Great Northern Fleet - 379s introduction

[jon0844]

That's hardly a surprise, a modern comfortable train rather than an 1980s Mk 3 EMU!

The 317s that got the '365 refurb' (317/6?) were pretty comfortable, and 2+2 seating to boot.

 

[Royston Vasey]

That's hardly a surprise, a modern comfortable train rather than an 1980s Mk 3 EMU!

Well, a modern train anyway! Other than the 379 runs most of the 317s were also 3+2

 

[MCR247]

Only a small proportion of GA commuters ever experienced class 379s. Most of their short life the class 379s only worked the Stansted Express and the peak hour fast trains between Liverpool Street and the Fens. On the Cambridge line in the peaks, most stations only saw class 379s passing through without stopping. In particular they haven't been used on crowded commuter trains with frequent stops.

To be fair they were used on stopping services towards of their end of the time at GA. I caught quite a few pairs on Stratford - Bishops Stortford and on Hertford East runs.

 

[Busman]

To ensure I've not missed anything, does the 379 to GN mean the 387s will be released to Southern? Or is this an additional requirement of trains for GN?

 

[Sutton in Ant]

To ensure I've not missed anything, does the 379 to GN mean the 387s will be released to Southern? Or is this an additional requirement of trains for GN?

In my belief is that when the 379s go into service with GN? Then Southern will be getting the 387s. How many? I don't know but I would think that Southern will get at least 30 387s

 

[Magdalia]

o be fair they were used on stopping services towards of their end of the time at GA. I caught quite a few pairs on Stratford - Bishops Stortford and on Hertford East runs.

But that was during the pandemic when few people were travelling. Class 379s are yet to be properly tested on crowded commuter trains with frequent stops.

 

[Robski]

To ensure I've not missed anything, does the 379 to GN mean the 387s will be released to Southern? Or is this an additional requirement of trains for GN?

Additional trains for GN, with some (not all) 387’s going to Southern.

In my belief is that when the 379s go into service with GN? Then Southern will be getting the 387s. How many? I don't know but I would think that Southern will get at least 30 387s

It’s going to be less than 30, as the objective is to increase the fleet size (and therefore capacity) at GN.

 

[JonathanH]

But I have a feeling that the rolling stock that is going to be with GN will be the 379s and the named Thameslink 700s.

The point being made is that 30 379s aren't enough for the GN, even with 700s working some services, and that a reasonable number of the 387s need to stay on GN workings.

 

[ainsworth74]

Just a reminder that this thread is about 379s to Great Northern, not necessarily every intricate cascade in the South East

 

[Sutton in Ant]

The point being made is that 30 379s aren't enough for the GN, even with 700s working some services, and that a reasonable number of the 387s need to stay on GN workings.

How is it not enough with GN? I would like to know. Plus is there any evidence that can back your claim?

 

[Magdalia]

How is it not enough with GN? I would like to know. Plus is there any evidence that can back your claim?

The basic Kings Cross-Letchworth/Cambridge/Ely/Kings Lynn service requires 16*8 car trains, that is 32 units. The class 379 fleet is not big enough to deliver that.

But there are also units to strengthen peak hour Kings Lynn trains to 12 cars, and units for the peak hour Kings Cross-Peterborough trains.

Currently these are covered by the GN class 387s, plus borrowing some class 700s.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The basic Kings Cross-Letchworth/Cambridge/Ely/Kings Lynn service requires 16*8 car trains, that is 32 units. The class 379 fleet is not big enough to deliver that.

But there are also units to strengthen peak hour Kings Lynn trains to 12 cars, and units for the peak hour Kings Cross-Peterborough trains.

Currently these are covered by the GN class 387s, plus borrowing some class 700s.

Class 700's are underutilised so GN can have a small allocation that can easily interwork with TLk services so the all the 387's can be transferred to Southern and avoid a small allocation at Hornsey.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Last I heard a while back was just over two dozen 387s leave Hornsey and about half of Southerns gain will be off set by a transfer of 4car 377s from Southern to South Eastern. Probably read it on here.

Its a nuisance Hornsey having a microfleet of 387s but we must not go too far with our crayons !.

 

[bramling]

Class 700's are underutilised so GN can have a small allocation that can easily interwork with TLk services so the all the 387's can be transferred to Southern and avoid a small allocation at Hornsey.

Whether the 700s are under-utilised is a matter for debate. Certainly we have gone from 8x 700/0 to 4x 700/0 being used for the Cambridge services. Presumably there’s now a 5th doing the re-instated Peterborough working which has appeared this month.

But given how it is stubbornly common to find 700/0s covering 700/1 diagrams, it would appear the remaining units are being utilised to cover for 700 availability in general being below what was hoped for.’

I agree with the general view that whilst GN could theoretically be delivered with just 379, 700 and 717, it can’t be done in practice without either moving units off other services, or being a seriously performance liability. Nor does it leave any scope for future growth rebound, which surely even the DFT must expect to happen to at least some extent.

The bigger question is whether Hornsey will retain a specific pool of 387s, or whether units will be cycled with the Southern fleet.

By contrast, the 717 fleet *is* very much under-utilised, and I must admit to being slightly surprised something hasn’t happened in this respect already. However they do lack both toilets and first class, which could be being seen as a stumbling block.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Whether the 700s are under-utilised is a matter for debate. Certainly we have gone from 8x 700/0 to 4x 700/0 being used for the Cambridge services. Presumably there’s now a 5th doing the re-instated Peterborough working which has appeared this month.

But given how it is stubbornly common to find 700/0s covering 700/1 diagrams, it would appear the remaining units are being utilised to cover for 700 availability in general being below what was hoped for.’

I agree with the general view that whilst GN could theoretically be delivered with just 379, 700 and 717, it can’t be done in practice without either moving units off other services, or being a seriously performance liability. Nor does it leave any scope for future growth rebound, which surely even the DFT must expect to happen to at least some extent.

The bigger question is whether Hornsey will retain a specific pool of 387s, or whether units will be cycled with the Southern fleet.

By contrast, the 717 fleet *is* very much under-utilised, and I must admit to being slightly surprised something hasn’t happened in this respect already. However they do lack both toilets and first class, which could be being seen as a stumbling block.

Indeed its unfortunate the Letchworths interwork with the Lyn/Elys otherwise you stick the 717s on those.

 

[Sutton in Ant]

The basic Kings Cross-Letchworth/Cambridge/Ely/Kings Lynn service requires 16*8 car trains, that is 32 units. The class 379 fleet is not big enough to deliver that.

But there are also units to strengthen peak hour Kings Lynn trains to 12 cars, and units for the peak hour Kings Cross-Peterborough trains.

Currently these are covered by the GN class 387s, plus borrowing some class 700s.

I perfectly understand that the Kimgs Cross to Peterborough and Kings Cross to Kings Lynn and Ely service would need a good amount of rolling stock but with the 379s which can do most of them and you can add around 10 to 12 8 coach thameslink trains to make it possible for the 387 cascade to Southern.

 

[Magdalia]

I perfectly understand that the Kimgs Cross to Peterborough and Kings Cross to Kings Lynn and Ely service would need a good amount of rolling stock but with the 379s which can do most of them and you can add around 10 to 12 8 coach thameslink trains to make it possible for the 387 cascade to Southern.

No you can't, there are not that many spare class 700/0s. A quick look at RTT suggests that the Sutton, Rainham, Sevenoaks and Orpington services together require about 50 units. The number of spare class 700/0s is not into double figures, probably 6-8 at the most.

 

[bramling]

I perfectly understand that the Kimgs Cross to Peterborough and Kings Cross to Kings Lynn and Ely service would need a good amount of rolling stock but with the 379s which can do most of them and you can add around 10 to 12 8 coach thameslink trains to make it possible for the 387 cascade to Southern.

Where are you going to source these 10-12 700/0s from? Or to put it another way, which Thameslink services are you going to cut in order to free them up?

 

[Sutton in Ant]

Where are you going to source these 10-12 700/0s from? Or to put it another way, which Thameslink services are you going to cut in order to free them up?

I was only guessing. There were previous Thameslink services from KX to Cambridge, and now it is with GN. You could use those trains and other Thameslink trains that were used to run out of KX. Maybe use them. The reason why I mentioned it is the case I traveled on a GN service that was a Thameslink 700.

 

[bramling]

I was only guessing. There were previous Thameslink services from KX to Cambridge, and now it is with GN. You could use those trains and other Thameslink trains that were used to run out of KX. Maybe use them. The reason why I mentioned it is the case I traveled on a GN service that was a Thameslink 700.

As noted before, the King’s Cross to Cambridge stopping service used 8x 700/0 from May 2018. A further three units were required for peak Welwyn services, which have now become part of the Welwyn-Sevenoaks allocation.

Four 700/0 remain on purely GN diagrams today, and a fifth covers a peak Peterborough diagram from this month.

So this essentially leaves a couple of units nominally available, but note having one or more 700/0 covering for non-available 700/1s is common (previously the services would likely have simply been cancelled).

Remember also that GTR were originally planning to reinstate a further peak Peterborough diagram, which seems not to have happened due to lack of trains.

 

[Sutton in Ant]

As noted before, the King’s Cross to Cambridge stopping service used 8x 700/0 from May 2018. A further three units were required for peak Welwyn services, which have now become part of the Welwyn-Sevenoaks allocation.

Four 700/0 remain on purely GN diagrams today, and a fifth covers a peak Peterborough diagram from this month.

So this essentially leaves a couple of units nominally available, but note having one or more 700/0 covering for non-available 700/1s is common (previously the services would likely have simply been cancelled).

Remember also that GTR were originally planning to reinstate a further peak Peterborough diagram, which seems not to have happened due to lack of trains.

Okay. Fair enough. I just wonder if there is too much of wanting to reinstate service that were lost due to the pandemic. GN is getting the 379s but I think that scrapping the 365s was a massive error by dft

 

[jon0844]

Okay. Fair enough. I just wonder if there is too much of wanting to reinstate service that were lost due to the pandemic. GN is getting the 379s but I think that scrapping the 365s was a massive error by dft

Without bodyside cameras, they were never going to be able to stay. However, that's not to say they couldn't have found somewhere else to operate.

 

[Magdalia]

I think that scrapping the 365s was a massive error by dft

Also class 365s did not have Selective Door Opening which is essential for running 8 car trains on stopping trains between Royston and Cambridge, and between Cambridge and Kings Lynn.

 

[Peter Sarf]

There is basically going to be an extra 30 x 4car units floating around the SE due to the 379s.

Flipping it around the other way. It follows that Thameslink want the spare 700s back for the services promised and also cover. So GN gets all 30 of the 379s and cascades about 25 387s away to Southern. So Hornsey ends up with an unchanged allocation size but Thameslink gets its 700/0s back.

---

As for worries about 379s being sent back North. Hornsey is only so big. Once a few 379s have been deemed acceptable they will have to be stored somewhere SHORT TERM while other 379s are poured over at Hornsey. Back at Worksop seems reasonable as a loco + driver is heading roughly that way after each delivery anyway. Once GN think they have enough usable 379s they will probably do a quick swap of say ten 379s to Hornsey and a similar number of 387s to Selhurst (or short term store). JM2PW

 

[hwl]

As for worries about 379s being sent back North. Hornsey is only so big. Once a few 379s have been deemed acceptable they will have to be stored somewhere SHORT TERM while other 379s are poured over at Hornsey. Back at Worksop seems reasonable as a loco + driver is heading roughly that way after each delivery anyway. Once GN think they have enough usable 379s they will probably do a quick swap of say ten 379s to Hornsey and a similar number of 387s to Selhurst (or short term store). JM2PW

I don't think any will be deemed acceptable...
They will want detailed "to do" lists for all units (some work may end up being contracted out) and presumably then to prioritise work on the the units that need less work first.

 

[bramling]

There is basically going to be an extra 30 x 4car units floating around the SE due to the 379s.

Flipping it around the other way. It follows that Thameslink want the spare 700s back for the services promised and also cover. So GN gets all 30 of the 379s and cascades about 25 387s away to Southern. So Hornsey ends up with an unchanged allocation size but Thameslink gets its 700/0s back.

It isn’t really a case of Thameslink getting the 700/0s back, as there was always an intention that a proportion of the fleet would be working the Cambridge stopping services.

As it happens - and in the absence of Maidstone plus a slight reduction in the need for 12-car working on the Cambridge fasts, GTR have managed to find a way of resourcing this service slightly more efficiently (by interworking with the 387s), which has produced a saving of 4 units.

Whether there is a longer term intention to try and eliminate 700/0s altogether from the Cambridge route remains to be seen. However to do so would require something in the region of 10x further 387/379s, and it’s unclear whether anyone is prepared to fund this, unless there’s a specific need for the 700/0s to be used elsewhere, which at the moment there doesn’t seem to be.

A few variables for the future however:
* If there’s a need for more 12-car working on the fast Cambridge services then suddenly the 700/0s become rather inflexible.
* If the Baldock peak services are reintroduced in some form (as is probably likely in the medium term) then there will be a need for some 8-car trains.
* At some point Peterborough is likely to need some further peak extras; and in the longer term it’s likely these will need to be 12-car. With 700/1s being scarce this would pretty much require 387/379s, though a wild card option would be to use 717s.

Making the Cambridge stopping / fast service fully 387/379 and utilising 700/0s for Baldock would make sense, but this is very much speculation on my part. Doing this would address both of the above issues.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I don't think any will be deemed acceptable...
They will want detailed "to do" lists for all units (some work may end up being contracted out) and presumably then to prioritise work on the the units that need less work first.

Yes, I wait to see how long the to do lists are....
But the 379s being "sent back" is not an indication of out and out rejection.

 

[Bikeman78]

That doesn't change my point, which is that on modern train layouts, a substantial number of people should be standing before a train is considered full, and that 379s offer less seated capacity than previous rolling stock.

Anyway, the idea that no one sits in the middle seat on a set of 3 seats does get a bit exaggerated on this forum. I agree that some will stand before using the middle seat but it doesn't mean they don't ever get used. The modern trend towards 2+2 and more room for standees is obviously designed to result in more people standing, not for fewer people to travel.

The biggest losers are the people who board at the point where the last few seats are taken. It was apparent when the 345s took over from the 315s. The point at which lots of people typically had to stand was two stops further out in the morning peak.

 

[physics34]

Without bodyside cameras, they were never going to be able to stay. However, that's not to say they couldn't have found somewhere else to operate.

Back to southeastern wouldve been the answer... but there were some rumours their DC equipment had been removed

 

[Doomotron]

Back to southeastern wouldve been the answer... but there were some rumours their DC equipment had been removed

The rumours were more than likely true. As far as I'm aware much of it was effectively binned, and changes to the trains over their lives meant it would be prohibitively expensive to refit their third rail equipment. A non-starter.