Great Northern Fleet - 379s introduction

[bramling]

Not just Crew Training... DOO Cameras would need fitting, fitters would need new training (sure it a Siemens products but its not the same as 717 or 700 inside or out!), ASLEF Agreements, Route Clearances (although same a 700-ish). Lot of work.

Do we assume there is now an intent to remove 700/0s from the GN side? IIRC there are now just 4x 700/0 diagrams on the GN side. Though it’s not entirely clear what 8x displaced 700/0 would be used on, as presumably they’re not just going to sit spare.

With the GN fleet size now edging up towards 40, one can’t help but think of a certain fleet which would have fitted the bill…

 

[jon0844]

I fully expect that if 387s need to be taken out of service for repairs or unexpected issues (like many 700s were recently) they will just run 4 car formations.

 

[Magdalia]

With the GN fleet size now edging up towards 40, one can’t help but think of a certain fleet which would have fitted the bill…

No they wouldn't. No SDO or DOO on board cameras.

Class 365s haven't fitted the bill in the Fens since 8 car all stations trains started.

 

[Mikey C]

Do we assume there is now an intent to remove 700/0s from the GN side? IIRC there are now just 4x 700/0 diagrams on the GN side. Though it’s not entirely clear what 8x displaced 700/0 would be used on, as presumably they’re not just going to sit spare.

With the GN fleet size now edging up towards 40, one can’t help but think of a certain fleet which would have fitted the bill…

Southern?

 

[Fincra5]

Do we assume there is now an intent to remove 700/0s from the GN side? IIRC there are now just 4x 700/0 diagrams on the GN side. Though it’s not entirely clear what 8x displaced 700/0 would be used on, as presumably they’re not just going to sit spare.

With the GN fleet size now edging up towards 40, one can’t help but think of a certain fleet which would have fitted the bill…

They're mostly covering TL services! - Lack of available 700/1s etc... Probably gives Siemens more slack to fix issues etc.

 

[bramling]

No they wouldn't. No SDO or DOO on board cameras.

Class 365s haven't fitted the bill in the Fens since 8 car all stations trains started.

I’ve always thought the handful of remaining platforms should have been extended. That would resolved all of those issues.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 May 2023 ==

They're mostly covering TL services! - Lack of available 700/1s etc... Probably gives Siemens more slack to fix issues etc.

That’s what I thought, and it’s notable my prediction of more 700/0 covering 700/1 diagrams seems to have come true - though better this than an outright cancellation I suppose.

It isn’t a great shout that this is the position when the timetable is already slimmed down compared to the original non-Covid May 2020 timetable.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 May 2023 ==

Southern?

It’s all quite counter-intuitive really. Squeeze the 387 fleet - the one where any slack would beneficially be used south of the river to make up for the 313 and 455 withdrawals - to release 700/0s seemingly into nomansland. Though, if the general consensus is that this is due to poor 700 availability then it does make sense.

I shouldn’t be saying too much as from a purely personal point of view I’m not-at-all displeased to see 387s appearing on the 2Cxx services, and thus a significant reduction in 700 services at my station!

 

[Magdalia]

I’ve always thought the handful of remaining platforms should have been extended. That would resolved all of those issues.

No it wouldn't because the trains would still need on board DOO cameras, as the platform extensions don't have fixed cameras or mirrors.

 

[Doomotron]

Or replace the whole lot with 37 x 350/2. That way Hornsey becomes a 100% Siemens allocation (350/700/717). I get, though, that would require crew training.

However, the 350/2s have a while to go before they'll be available and in many ways are not suitable for Great Northern (then again, neither are the 700s), and the 379s are available right now.

 

[CBlue]

However, the 350/2s have a while to go before they'll be available and in many ways are not suitable for Great Northern (then again, neither are the 700s), and the 379s are available right now.

They're 100mph EMU's, how are they not suitable barring bits like driver only operation equipment which would be retrofitted anyway?

 

[Jammy Dodger]

They're 100mph EMU's, how are they not suitable barring bits like driver only operation equipment which would be retrofitted anyway?

I think they are already fitted with DOO (might be wrong though).

Technically, they are nearly identical to the 387's, and could easily be uprated to 110mph operation (I think one was tested at 110 many years ago)

 

[bramling]

No it wouldn't because the trains would still need on board DOO cameras, as the platform extensions don't have fixed cameras or mirrors.

We aren’t talking about a large number of platforms for equipment to be fitted. I don’t think the tail in the form of places like Meldreth should be allowed to wag the whole GN dog.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 May 2023 ==

However, the 350/2s have a while to go before they'll be available and in many ways are not suitable for Great Northern (then again, neither are the 700s), and the 379s are available right now.

The 3+2 seating likely wouldn’t be popular, though presumably the third seat could be fairly easily removed.

Keeping the 3+2 would essentially be a return to 317 standards, which wouldn’t really be acceptable especially out to Kings Lynn. All rather frustrating as the GN had the perfect interior layout with the 365s. The 387s are okay, but introduced certain niggles which the 365 didn’t have.

 

[43096]

The 387s are okay, but introduced certain niggles which the 365 didn’t have.

As Queen Elizabeth II made sure GTR were aware of!

 

[Energy]

I think they are already fitted with DOO (might be wrong though).

Technically, they are nearly identical to the 387's, and could easily be uprated to 110mph operation (I think one was tested at 110 many years ago)

They are 110mph already. They aren't DOO though it can be retrofitted (recently done on the /1s).

 

[Jammy Dodger]

They are 110mph already. They aren't DOO though it can be retrofitted (recently done on the /1s).

379's are 100mph - were never initially meant to operate off of WAML

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

The 387s are okay, but introduced certain niggles which the 365 didn’t have.

Yes, I’ll name four.
1) Tables
2) Armrests
3) Plug sockets
4) Inter-unit through gangways

 

[Energy]

379's are 100mph - were never initially meant to operate off of WAML

The poster was referring to 350/2s. 379s are 100mph and DOO fitted.

 

[bramling]

Yes, I’ll name four.
1) Tables
2) Armrests
3) Plug sockets
4) Inter-unit through gangways

The tables and armrests get in the way on the 387s, I’d say they cause more problems than they solve - and of course the 700s don’t have either. Gangways aren’t really an issue on GN, the 317s had them and they fell into disuse by the end.

 

[southern442]

The tables and armrests get in the way on the 387s, I’d say they cause more problems than they solve

I think you should be at least be willing to admit you are probably very much in the minority with that opinion!

 

[Wolfie]

Anyone would think that there’s never been a new train introduction, ever, because it’s all so difficult.

It could be done. What people are saying is that doing so is not cost free.

 

[Magdalia]

We aren’t talking about a large number of platforms for equipment to be fitted. I don’t think the tail in the form of places like Meldreth should be allowed to wag the whole GN dog.

I'm not talking Meldreth, I'm talking Waterbeach and Littleport. Running 8 car trains through to/from Kings Lynn calling at all stations is the GN dog, and it can't be done with class 365s. Prior to the introduction of 8 car trains the Cambridge-Kings Lynn trains were the most overcrowded on the GN network.

Maybe someone can confirm when was the last time that new fixed cameras or mirrors were installed? I suspect that fixed cameras or mirrors on the Waterbeach and Littleport platform extensions were not an option.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 May 2023 ==

The tables and armrests get in the way on the 387s, I’d say they cause more problems than they solve - and of course the 700s don’t have either.

Indeed. Tables and armrests increase dwell times because they get in the way of people getting off the train. That's why class 700s don't have them.

 

[Mikey C]

Yes, I’ll name four.
1) Tables
2) Armrests
3) Plug sockets
4) Inter-unit through gangways

Air conditioning

Indeed. Tables and armrests increase dwell times because they get in the way of people getting off the train. That's why class 700s don't have them.

This isn't the London Underground Circle Line. Most people are sat down for a considerable length of time, and will start to get up well before their stop to walk towards the doors.

 

[Magdalia]

Most people are sat down for a considerable length of time

That only applies to fast trains between Kings Cross and Cambridge. There are lots of short journeys in the Fens, and now also on the Cambridge stoppers.

 

[Fincra5]

I'm not talking Meldreth, I'm talking Waterbeach and Littleport. Running 8 car trains through to/from Kings Lynn calling at all stations is the GN dog, and it can't be done with class 365s. Prior to the introduction of 8 car trains the Cambridge-Kings Lynn trains were the most overcrowded on the GN network.

Maybe someone can confirm when was the last time that new fixed cameras or mirrors were installed? I suspect that fixed cameras or mirrors on the Waterbeach and Littleport platform extensions were not an option.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 May 2023 ==


Indeed. Tables and armrests increase dwell times because they get in the way of people getting off the train. That's why class 700s don't have them.

Southern Metro has a mix of units with a lot of Tables and Armrests yet the dwell time is more than it was for 455s or is for 700s...

 

[bramling]

I'm not talking Meldreth, I'm talking Waterbeach and Littleport. Running 8 car trains through to/from Kings Lynn calling at all stations is the GN dog, and it can't be done with class 365s. Prior to the introduction of 8 car trains the Cambridge-Kings Lynn trains were the most overcrowded on the GN network.

Maybe someone can confirm when was the last time that new fixed cameras or mirrors were installed? I suspect that fixed cameras or mirrors on the Waterbeach and Littleport platform extensions were not an option.

What was done for the lengthened Networker formations on Southeastern? That seems to be the most recent lengthening programme involving DOO services that I can readily think of. I think the LTS network may have seen the odd platform extension in fairly recent years, no idea what was provided there though.

There’s also South Shields on the Tyne & Wear Metro, which was resited a couple of years ago. That certainly has freestanding DOO equipment.

This argument I don’t think stands up to scrutiny. There’s no way we’re going to be in the position of having to scrap whole fleets of trains simply because a couple of platforms need a new bank of monitors.

 

[SolomonSouth]

In theory, should be slightly faster.

However, just picking a random schedule, 2109 from King's Cross, here is the timings from King's Cross to the first station stop at Letchworth

365 2109 to 2136 with 1H performance allowance (27 minutes)
387 2109 to 2135H with 1 performance allowance (26H minutes)

However, if we take the performance allowance out, it becomes
365 - 25H
387 - 25H

I'll have a more thorough look tomorrow when I have more time!

As regards performance more generally, departing King's Cross there wasn't much difference between a 365 and 387 until about Alexandra Palace. From there a 387 would reach 100 mph by New Southgate, whereas a 365 would take until Oakleigh Park or New Barnet depending on how the neutral section at Wood Green Feeder Station was handled by the driver. If the 365s were allowed to coast for longer this could add quite a bit extra to when 100 mph was reached. 387s took longer to power up again after the neutral section, but would regain the lost speed quicker.

Watching 365 performance was always interesting as compared to 387 or 700 it felt they were working that little bit harder. 317/321 were even more interesting, as they *really* had to work hard on this section, and with much more variability between different units - an average 317 pair would reach 100 by about Hatfield, whereas a bad pair might not achieve it at all.

I took a deeper look into the RPS archives and they look very similar to be honest. Both can hit over 80 by Finsbury Park and both can hit 95 by Hornsey. A fast 365 appears able to reach 100 by Barnet Tunnel while the 387 reaches it at around the same point. A slower 365 takes until Oakleigh Park or New Barnet. There was a 387 that hit it by New Southgate but this appears to be an outlier. Most hit it at Barnet Tunnel. So it appears that there is virtually no performance difference between 365 and 387, and any difference is as a result of the 365 fading/drives not driving as hard as they could/doing running brake tests in unfavorable places.

 

[GEC465]

Any updates? Heard the SE tender was shelved aswell.

 

[MML]

I'm not talking Meldreth, I'm talking Waterbeach and Littleport. Running 8 car trains through to/from Kings Lynn calling at all stations is the GN dog, and it can't be done with class 365s. Prior to the introduction of 8 car trains the Cambridge-Kings Lynn trains were the most overcrowded on the GN network.

Maybe someone can confirm when was the last time that new fixed cameras or mirrors were installed? I suspect that fixed cameras or mirrors on the Waterbeach and Littleport platform extensions were not an option.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 May 2023 ==


Indeed. Tables and armrests increase dwell times because they get in the way of people getting off the train. That's why class 700s don't have them.

I'm afraid the last comment about tables and armrests increasing dwell times, because they get in the way of people getting off the train is the biggest lie of all and was spun by the PR merchants at TOCs where the DfT had decided not to install them on cost grounds.

Wide doors, 1/3rd and 2/3rd doors as opposed to end of carriage, wide aisles and vestibules do have an impact. But most people can very quickly fold away a seat back table and I have yet to see anybody rushing for the door because an armrest had impeded their exit from the seat. Indeed, if they did, they would be considered a safety risk in the event of an emergency evacuation.

 

[Nick Ashwell]

I'm afraid the last comment about tables and armrests increasing dwell times, because they get in the way of people getting off the train is the biggest lie of all and was spun by the PR merchants at TOCs where the DfT had decided not to install them on cost grounds.

Wide doors, 1/3rd and 2/3rd doors as opposed to end of carriage, wide aisles and vestibules do have an impact. But most people can very quickly fold away a seat back table and I have yet to see anybody rushing for the door because an armrest had impeded their exit from the seat. Indeed, if they did, they would be considered a safety risk in the event of an emergency evacuation.

Surely people should get up from their seats prior to the station stop? The guard, or driver if under DOO surely isn't keeping an eye on the inside of the train?

They really can't increase dwell times unless the train crew give time for people to leave their seats, having already preannounced the stop which makes zero sense

 

[Pdf]

Heard the SE tender was shelved aswell.

Ah. That's good to hear. Ignoring the problem will definitely solve it.

 

[bramling]

I'm afraid the last comment about tables and armrests increasing dwell times, because they get in the way of people getting off the train is the biggest lie of all and was spun by the PR merchants at TOCs where the DfT had decided not to install them on cost grounds.

Wide doors, 1/3rd and 2/3rd doors as opposed to end of carriage, wide aisles and vestibules do have an impact. But most people can very quickly fold away a seat back table and I have yet to see anybody rushing for the door because an armrest had impeded their exit from the seat. Indeed, if they did, they would be considered a safety risk in the event of an emergency evacuation.

I do find the armrests on something like a 387 impede progress to some extent, as they seem to be designed almost on purpose to snag on when using the aisle. Likewise the full-size tables are a nuisance for those in the window seat to get in and out of, hence why the half tables on the 365s seemed to work better. An outer-suburban train really doesn’t need a full-size table.