• 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!

Class 387

Status
Not open for further replies.

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
8,240
Is this news tending to support the idea (from a few weeks back) that GWR would no longer get any 365s, and the overall numbers would be made up by using additional AT300s?

I guess it will all become apparent a bit at a time over the months...

Originally
29x ex GTR 387s
8x new build 387s
and circa 20x 365s

so 57 units
but the new order is just 45 units so they will need more (or was the 8 new build replacing some 365s? if so things might add up). Or is an extra 6 ex C2C in a few years time enough to fill the gap if all the units are identical so fewer spare units needed overall?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
So the family tree looks something like this?

7afAcJl.png

Yes the /3 subclasses might not be correct but we won't know for while.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
34,237
Originally
29x ex GTR 387s
8x new build 387s
and circa 20x 365s

so 57 units
but the new order is just 45 units so they will need more (or was the 8 new build replacing some 365s? if so things might add up).

The original 8 extra new ones was to provide for the 37 x 387 listed in the GW franchise agreement, in conjunction with the original 387/1s from GTR.
The same document (Table 2 page 147) reported 21 x 365s, but who's worrying about the odd one... :D

"Ingleborough" posting in wnxx a few weeks ago reckoned there'd also be another 9 x 5 car IEPs involved in this 'change of plan'. As they're a bit bigger than a four car EMU that might well account for the overall capacity requirement.


Liking the colourful chart by Domh245 :D
 
Last edited:

158722

Member
Joined
8 Nov 2009
Messages
831
The original 8 extra new ones was to provide for the 37 x 387 listed in the GW franchise agreement, in conjunction with the original 387/1s from GTR.
The same document (Table 2 page 147) reported 21 x 365s, but who's worrying about the odd one... :D

"Ingleborough" posting in wnxx a few weeks ago reckoned there'd also be another 9 x 5 car IEPs involved in this 'change of plan'. As they're a bit bigger than a four car EMU that might well account for the overall capacity requirement.


Liking the colourful chart by Domh245 :D

Plus there will be a gain in efficiency in only having two fleets to deal with and diagram - IEPs and 387s - as opposed to three when the 365s were expected. From the 37 387s planned, I'd imagine 34 or 35 would have been the maximum diagrammed, perhaps 18 from 21 of the 365s, so 52 or 53 units in total. With 45 387s, perhaps 42 or 43 can be diagrammed, with 8 from the 9 extra IEPs, giving 50 or 51 sets, so just a set or two less than the mixed 365/387 fleet.
 

Philip C

Member
Joined
21 Feb 2013
Messages
407
3rd rail fails to deliver on more than one count:

It is energy inefficient to an unacceptable degree
It becomes unreliable for current collection as speeds approach the practical maximum of 100mph. Indeed, even near those speeds, maintenance needs rise sharply
As has been mentioned, ice and heavy rain causes reliability issues
High ambient temperatures can cause rail misalignment

So compared to failures of modern OLE infrastructure, it is best avoided where possible.

Thank you for your comments.

My perception, from many years use of both 3rd rail and OHLE, is that the former is less unreliable when each is operated within its normal constraints (I don't doubt that 3rd rail would be massively less reliable at, say, 125mph) and in its normal British configurations. For example, the Southern, with its plethora of electrified alternative routes, is often able to work around problems in a manner quite impossible were the wires down at, say, Shap. This may not be inherent in the technology but is in the customer experience.

I am sure that the statements you make are true as they stand, but I still enter upon an electrified trip to Scotland from Euston or King's Cross with a sense of trepidation (once I might have called it 'adventure') which is totally absent when boarding a Southern Electric. This is some mix of technical reliability, availability of mitigation and ambition of the operator - perhaps other factors too? Are you aware of any statistics which might throw light on the electrification equipment failures per train mile (3rd rail vs. OHLE) and their relative impacts?

From all that I've read efficiency seems to come down in favour of OHLE but does this relate simply to cost? If experience of OHLE is one of relatively frequent major incidents this might tend to deter travel and suggest that efficiency ought to incorporate some measure of perceived reliability.

I'm one of those awkward people who value reliability and ambiance and am less concerned with speed; perhaps I'm a little unusual in that respect but I rather doubt it.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,264
Plus there will be a gain in efficiency in only having two fleets to deal with and diagram - IEPs and 387s - as opposed to three when the 365s were expected. From the 37 387s planned, I'd imagine 34 or 35 would have been the maximum diagrammed, perhaps 18 from 21 of the 365s, so 52 or 53 units in total. With 45 387s, perhaps 42 or 43 can be diagrammed, with 8 from the 9 extra IEPs, giving 50 or 51 sets, so just a set or two less than the mixed 365/387 fleet.

Doesn't that depend on whether, in the 365/387 scenario, there are some diagrams you can send either type of unit out on?

The postings about GN units elsewhere suggest that there are some diagrams which either a 317, 321 or 365 can operate so that they cover the availability spares between them and clearly this also happens already with 165s and 166s at Reading.

The obvious example in the Reading area would be the Henley branch unit but I am sure there would be others.
 

petersi

Member
Joined
24 Apr 2012
Messages
453
The postings about GN units elsewhere suggest that there are some diagrams which either a 317, 321 or 365 can operate so that they cover the availability spares between them and clearly this also happens already with 165s and 166s at Reading.


Mixture of units that can not run together make it more likely to get short formed train in advent of unit failure or availability issues. That can be a problem on today's railway
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The 'Southern' 387/1s are going to the 'GN'

Brian



Has this been confirmed?
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,264
Mixture of units that can not run together make it more likely to get short formed train in advent of unit failure or availability issues. That can be a problem on today's railway

Yes, of course, but there will be some single unit diagrams that don't couple to anything during the day such that you roster the cover unit to that.

GWR has the Windsor and Henley branch, captive workings on the Newbury line, units which aren't at Paddington in the peak etc.

The myth peddled on this forum that there are no services anywhere that it is appropriate for 4-car (or shorter) units to work on their own is nonsense.
 

matt_world2004

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2014
Messages
4,581
No stock is cleared for more than 100mph on any 3rd rail track. 3rd rail current collection is unreliable enough at speed anyway so 100mph is the absolute limit in revenue service.

Although fourth rail, I thought the S Stock could top those speeds?
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,636
My perception, from many years use of both 3rd rail and OHLE, is that the former is less unreliable when each is operated within its normal constraints (I don't doubt that 3rd rail would be massively less reliable at, say, 125mph) and in its normal British configurations. For example, the Southern, with its plethora of electrified alternative routes, is often able to work around problems in a manner quite impossible were the wires down at, say, Shap. This may not be inherent in the technology but is in the customer experience.

My perception, from many years of installing maintaining and operating both 3rd rail and OLE is that the former is responsible for far, far more technical failures and operating delays on the infrastructure than the latter. I have posted previously, but around 25-30% of 'signalling' failures in third rail land are actually failures of the third rail system. Then there's the absolute necessity to isolate the third rail if there is any living thing larger than a dog on the line, and anything that has potential to conduct electricity between the 3rd rail and the running line or indeed anyone out there clearing it up (trees, bikes, pushchairs, etc etc.) none of this happens with OLE.

In my experience there are also far more examples of third rail trains shorting out through collecting a foreign object in the shoe gear than for OLe trains getting pantograph damage.

The point that there are a plethora of alternative electrified routes is the nature of the network, not the type of electrification.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
34,237
Sorry if it has already been covered but why are the 387/3's dual voltage.
The units built so far, the original GWR extra 8, are a follow on order to the 387/1s, and would probably have copied them for standardisation. Indeed they were expected to be numbered as 387/1s, and may still do so. We won't really know for sure until they get further through the build and delivery process.

I also don't think it is possible to say for certain that the future builds will keep DC pickup capability, but it isn't complex or costly to do so due to the nature of modern 3 phase drive AC EMUs, they will include a DC link in the traction system which the shoes can connect to.
 

Class377/5

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,594
Sorry if it has already been covered but why are the 387/3's dual voltage.

Because the first 8 were ordered as DV units. Talks between GWR and Bombardier over the additional units have included talk over making them IPEMUs as well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The 'Southern' 387/1s are going to the 'GN'
Brian

Southern have never had any 387s. GTR has.
 

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
3,398
DV could be useful if the units are cleared through to Waterloo via Wokingham for diversionary purposes.
 

asylumxl

Established Member
Joined
12 Feb 2009
Messages
4,260
Location
Hiding in your shadow
It seems that the plans for the 387s are continually changing. Becoming hard to keep track of what will be going where [emoji38] .
 
Last edited:

RobShipway

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2009
Messages
3,337
DV could be useful if the units are cleared through to Waterloo via Wokingham for diversionary purposes.

If this can happen, I am presuming that this will be done with using IPEMU power on the crossover section at Reading from OHLE to 3rd Rail as I believe that there is not going to be any AC overhead cables placed in these section(s)?
 

387star

On Moderation
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
6,665
Is this right...

GTR 387s go to the GN side, 377/5s future unknown

GWR gets all new build 387s 8 we always knew about, 14 from Porterbrook speculative order and 23 additional units= 45 in total for GWR. Meaning likely no 365s to GWR? shortfall of five units

Six 387s for C2C temporarily
 
Last edited:

Brian Aylott

Member
Joined
11 Oct 2012
Messages
262
Class377/5 said:
Southern have never had any 387s. GTR has.

'Southern' and Great Northern are both part of GTR and the internal cascade means that they will work out of Kings Cross and be based at HE instead of working out of Victoria and being based at BI
Brian
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Class377/5

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,594
'Southern' and Great Northern are both part of GTR and the internal cascade means that they will work out of Kings Cross and be based at HE instead of working out of Victoria and being based at BI
Brian

But they have never nor will they run for 'Southern' (neither the previous company, nor the current brand) so my comment stands. I think your confusing the Thameslink 387/1 that are based at Lovers for Thameslink ONLY work with GTR's 387/2 fleet that works out of Victoria (and were ordered by GTR not the disbanded New Southern franchise).

As for state of play, so far we have 107 ordered with the spilt as follows;

  • 29x 387/1 for GTR
  • 27x 387/2 for GTR GX services
  • 6x 387/x for c2c (home post 2019 unknown)
  • 45x 387/x for GWR
 
Last edited:

ScotGG

Established Member
Joined
3 Apr 2013
Messages
1,585
Still got my fingers crossed that the 365s are coming [back] to Southeastern.

Doubt the DfT care about the rolling stock shortage with Southeastern.

They may belatedly wake up, and then it'd be old stock, and likely not suitable for routes.
 

RobShipway

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2009
Messages
3,337
Still got my fingers crossed that the 365s are coming [back] to Southeastern.

There would be a lot of work for the 365s to be going to to SouthEastern and I believe as has been mentioned before, not all class 365s can be adapted to have 3rd rail pickup.
 

Class377/5

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,594
Southeastern doesn't need to obtain the 365s, it got other stock which, if it happens, the new Thameslink routes, means it's getting more stock than it asked for on best case proposal.
 

Brian Aylott

Member
Joined
11 Oct 2012
Messages
262
[QUOTES=Class377/5;2591085]But they have never nor will they run for 'Southern' (neither the previous company, nor the current brand) so my comment stands.
As for state of play, so far we have 107 ordered ....[/QUOTE]

You are of course correct - my error - put it down to my old age!
I did however put inverted commas round Southern - I still consider that Brighton is a 'Southern' depot but I accept that the 387/1s are 'Thameslink' units at present although they will be 'GN' units (HE based) soon and will not be going to GW
Sorry
Interesting the 'so far' in your comment above!
Brian
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top