'll throw-in my conspiracy theory:

The order will trigger a cascade sufficient to rid Southern of the nineteen 313s on Coastway duties, along with the Guards still required to work them after (if?) GTR get their way on DOO elsewhere. Potentially 377/3s back to Brighton, assuming they have cameras?

I was out and about yesterday, but didn't see any 387s on GatEx. Do they not have any weekend diagrams yet?

 

[tsr]

Potentially 377/3s back to Brighton, assuming they have cameras?

As with other 377s, they do have DOO cameras, except of course when they don't work, which is a fairly regular hazard with everything electronic on the /3s...

 

[southern442]

What long journeys will they be working on GWR? Paddington-Oxford and Newbury come in under an hour now on journeys worked by 90mph Turbos, with electric performance likely to save a good few minutes on each route. I don't consider a sub-one hour journey to be long.

I'm assuming you are referring to this comment:

I don't like the fact that trains with this style of seating are going to be used on long journeys.

Whilst the 387's won't usually be used on journeys longer than an hour, this style of seating can also be found on the IEP trains (in a slightly different form, but they are essentially the same type of seats) and I don't think that they are suitable for journeys in excess of 3 hours.

No, I wouldn't imagine an outer-suburban emu would have 3+2 seats - that sort of layout is inner-suburban, as is a 2+2 layout with lots of standing room, like the LM 172s.

Are journeys on a class 450, from London to Portsmouth, with 3+2, inner-suburban? What abut 321's from London to Southend, 166's on London to Reading, Oxford, sometimes even Worcester, London to Ashford on a 465 or London to Brighton or the South Coast on some 377's?

But a 2+2 layout with 1/3, 2/3 doors and grab rails all over the place is not inter-city. Just because the 387s match the speed profile of the Norwich line does not mean that they are suitable for journeys that are going to be 90 minutes, even on the fastest run, never mind the services making more stops.

The 387's may have grab handles etc, but I think the double doors layout works relatively well for people with lots of bags. They also have an intercity-style layout inside. Besides proper first class (which can be easily sorted), what do the 90+mk3 sets have that the class 387's don't?

 

[jimm]

Not when they get fed up with standing to Ipswich. The train with plenty of empty seats then starts to look a lot more comfortable. The railway has been changing since the '60s:
First the SOs all became TSOs
2nd class compartments were disappearing fast on MKIIs and were all gone on MKIIIs
First class compartments are very rare on MKIV and post stock
End doors will become rare outside stock dedicated to journeys where stops average about 30mins or more apart or low density branch-line stoppers*

*See TPE 185s & 350s
With Norwich commuters calling for a 90minute run to London, the line will have average journey times no longer than many other London outer suburban routes. It may be unfortunate for Norwich that there's nowhere to go beyond there and traffic beyond Ipswich is hardly brisk all day but that's the way it is. If it's '80s style rolling stock that they want then better be careful of what they wish for in journey time reduction.

Why would they be standing to Ipswich if the route gets 26m stock in nine-car formations (I think Liverpool Street platforms are around the 240m mark, so 9x26m should fit and I can't see any serious infrastructure impediments to 26m stock on the line), seating 650 people or so, assuming you order something like a Class 801? A 12-car 387 seats about 670-680, so hardly an earth-shattering difference.

We know for a fact that many of TPE's new trains will have end doors - they may live to regret it, but there we are. The other new trains may well do too.

Norwich is not my idea of outer-suburban, which I would put at the one-hour mark, so Colchester, Cambridge, Peterborough (on an emu) range, if we stick to East Anglia.

While a limited number of people may well commute Norwich-London, there are plenty of studies which put 90 minutes at the outer limit of what is considered a reasonably practical/tolerable daily commute. And the couple of 90-minute services a day that the new franchise is supposed to provide won't change that.

If we adopt the approach you and southern 442 advocate, then SWT should presumably have just ordered lots more 450s instead of those frivolous 444s with their fancy end doors, GWR should be using 387s to Bristol and Cardiff....:roll:

 

[JonathanH]

Arguably, GWR should have specified 387s for Bristol and Cardiff.

The main problem with using 4-car units is what you do about first class - ie three small areas rather than one to monitor.

Perhaps a better design would be a two coach unit with first class and all the catering facilities on the end on two four coach units with standard class only.

 

[jimm]

I'm assuming you are referring to this comment:

Whilst the 387's won't usually be used on journeys longer than an hour, this style of seating can also be found on the IEP trains (in a slightly different form, but they are essentially the same type of seats) and I don't think that they are suitable for journeys in excess of 3 hours.

This style of seating? There are 2+2 seats and then there are 2+2 seats and those in the interiors of the 800s we have seen don't look a whole lot like the ones in the 387s, never mind LM's 172s

Are journeys on a class 450, from London to Portsmouth, with 3+2, inner-suburban? What abut 321's from London to Southend, 166's on London to Reading, Oxford, sometimes even Worcester, London to Ashford on a 465 or London to Brighton or the South Coast on some 377's?

So some stock that is less than suitable for certain jobs is used in some places, so what's new? SWT hasn't got enough 444s to cover Portsmouth as well as Southampton/Weymouth in the face of growing custom. What on earth is wrong with 30 minutes on a 166 to Reading? FGW recognised back in 2004 that the Turbos should not be used west of Oxford but the continuing issues with the 180s and the capacity overkill that replacing them with HSTs represented outside the peaks meant the 166s came back in 2009 - at the cost of the North Downs line, where 166s are far better suited to Gatwick airline passengers and their luggage than a 165. When FGW got five Class 180s back three years later, where did it choose to use them? Straight back to the Cotswold Line...

The 387's may have grab handles etc, but I think the double doors layout works relatively well for people with lots of bags. They also have an intercity-style layout inside. Besides proper first class (which can be easily sorted), what do the 90+mk3 sets have that the class 387's don't?

1/3, 2/3 doors are not an intercity layout. That's all there is to it. Unless getting an icy blast of freezing air at every station during the winter is an essential part of the intercity experience people have been missing out on for all these years.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Arguably, GWR should have specified 387s for Bristol and Cardiff.

The main problem with using 4-car units is what you do about first class - ie three small areas rather than one to monitor.

Perhaps a better design would be a two coach unit with first class and all the catering facilities on the end on two four coach units with standard class only.

:roll::roll::roll:

 

[southern442]

If we adopt the approach you and southern 442 advocate, then SWT should presumably have just ordered lots more 450s instead of those frivolous 444s with their fancy end doors, GWR should be using 387s to Bristol and Cardiff....:roll:

Not what I'm trying to say at all. The 450s and 387s have different style interiors. I'm saying that the 387s would be more suited to longer journeys as they have an intercity style layout.

What I was saying about the 450's was a different point. I was saying that they are outer-suburban EMUs and not inner suburban EMUs as they are used on relatively long-distance services compared to inner suburban workings. In fact, if you look at other classes with a 2+3 interior such as 377s, 321s, 319s, 317s, 360s and 375s, none of them are used on inner suburban workings.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

This style of seating? There are 2+2 seats and then there are 2+2 seats and those in the interiors of the 800s we have seen don't look a whole lot like the ones in the 387s, never mind LM's 172s

The 387 seats are the same type of seats used on the class 800s. They have a different shape, but they are the same.

1/3, 2/3 doors are not an intercity layout. That's all there is to it. Unless getting an icy blast of freezing air at every station during the winter is an essential part of the intercity experience people have been missing out on for all these years.

Would it not be possible to install doors to separate the vestibules from the seating areas?

 

[Class 170101]

To be honest it would make sense if all of GWR and GN services into / out of Kings Cross were 387s given the constraints of both in terms of IEP speed acceleration and infrastructure.

Would 365s and 377s keep ahead of IEP on ECML Fast Lines between London and Hitchin given the superior acceleration of IEP when compared to HSTs and Class 91s?