Class 387

[Julian G]

Apparently the following are now worked by 387s
1H83 0634 Bedford-Beckenham Jn 0753
1G63 0802 Beckenham Jn-Bedford
1H66 1540 Bedford-Beckenham Jn 1718
1G79 1730 Beckenham Jn-Bedford

 

[user15681]

Apparently the following are now worked by 387s
1H83 0634 Bedford-Beckenham Jn 0753
1G63 0802 Beckenham Jn-Bedford
1H66 1540 Bedford-Beckenham Jn 1718
1G79 1730 Beckenham Jn-Bedford

That's correct, as of today. Clearance was done to Beckenham Junction just before Christmas.

 

[Class377/5]

387 diagrams from today.......

Weekdays

301/302
5W03 05+12 Lovers Walk to Brighton
1W04 05:44 Brighton to Bedford
2W23 08:40 Bedford to Three Bridges
2W30 11:14 Three Bridges to Bedford
2W43 13:40 Bedford to Three Bridges
1W92 16:14 Three Bridges to Bedford
1W57 18:24 Bedford to Brighton
1W68 21:30 Brighton to Bedford
5G68 00+18 Bedford to Bedford CS

303/304
5G83 06+20 Bedford CS to Bedford
1H83 06:34 Bedford to Beckenham Junction
1G63 08:02 Beckenham Junction to Bedford
1W21 09:54 Bedford to Brighton
1W32 12:38 Brighton to Bedford
1W43 15:24 Bedford to Brighton
1B50 18:28 Brighton to London Bridge
1B55 19:42 London Bridge to Brighton
1W66 21:02 Brighton to Bedford
5G66 23+48 Bedford to Bedford CS

305/306
5G01 04+04 Bedford CS to Bedford
1W01 04:16 Bedford to Brighton
1W83 07:24 Brighton to Bedford
5G23 10+00 Bedford to Bedford via North End Siding
1W23 10:24 Bedford to Brighton
1W34 13:08 Brighton to Bedford
1W45 16:46 Bedford to Brighton
1W56 18:38 Brighton to Bedford
1W69 21:22 Bedford to Brighton
5W69 00+14 Brighton to Lovers Walk

307/308
5G04 04+34 Bedford CS to Bedford
1W03 04:46 Bedford to Brighton
1W14 07:48 Brighton to Bedford
2W31 10:40 Bedford to Three Bridges
2W38 13:14 Three Bridges to Bedford
1H66 15:40 Bedford to Beckenham Junction
1G79 17:30 Beckenham Junction to Bedford
1W61 19:26 Bedford to Brighton
1W72 22:30 Brighton to Bedford
5G72 01+28 Bedford to Bedford CS

Saturdays

301/302
5W02 04+55 Lovers Walk to Brighton

Spilt

301
1W02 05:30 Brighton to Bedford

302
1W06 06:06 Brighton to Bedford

Attach

301/302
1W17 08:54 Bedford to Brighton
1W28 11:38 Brighton to Bedford
1W39 14:24 Bedford to Brighton
1W50 17:08 Brighton to Bedford
1W63 19:54 Bedford to Brighton
1W74 23:02 Brighton to Bedford
5G74 02+00 Bedford to Bedford CS

303/304
5G15 08+06 Bedford CS to Bedford
1W15 08:24 Bedford to Brighton
1W26 11:08 Brighton to Bedford
1W37 13:54 Bedford to Brighton
1W48 16:38 Brighton to Bedford
1W61 19:24 Bedford to Brighton
1W72 22:30 Brighton to Bedford
5G72 01+18 Bedford to Bedford CS​

305/306
5G10 05+28 Bedford CS to Bedford
2W11 05:40 Bedford to Brighton
1B10 08:28 Brighton to London Bridge
1B15 09:42 London Bridge to Brighton
1B20 10:56 Brighton to London Bridge
1B25 12:12 London Bridge to Brighton
1B30 13:28 Brighton to London Bridge
1B35 14:42 London Bridge to Brighton
1B40 15:56 Brighton to London Bridge
1B45 17:12 London Bridge to Brighton
1B50 18:28 Brighton to London Bridge
1B55 19:42 London Bridge to Brighton
5B55 21+06 Brighton to Lovers Walk

Sundays

301/302
5W14 Lovers Walk to Brighton
2W14 07:36 Brighton to Bedford
1W25 10:36 Bedford to Brighton
1W28 13:44 Brighton to Bedford
1W49 16:36 Bedford to Brighton
1W52 19:44 Brighton to Bedford
5T52 22+34 Bedford to Bedford CS

303/304
Stable

305/306
5G21 09+24 Bedford CS to Bedford
1W21 09:36 Bedford to Brighton
1W24 12:44 Brighton to Bedford
1W45 15:36 Bedford to Brighton
1W48 18:44 Brighton to Bedford
2W77 21:58 Bedford to Brighton
5W77 01+22 Brighton to Lovers Walk

EDIT:

Mondays 387s were

301 - 387105
302 - 387107
303 - 387112
304 - 387106
305 - 387111
306 - 387113
307 - 387109
308 - 387114

Tuesday 387 allocations are as follows;

301 - 387108
302 - 387113
303 - 387114
304 - 387109
305 - 387106
306 - 387112
307 - 387105
308 - 387107

 

[nomis1066]

I suppose you want commuters to have MK2s hauled by Steam through the Thameslink tunnels? Or maybe a slam door unit?

The trains aren't built to be luxurious, they are made to get people from A to B, in the fastest, most efficient time. And the seats aren't exactly bad, sitting on one from Brighton to Bedford they may be, but for a journey of East Croydon to St Pancake (or even Gatwick to Pancake) they are suitably comfy and are good enough for most users of Thameslink services.

Quite why you have to adopt a tone like that in response to my constructive views on passenger comfort I don't know. But as it happens, Mk2 seating is far more comfortable than the spartan interior of the 387. Indeed slam door seating was better too.

You have of course made a point for me - seating like that might be ok for short hops but the Thameslink network is not a short hop railway and many who endure a couple of hours and longer on a "suitably comfy" 387 seat will know all about it.

Have we moved on to the extent that train interior design no longer features high on the list of priorities when it comes to those who pay the fares?

I should correct myself re my original post - I didn't make it clear that there is virtually no difference between 1st and standard seating other than an anti mocassar.

 

[physics34]

Quite why you have to adopt a tone like that in response to my constructive views on passenger comfort I don't know. But as it happens, Mk2 seating is far more comfortable than the spartan interior of the 387. Indeed slam door seating was better too.

You have of course made a point for me - seating like that might be ok for short hops but the Thameslink network is not a short hop railway and many who endure a couple of hours and longer on a "suitably comfy" 387 seat will know all about it.

Have we moved on to the extent that train interior design no longer features high on the list of priorities when it comes to those who pay the fares?

I should correct myself re my original post - I didn't make it clear that there is virtually no difference between 1st and standard seating other than an anti mocassar.

So true

 

[James Wake]

This weekend am travelling from Three Bridges to St Albans, up on Saturday on 1W08 (0651 ex Haywards Heath) and back on Sunday on 1W49 at 1715 (1636 ex Bedford), this is supposed to be a 387, but will the diagrams be different due to engineering works between Three Bridges/Haywards Heath and Brighton?

 

[samj]

EDIT
307/308 should read as follows I think you made a typo
2W31 10:40 Bedford to Three Bridges
2W38 13:14 Three Bridges to Bedford

Also 301/302 are down as 319 on RTT, does that make a difference?

 

[samuelmorris]

Might have a trip on them tomorrow, funny how I've spend more time south of Blackfriars in the last year then north of it

Anyway, hopefully they be out so I can get some photos

I'd planned on seeing them at Blackfriars around the new year, forgetting of course the south circle would be shut for engineering work. Better luck next time as they say! On the bright side, my 377/5 haulage is much better than I thought, so I can worry a little less about those...

 

[andyb2706]

Just boarded my first 387 from Gatwick to Three Bridges. Have to say not impressed with the seating. Is there any padding on these seats!?

Also noted that these are the first units in service carrying the 6 digit coach number. Currently sat in 424109.

 

[Class377/5]

EDIT
307/308 should read as follows I think you made a typo
2W31 10:40 Bedford to Three Bridges
2W38 13:14 Three Bridges to Bedford

Also 301/302 are down as 319 on RTT, does that make a difference?

Correct about my error. Have altered the post.

RHTT as nothing to do with unit allocation but is the timing of paths only. 301/302 have replaced 319 diagrams so natural they are timed as much.

Of note, 387119 was draged to Bletchley this evening.

 

[Starmill]

I should correct myself re my original post - I didn't make it clear that there is virtually no difference between 1st and standard seating other than an anti mocassar.

Predictably, there are already some missing even these.

 

[Crossover]

EDIT
307/308 should read as follows I think you made a typo
2W31 10:40 Bedford to Three Bridges
2W38 13:14 Three Bridges to Bedford

Also 301/302 are down as 319 on RTT, does that make a difference?

On RTT, it is just a timing load, not the actual booked stock

 

[Newbie2015]

First post but thought I'd join as hoping someone can help explain why there seems a reluctance to use anything other than a old 319 on the 7am Brighton to Bedford service?

I'm guessing it may be a capacity issue as the 387 may have less seats and this appears the busiest train in my experience though I'm starting to worry it's a cruel joke by Thameslink being played on their most suffering customers as this service is always late and massively overcrowded.

 

[Class377/5]

First post but thought I'd join as hoping someone can help explain why there seems a reluctance to use anything other than a old 319 on the 7am Brighton to Bedford service?

I'm guessing it may be a capacity issue as the 387 may have less seats and this appears the busiest train in my experience though I'm starting to worry it's a cruel joke by Thameslink being played on their most suffering customers as this service is always late and massively overcrowded.

Because you can't introduce a fleet over night. Over time the 319s will be withdrawn and Electrostars introduced.

Before your train is two 8 car 377s and after two 8 car 387s and a 12 car 377.

The amount of Electrostars on the route for Thameslink is going up massively. Currently we have 4 pairs working with any more planned. I'd be surprised if your train isn't an Electrostar by early March.

 

[21C101]

Quite why you have to adopt a tone like that in response to my constructive views on passenger comfort I don't know. But as it happens, Mk2 seating is far more comfortable than the spartan interior of the 387. Indeed slam door seating was better too.

Ive stopped bothering to post here because the site seems to be infested with people who regard any, even constructive, criticism of their employer, industry or what it does as a personal insult.

I have only ever sat on such a hard seat on light rail vehicles and only once before on a train - a SECR hundred seater built in 1922. These were notorious for their hard seats.

That anything like that had been allowed to be built in the 21st century, let alone for routes where many journeys are over an hour, is a damning revelation of attitudes to customer service in the rail industry.

 

[Class377/5]

Ive stopped bothering to post here because the site seems to be infested with people who regard any, even constructive, criticism of their employer, industry or what it does as a personal insult.

I have only ever sat on such a hard seat on light rail vehicles and only once before on a train - a SECR hundred seater built in 1922. These were notorious for their hard seats.

That anything like that had been allowed to be built in the 21st century, let alone for routes where many journeys are over an hour, is a damning revelation of attitudes to customer service in the rail industry.

Comnents like infested hardly make your post seem anything other than attacking from the word go. Perhaps check your own views before attacking others for behaviours you display next time?

The seating is a purely subjective thing. Many are ok with, many aren't. Trying to claim one view is right is nonsense that a dictatorship would be expected to do.

 

[jon0844]

I have to say that I've had little interest in seeing the 387s, given how similar they are to any other Bombardier product, but I really am starting to wonder how bad these seats can be given the heated discussions on here.

I think I'm going to seek one out tomorrow to see what all the fuss is about.

 

[Fincra5]

I have to say that I've had little interest in seeing the 387s, given how similar they are to any other Bombardier product, but I really am starting to wonder how bad these seats can be given the heated discussions on here.

I think I'm going to seek one out tomorrow to see what all the fuss is about.

The whole argument about seats is fairly pointless IMO. I don't see much difference between the 3+2 seats on a 377 and these on the 6/7s and 387's...

As I've said, and i'm not the only one, I find them quite comfortable. Firm yes but comfortable.

 

[Blamethrower]

The whole argument about seats is fairly pointless IMO. I don't see much difference between the 3+2 seats on a 377 and these on the 6/7s and 387's...

As I've said, and i'm not the only one, I find them quite comfortable. Firm yes but comfortable.

The difference though is width.

On a 387 they are of a decent width throughout as 2+2 config, the ones on a 377/2 at 3+2 are very very narrow and appear to be bolt upright.

What appears to have happened is that the 387s have normal sized/pitched seats but are incredibly hard. The 700's will have narrower versions of these seats which will just be horrible.

A point about the seats, my fiancee who never complains about seats, complained to me that the seats in the 387's are like boards.

Yes some people find them fine, but some people liked Hitler too.....

 

[Fincra5]

The difference though is width.

On a 387 they are of a decent width throughout as 2+2 config, the ones on a 377/2 at 3+2 are very very narrow and appear to be bolt upright.

What appears to have happened is that the 387s have normal sized/pitched seats but are incredibly hard. The 700's will have narrower versions of these seats which will just be horrible.

A point about the seats, my fiancee who never complains about seats, complained to me that the seats in the 387's are like boards.

Yes some people find them fine, but some people liked Hitler too.....

Exactly so the 387s have betters seats than the 3+2 on 377s..

Passengers are never happy ..

 

[Class377/5]

The difference though is width.

On a 387 they are of a decent width throughout as 2+2 config, the ones on a 377/2 at 3+2 are very very narrow and appear to be bolt upright.

What appears to have happened is that the 387s have normal sized/pitched seats but are incredibly hard. The 700's will have narrower versions of these seats which will just be horrible.

A point about the seats, my fiancee who never complains about seats, complained to me that the seats in the 387's are like boards.

Yes some people find them fine, but some people liked Hitler too.....

Sorry but your wrong. The seats in the 700 are the same base as the 387 seats so aren't narrower at all.

 

[jon0844]

Yes some people find them fine, but some people liked Hitler too.....

You should try and find out if they're the same people...

 

[Fincra5]

You should try and find out if they're the same people...

A story for the Daily Mail

 

[Blamethrower]

Sorry but your wrong. The seats in the 700 are the same base as the 387 seats so aren't narrower at all.

To quote many people on this website, do you have a source for this info?

With the same width body shell, how are the 700's gangways so much wider?

Looking at an interior on a 700 compared to a 387, 700 seating looks much narrower, especially when I see people sitting on them.

I appreciate that I haven't ridden on either of them yet, but all photos suggest that the 387 seats are wider.

Or doe they have armrests which means that more space is being used overall?

If that is the case then the seats ARE the same but there is more "overhang" space and therefore wider seating, no?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You should try and find out if they're the same people...

There's no need to be childish

 

[Fincra5]

IN this picture, all be it, its the mockup of the 700. The seats are very much the same as the ones on 387's just without arm-rests. No smaller than ones on 319s i'm sure!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_700#mediaviewer/FilexCeL_Centre_MMB_18_Thameslink_Desiro_City_Mockup.jpg

 

[jon0844]

There's no need to be childish

You make a comparison to those who like the seats in the 387s as being as mad as those who liked Hitler and you're telling ME not to be childish?!

I therefore suggested you better do some research. What if someone who dislikes the seats also felt Hitler was misunderstood? Bang goes your whole theory, which was of course - childish and pointless.

 

[Class377/5]

To quote many people on this website, do you have a source for this info?

Not that I can share.

With the same width body shell, how are the 700's gangways so much wider?

The 700s are wider than the current stock. This comes from project team. It was printed in a mag so will see if I can find a reference. Basucally the 700s are as big as Network Rail Thameslink gauge model allows.

Looking at an interior on a 700 compared to a 387, 700 seating looks much narrower, especially when I see people sitting on them.

Seating is same as the 387s expect the 700s don't have arm rest a nd a much wider gangway making it more spacious in thd middle.

I appreciate that I haven't ridden on either of them yet, but all photos suggest that the 387 seats are wider.

Ive been on both seating and they are the same.

Or doe they have armrests which means that more space is being used overall?

The 700s are wider.

If that is the case then the seats ARE the same but there is more "overhang" space and therefore wider seating, no?

Seating arms is wider yes. But can be changed in the future.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I find the 387's a tonic - and the seats are fine in my view. The pitch is good also. Much better than a 319 , for someone who has travelled on them since "birth" ........

The ride quality is superb ......

 

[thelem]

Exactly so the 387s have betters seats than the 3+2 on 377s..

Passengers are never happy ..

But on a 377 anyone who cares has the option to sit in a 2+2 section (as I almost always do)

 

[Fincra5]

But on a 377 anyone who cares has the option to sit in a 2+2 section (as I almost always do)

Well yes, as do I. But there isn't always space.

Back to 387s. They feel like a more luxurious train to me, smarter and more modern (I know they are newer). They are also very quiet inside.