Class 387

[jimm]

Don't forget a three car Turbo is 69m vs four car 365/387 80m length.

Meaning what exactly? The Class 345 Crossrail sets, which are the trains actually replacing most Turbo duties on the GWML reliefs from 2019/19, will be 200m long, with 450 seats and able to take 1,000 standing.

Add those to the 387 and 365 fleets, plus the extra seats on Class 800 and 801 and there will be capacity aplenty to allow for growth, which seemed to be the basis of the question.

 

[deltic08]

FGW currently operates 57 165s and 166s, in two or three-car formations. Much of their current work between Reading and Paddington will be taken over by Crossrail, so I'd reckon 37 Class 387s and the 21 Class 365s also going to FGW (or should we now start writing GWR?), all with four coaches, allow quite some margin for growth, even with 387s replacing some of the HST and 180 workings on fasts between Oxford and London and a few 387 formations serving Swindon in the peaks.

Let us hope so. 37 just didn't seem enough especially running as 8-cars and considering they have to be 110mph units. Where would FGW get more 110mph units if needed for growth at a later date if Bombardier are stopping manufacture after the current orders?

 

[jimm]

Let us hope so. 37 just didn't seem enough especially running as 8-cars and considering they have to be 110mph units where would FGW get more 110mph units if needed for growth at a later date if Bombardier are stopping manufacture after the current orders.

But as I said, it isn't just the 37 387s - there are the 21 365s coming to FGW as well to do the remaining FGW relief line jobs, the branches and Oxford stoppers, which will allow the 387s to be concentrated on the faster outer-suburban jobs. There are other factors that will boost capacity, like a regular Berks and Hants semi-fast which will serve Newbury, plus the impact of faster journey times on stock utilisation all round.

Yes, Bombardier are stopping production of the Electrostar (which is now 16 years old) after the 387s, but the new Aventra design (of which Crossrail's Class 345s are the first variant) is designed to run at anything from 90mph up to 125mph, so should GW traffic soar I'm sure they will happily provide a batch of 110mph or more units.

 

[Kite159]

Bombardier will probably produce the GWR 387s straight after the Gatwick Express ones, so will the 387/3s (or whatever they will be numbered) be sitting around for a few months waiting for the GW wires to be made active?

 

[deltic08]

But as I said, it isn't just the 37 387s - there are the 21 365s coming to FGW as well to do the remaining FGW relief line jobs, the branches and Oxford stoppers, which will allow the 387s to be concentrated on the faster outer-suburban jobs. There are other factors that will boost capacity, like a regular Berks and Hants semi-fast which will serve Newbury, plus the impact of faster journey times on stock utilisation all round.

Yes, Bombardier are stopping production of the Electrostar (which is now 16 years old) after the 387s, but the new Aventra design (of which Crossrail's Class 345s are the first variant) is designed to run at anything from 90mph up to 125mph, so should GW traffic soar I'm sure they will happily provide a batch of 110mph or more units.

This is exactly what I needed to know. How the 345s fitted into a 110mph service west of Reading after end of Electrostar production. I thought it was just a metro design. Thank you.

 

[petersi]

Rolling stock manufacturers work on platforms so 345 is the metro variant bombardier could produce a regional Ventura that is 110 capable.

 

[chickenwings12]

FGW (or should we now start writing GWR?)

What is this about the name change? Could anyone link me to a thread or got more info?

 

[jimm]

This is exactly what I needed to know. How the 345s fitted into a 110mph service west of Reading after end of Electrostar production. I thought it was just a metro design. Thank you.

Sorry if I haven't made things crystal-clear.

The Class 345 is a 90mph inner-suburban, high-capacity design and Crossrail isn't going to operate west of Reading. The 110mph capability of the 387s is needed to allow them to keep up with Class 800 and 801 on the fast lines, especially east of Reading, because that is where most GW services will be concentrated once Crossrail starts running. There will only be a limited number of GW services left using the relief lines between Paddington and Reading after that, which will presumably be where the 365s come in.

The point I was trying to make about Aventra - with the Class 345s being the first of that type of train ordered so far - is that it a modular design that can be adapted for a variety of roles. Should post-electrification growth in passenger traffic be so off-the-scale that it outstrips all the capacity being added by all the new and transferred stock arriving for GW use in 2017-18 and the major timetable changes connected with that and more 110mph emus were needed, then a specially-tailored Aventra derivative could be a contender for such an order.

The Bombardier website says the following

This means AVENTRA will be capable of being easily modified for different market requirements, ranging from a 90mph metro train to a 125mph intercity train. Even fundamental elements, such as the layout and length of each carriage, and the number of doors, can be altered within the framework of the core AVENTRA design.

Full page here

http://uk.bombardier.com/en/transportation/presence-in-country/future-concepts-projects.html
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What is this about the name change? Could anyone link me to a thread or got more info?

See the FGW franchise thread, various mentions of the rebranding in there

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=113684

 

[Class377/5]

Meaning what exactly? The Class 345 Crossrail sets, which are the trains actually replacing most Turbo duties on the GWML reliefs from 2019/19, will be 200m long, with 450 seats and able to take 1,000 standing.

Add those to the 387 and 365 fleets, plus the extra seats on Class 800 and 801 and there will be capacity aplenty to allow for growth, which seemed to be the basis of the question.

Meaning what I put that going from a 69m the car to a 80m for car isn't the 25% increase that the amount of carriages actually suggest (which some on here confuse). What that had to do with the 345s I'm not sure as I was comparing what you had actually put which didn't mention the 345s either.

 

[AM9]

The point I was trying to make about Aventra - with the Class 345s being the first of that type of train ordered so far - is that it a modular design that can be adapted for a variety of roles. Should post-electrification growth in passenger traffic be so off-the-scale that it outstrips all the capacity being added by all the new and transferred stock arriving for GW use in 2017-18 and the major timetable changes connected with that and more 110mph emus were needed, then a specially-tailored Aventra derivative could be a contender for such an order.

The Bombardier website says the following



Full page here

http://uk.bombardier.com/en/transportation/presence-in-country/future-concepts-projects.html
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


See the FGW franchise thread, various mentions of the rebranding in there

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=113684

In a similar sense that the Desiro City design being supplied as 700s and 707s represents the first offering of Siemens new family (in the UK at least). So if the 350 fleet needed extension, Siemens would probably propose MUs based on the same generic design as the 'Citys'.

 

[northwichcat]

Don't forget a three car Turbo is 69m vs four car 365/387 80m length.

What sometimes gets forgotten is older '23m' carriages are under 23m while newer ones are closer to 24m. It's similar with '20m' carriages, older ones are under 20m and newer ones are over 20m.

In the case of a 3 car Turbo it's 68.5m and a 4 car Electrostar is 81.6m. OK it doesn't make a huge difference (compared to the figures you've given) but it'll make more of a difference to capacity than when TPE replaced 3 car 185s (71.3m) with 4 car 350s (81.6m)

 

[jimm]

Meaning what I put that going from a 69m the car to a 80m for car isn't the 25% increase that the amount of carriages actually suggest (which some on here confuse). What that had to do with the 345s I'm not sure as I was comparing what you had actually put which didn't mention the 345s either.

That all depends on what you mean by capacity/increase.

The Turbos have 3+2 'seats' - I use the term loosely as the seat designer forgot that people have arms attached, so the seats, especially the middle one of the 'threes', are uncomfortable to sit in on a busy train/not used because of this - and the narrow aisles make it hard for people to get in and out if there are lots of standing passengers.

On the other hand the 387s and 365s are 2+2 with lots of room for people to stand if necessary and get up and down aisles - and bar the limited GW relief line service, they are not going to be asked to handle the heavy loads the Turbos currently face at the inner-suburban stations, because that job will be taken over by Crossrail with its long, high-capacity trains.

And while I did not say Class 345 in my initial post, I did say Crossrail, so I hoped it would be clear I was referring to its future services and the type of trains that will be working them - and the huge amount of capacity they add on top of that to be delivered by the 365s and 387s - which all have four cars, unlike the FGW Turbo fleet, where 20 of the 37 165/1s are two-car sets, so just 46m of train being replaced by 80m if we do it your way.

 

[Blamethrower]

I've noticed that Thameslink are now running these units together to minimise failures.

My missus often catches the 387 in the evening and every time they arrive at st pancras, there is an issue with the doors which the driver has to painfully announce every day.

I quite like bombardier trains, but why, with every single train they make, do they have problems with the doors?

How long have they been making doors for trains? How long have they been making the 377/378/379/387 series for now?

 

[AM9]

I've noticed that Thameslink are now running these units together to minimise failures.

My missus often catches the 387 in the evening and every time they arrive at st pancras, there is an issue with the doors which the driver has to painfully announce every day.

I quite like bombardier trains, but why, with every single train they make, do they have problems with the doors?

How long have they been making doors for trains? How long have they been making the 377/378/379/387 series for now?

Is this the GPS reception issue again?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What sometimes gets forgotten is older '23m' carriages are under 23m while newer ones are closer to 24m. It's similar with '20m' carriages, older ones are under 20m and newer ones are over 20m.

In the case of a 3 car Turbo it's 68.5m and a 4 car Electrostar is 81.6m. OK it doesn't make a huge difference (compared to the figures you've given) but it'll make more of a difference to capacity than when TPE replaced 3 car 185s (71.3m) with 4 car 350s (81.6m)

Coaches in 'older' MUs tend to have flatter fronts and rears. The next generation will have much more non-passenger space, just look at the Aventra and City EMU end profiles. This will tend to negate the difference in overall length.

 

[Class377/5]

I've noticed that Thameslink are now running these units together to minimise failures.

My missus often catches the 387 in the evening and every time they arrive at st pancras, there is an issue with the doors which the driver has to painfully announce every day.

I quite like bombardier trains, but why, with every single train they make, do they have problems with the doors?

How long have they been making doors for trains? How long have they been making the 377/378/379/387 series for now?

The class 387s have always run weekdays in 8 car formations unless one unit has failed.

The St Pancras issue is on going with the beacons not being detected properly. The issue at St Pancras was only discovered back in 2009 when it turns out the beacons on the track don't work with OHLE due to interference.

That all depends on what you mean by capacity/increase.

The Turbos have 3+2 'seats' - I use the term loosely as the seat designer forgot that people have arms attached, so the seats, especially the middle one of the 'threes', are uncomfortable to sit in on a busy train/not used because of this - and the narrow aisles make it hard for people to get in and out if there are lots of standing passengers.

On the other hand the 387s and 365s are 2+2 with lots of room for people to stand if necessary and get up and down aisles - and bar the limited GW relief line service, they are not going to be asked to handle the heavy loads the Turbos currently face at the inner-suburban stations, because that job will be taken over by Crossrail with its long, high-capacity trains.

And while I did not say Class 345 in my initial post, I did say Crossrail, so I hoped it would be clear I was referring to its future services and the type of trains that will be working them - and the huge amount of capacity they add on top of that to be delivered by the 365s and 387s - which all have four cars, unlike the FGW Turbo fleet, where 20 of the 37 165/1s are two-car sets, so just 46m of train being replaced by 80m if we do it your way.

I don't see why your being quite so agressive when I was making a general, factual, statement.

 

[northwichcat]

Coaches in 'older' MUs tend to have flatter fronts and rears. The next generation will have much more non-passenger space, just look at the Aventra and City EMU end profiles. This will tend to negate the difference in overall length.

Depends what you compare to what.

A 323 does have a flatter front than a 332/3 but then a newer 350 has a flatter front than a 332/3.

Also new regulations allow flatter front trains with top speeds of over 100mph. Under old regulations the 350s wouldn't have been passed for 110mph and a new design of Desiro carriage with less usable passenger space would have been required to allow 110mph running.

 

[AM9]

Depends what you compare to what.

A 323 does have a flatter front than a 332/3 but then a newer 350 has a flatter front than a 332/3.

Also new regulations allow flatter front trains with top speeds of over 100mph. Under old regulations the 350s wouldn't have been passed for 110mph and a new design of Desiro carriage with less usable passenger space would have been required to allow 110mph running.

I was referring to the trains that can be ordered now. That's why I mentioned the current Siemens and Bombardier designs, both far more streamlined than their predecessors.
The 110 mph Electrostars and Desiros are easements of 10+ year old designs. Once they are discontinued, only current designs will be supplied for high speed use.
The new Hitachi AT200s are similarly shaped. The future is streamlined, not flat.

 

[jimm]

The class 387s have always run weekdays in 8 car formations unless one unit has failed.

The St Pancras issue is on going with the beacons not being detected properly. The issue at St Pancras was only discovered back in 2009 when it turns out the beacons on the track don't work with OHLE due to interference.



I don't see why your being quite so agressive when I was making a general, factual, statement.

Sorry if you feel that way but I just find it very odd people are questioning the capacity that will be available on the GWML from 2018 when a fleet of 58 dmus, a third of which are only two-cars and the rest three-cars, are being replaced by effectively the same number of four-car 365s and 387s in the hands of FGW, plus nine-car Crossrail 345s on the bulk of stoppers between Reading and London. Whatever the length of the coaches and the formations they are used in, that is a whole lot more capacity by any measure.

Not forgetting, of course, that Turbos will still be needed for some routes anyway, with up to 18 three and two-car sets staying in the Thames Valley on top of the influx of electric stock.

 

[jon0844]

The issue at St Pancras was only discovered back in 2009 when it turns out the beacons on the track don't work with OHLE due to interference.

Maybe they can fix it within the next 5-6 years!

 

[asylumxl]

Maybe they can fix it within the next 5-6 years!

It will be part of Thameslink 3000, estimated date of completion 3142.

 

[21C101]

Sorry if you feel that way but I just find it very odd people are questioning the capacity that will be available on the GWML from 2018 when a fleet of 58 dmus, a third of which are only two-cars and the rest three-cars, are being replaced by effectively the same number of four-car 365s and 387s in the hands of FGW, plus nine-car Crossrail 345s on the bulk of stoppers between Reading and London. Whatever the length of the coaches and the formations they are used in, that is a whole lot more capacity by any measure.

Not forgetting, of course, that Turbos will still be needed for some routes anyway, with up to 18 three and two-car sets staying in the Thames Valley on top of the influx of electric stock.

Its going to be very interesting to see what happens when people who are used to travelling from Reading, Swindon, Newbury, Didcot and Oxford in some comfort on HSTs, especially the ones who go first class in some luxury, discover that there are no more HST short commuter workings, almost half of the IEPs wont be stopping at Reading (and I suspect the rest will be pick up/set down for people going west only in the peaks) and instead they get 8 or 12 car high density units with rock hard cushions (the circle line trains have softer cushions) and first class seats with identical rock hard 2+2 seats to standard class.

I'm pretty sure that the 165/6s were wider than most to take advantage of the GW loading gauge. The 387s are distinctly narrower than the 319s were inside so going from 3+2 to 2+2 wont give quite as much room as people think and the 1st class seats on the 387s are certainly far narrower than 166 first class seats.

Methinks the local MPs will have some interesting mailbags, especially as the fare won't go down. Meanwhile, once you lot get the 387s, I won't have to get one into London every morning anymore and will have the dubious delights of Siemens finest instead.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Its going to be very interesting to see what happens when people who are used to travelling from Reading, Swindon, Newbury, Didcot and Oxford on HSTs, especially the ones who go first class in some luxury, discover that there are no more HST short commuter workings, almost half of the IEPs wont be stopping at Reading (and I suspect the rest will be pick up/set down for people going west only in the peaks) and instead they get 8 or 12 car high density units with rock hard cushions (the circle line trains have softer cushions) and first class seats with identical rock hard 2+2 seats to standard class.

Methinks the local MPs will have some interesting mailbags, especially as the fare won't go down.

But Oxford doesn't get short commuter journeys on HSTs, for example. I'm used to travelling on a 165/6. The only time they arrive is when they're coming from Worcester or Hereford.

 

[21C101]

But Oxford doesn't get short commuter journeys on HSTs, for example. I'm used to travelling on a 165/6. The only time they arrive is when they're coming from Worcester or Hereford.

There are not many, but there are some. And it seems to me quite likely that if the Worcester HSTs are replaced by a shorter IEP they will be set down only/pick up only for people going west at Oxford in the peaks with Oxford to London Pax directed to a 12 car 387 (as happens at Milton Keynes). Oxfordians will at least have the opportunity to flee FGW for Chilterns rather more comfortable (than 387s) stock.

 

[TheKnightWho]

There are not many, but there are some. And it seems to me quite likely that if the Worcester HSTs are replaced by a shorter IEP they will be set down only/pick up only for people going west at Oxford in the peaks with Oxford to London Pax directed to a 12 car 387 (as happens at Milton Keynes).

I think you're forgetting that the 5 car sets can pair up. I see it much more like that you'll get a pair splitting at Oxford, with one running up to Worcester/Hereford and the other either going into sidings or running up to somewhere like Banbury. Having the flexibility over the old HSTs means that we may well see some places getting a new (or much improved) service to London, as they justify a 5 car IEP running a short extension after being paired, but didn't previously justify a dedicated full HST from London.

 

[JamesRowden]

almost half of the IEPs wont be stopping at Reading (and I suspect the rest will be pick up/set down for people going west only in the peaks)

Allowing Reading to Paddington passengers to use peak IEP services helps fund the frequency of the IEP services. Otherwise a greater proportion of the fast line peak services would need to be Thames Valley services and as a result a lower frequency would be offered to both intercity passengers and Reading passengers.

Running the 4tph of peak non-stop trains through Reading balances the demand of the services into Paddington.

 

[Class377/5]

Maybe they can fix it within the next 5-6 years!

There a solution planned for the 700s. In the core there are already yellow boxes. These are balise to tell the 700s the exact position. They will stretch to Loughborough Junction in the south, not sure about the northern limits, so the fleet will know where they are. Will be a lot better than current situation is which a right pain.

Sorry if you feel that way but I just find it very odd people are questioning the capacity that will be available on the GWML from 2018 when a fleet of 58 dmus, a third of which are only two-cars and the rest three-cars, are being replaced by effectively the same number of four-car 365s and 387s in the hands of FGW, plus nine-car Crossrail 345s on the bulk of stoppers between Reading and London. Whatever the length of the coaches and the formations they are used in, that is a whole lot more capacity by any measure.

Not forgetting, of course, that Turbos will still be needed for some routes anyway, with up to 18 three and two-car sets staying in the Thames Valley on top of the influx of electric stock.

I never quested the capacity, just, correctly, stated the three cars Turbos aren't that much smaller than a four car 387. How you think that is questioning the capacity of the entire GWML fleet os beyond me. Its not even a question but a statement of fact.

Of course FGW is seeing an increase especially when Crossrail is factored in but I wasn't talking about the wider situation. Just compared two types of train as some people wont actually know one is 23m and one is 20m.

 

[jimm]

Its going to be very interesting to see what happens when people who are used to travelling from Reading, Swindon, Newbury, Didcot and Oxford in some comfort on HSTs, especially the ones who go first class in some luxury, discover that there are no more HST short commuter workings, almost half of the IEPs wont be stopping at Reading (and I suspect the rest will be pick up/set down for people going west only in the peaks) and instead they get 8 or 12 car high density units with rock hard cushions (the circle line trains have softer cushions) and first class seats with identical rock hard 2+2 seats to standard class.

I'm pretty sure that the 165/6s were wider than most to take advantage of the GW loading gauge. The 387s are distinctly narrower than the 319s were inside so going from 3+2 to 2+2 wont give quite as much room as people think and the 1st class seats on the 387s are certainly far narrower than 166 first class seats.

Methinks the local MPs will have some interesting mailbags, especially as the fare won't go down. Meanwhile, once you lot get the 387s, I won't have to get one into London every morning anymore and will have the dubious delights of Siemens finest instead.

If you actually bothered to look at the timetable, you would find that most peak HSTs between London and Oxford run to and from the Cotswold Line. Five out of six southbound HSTs from Oxford before 9am start further west and the high-peak 17.22, 17.49 and 18.22 out of Paddington to Oxford and beyond are also HSTs.

So there will still be a lot of Class 800s running up and down in the peaks, given that the Cotswold Line will still be getting its through trains (at least an hourly 800 each way all day plus its peak extras), so I think the Oxford first class passengers (and there are probably rather more of them than from other places you mention) will probably do just fine.

And there will be 10-car Class800 Cotswold Line peak services. FGW has said as much for some time and repeated this in its localised press release on Monday.

I should also point out that something looking like the current state of affairs at Oxford dates back all the way to, er, the middle of the last decade, when FGW supplanted Thames Trains and instead of there being a couple of their HSTs each way to and from Hereford in the peaks, 180s and HSTs started to appear on the fasts all day in place of not very luxurious Turbos - which were needed elsewhere anyway to handle growth nearer to London.

Oxford commuters will indeed have a choice of using Chiltern but given the rather faster run on offer to Paddington with electrics and the onward travel options from Paddington that Crossrail will create - as opposed to the Bakerloo or a walk down the road to Baker Street to get anywhere else from Marylebone - I think GWR will do just fine for custom.

Newbury passengers will probably not notice much difference, as they are used to the odd express set appearing among Turbos already, the Swindon and Didcot passengers will be happy to get on trains that aren't busy already when they get to their stations, so they can get a seat and, as we know, Reading passengers will get on just about anything that runs non-stop between there and Paddington...

The Turbos are a few centimetres wider - you can hardly notice the difference, especially with the 3+2 seats - and please don't tell me there is anything like the same circulating and standing space on one of these (165) - and that is what I call a high-density unit, not 2+2 seats with armrests...

http://www.mattypsrailwaypics.com/uploads/9/3/9/5/9395206/2234612_orig.jpg

compared to this (365)

https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3855/14870103045_b194ac95b1_b.jpg

or this (387)

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7562/15959622647_088af797a5_b.jpg

 

[Kite159]

Maybe they can fix it within the next 5-6 years!

It will be fixed for the 387s 2 weeks before they are finally all released to GWR

Either the track from West Hampstead to St Pancras is rubbish or the 387s don't ride well at high-ish speeds.

 

[Techniquest]

It was perfectly fine on 319s when we did it, and when I did it solo, so maybe it's a 387 thing.

I'm not sure what to think about them when I did a couple of leaps on them through The Core this week. Considering most of them have been delivered now I saw very few of them on my travels, very disappointing! I've got 4 out of 29 in the book, plus at least it gave me the chance to enjoy more 319s

 

[Class377/5]

It was perfectly fine on 319s when we did it, and when I did it solo, so maybe it's a 387 thing.

I'm not sure what to think about them when I did a couple of leaps on them through The Core this week. Considering most of them have been delivered now I saw very few of them on my travels, very disappointing! I've got 4 out of 29 in the book, plus at least it gave me the chance to enjoy more 319s

You wont see a lot of 387s compared to the other units. Thameslink runs six services groups with five going through the Core. 387s only run on the of them igniting the non Core service (Brighton to London Bridge). Don't forget there are 18x 387 diagrams vs 30x 377s and 50-ishx 319s and you can see why they're is still plenty more non 387 services. Go south of East Croydon and you'll have a different evidence. Other day it was several hours before I saw a 319 and a while before I saw a Thameslink 377.