Class 380 - a bit of a munter?

[laseandre]

Yes, I found it quite narrow too, although I like the armrests in the end carriages, they're luxury on SPT.

 

[LucaZone]

Speaking of 380, is that class even secured? If the units really do turn out to be 350's then wont they just be 350/2s or something? rather than 380's?

Remember the 377's were marketed as 471s!

 

[djw1981]

I think they are 350 derrivatives given the delivery timescale involved. Both are 4car models, both have gangways etc. But then again what makes the 172 different to the 170?

 

[me123]

IIRC 3+2 seating is involved in the 172s.

 

[djw1981]

But the HT 170's (whilst still having 2+2 seating have a buffet etc so the chnage in class cannot be down to seating alone, nor AIUI can it be down to just a re-gearing, as that would only create a sub class.

 

[me123]

Hmm.... well there's the regearing for the 75mph (IIRC) top speed, the 3+2 seating... And some are going to be gangwayed thorughout.

TBH, djw, class 170/7, 8 and 9 does dound like a better numbering solution now you mention it, considering each train only seems to vary by one or two wee bits from the 170. :? I'm sure they know what they're doing

 

[djw1981]

I'm sure they know what they're doing

Irony / Naivety?

 

[me123]

110% Irony, hence the ""

 

[5872]

Blimey, apart from the Southern class 455's, the 380 has to be the worst looking unit I have ever seen!

Agree with you there , I don't know why they didn't just build more 350/450s, at least they work.

 

[EE Type 3]

My thoughts exactly. Hinged at the bottom and hydraulically operated up to make it all vertical when necessary would be a good idea.

My nickname for this will be "cellar door", just because of that gangway. :P

It'd just be something else to go wrong though wouldn't it? If it were me I'd go for the good ol' 350 design, as it works.

 

[Pumbaa]

Problem is the 380s are based on the 332, not the 350. The 350 design is essentially scuppered because of the front gangway. Remember that the 350s only exist because DfT or whoever they were back then didn't want 30 extra 450s going to SWT, and so they were re-allocated to CT/Silverlink. Hence the 350/1s have a third rail shoe. The new 350/2s arriving later this year are the same design, but with no third rail capability and 3 by 2 seating throughout Standard.

Also, the 360s now on the GEML were originally meant to have a gangway, and the pre-prod models show this gangway. However, the HSE wasn't happy with the forward visibility and so it was discarded.

My guess is the new front design is to allow for maximum forward visibility so that HSE don't get a rat up their arse.

 

[adamp]

pendodildos?

Classic. lol. Not heard that name before.

 

[Nym]

172s have diferent bogies, that are more lightweight

 

[alex57601]

Problem is the 380s are based on the 332, not the 350. The 350 design is essentially scuppered because of the front gangway. Remember that the 350s only exist because DfT or whoever they were back then didn't want 30 extra 450s going to SWT, and so they were re-allocated to CT/Silverlink. Hence the 350/1s have a third rail shoe. The new 350/2s arriving later this year are the same design, but with no third rail capability and 3 by 2 seating throughout Standard.

Also, the 360s now on the GEML were originally meant to have a gangway, and the pre-prod models show this gangway. However, the HSE wasn't happy with the forward visibility and so it was discarded.

My guess is the new front design is to allow for maximum forward visibility so that HSE don't get a rat up their arse.

ISTR at the time the 360s lost the gangways due to them being unsuitable for DOO operation or something like that?

As for the 380s it has made me wondering whether the class designation has anything to do with them being drastically different from the 350s besides looks on the outside.

 

[djw1981]

Certainly a different service pattern (ie lots of acceleration and stops needed, as opposed to high speed running.