Why is British Rail Class 387 Dual Voltage?

[Fincra5]

Simply put, as i'm sure its been mentioned. The Class 387s are a stand in for FCC (currently) then Thameslink to allow 319 units to go up North, as the 700s are introduced the 377's with FCC will move back to Southern and the 387s will be cascaded else were. So they need to be Dual-Voltage to run Brighton-Bedford.

I've heard they may go to FGW to replace 166/165 turbos when the wires go up etc. But who knows.

 

[northwichcat]

I've heard they may go to FGW to replace 166/165 turbos when the wires go up etc. But who knows.

From the Network Rail CP5 plans dated 31st March 2014

DfT have indicated that the initial EMU operations will utilise class 319 units operating up to 12-car in length over the following core route sections:

Core routes
 Paddington to Oxford.
 Slough to Windsor and Eton Central.
 Maidenhead to Marlow.
 Twyford to Henley.
 Reading to Newbury.
 Reading to Basingstoke.
Diversionary routes
 Acton East to North Pole junction.
 Reading West Curve.

Diversionary routes
 Acton East to North Pole junction.
 Reading West Curve.

Ancillary movements
 To and from Reading Train Care Depot

They do, however, mention potential future work to allow new EMUs capable of 110mph operation.

 

[al.currie93]

I do see the point of he OP though; why bother getting the 387s so you can send the 319s elsewhere wait for the 700s, then send the brand new 387s elsewhere as well?

Why not just leave the 319s where they are until the 700s and just send the 387s direct to where they are planned to end up, hence saving a near pointless transfer and avoiding the duel voltage requirement and wasted shoegear?

 

[Haydn1971]

I do see the point of he OP though; why bother getting the 387s so you can send the 319s elsewhere wait for the 700s, then send the brand new 387s elsewhere as well? Why not just leave the 319s where they are until the 700s and just send the 387s direct to where they are planned to end up, hence saving a near pointless transfer and avoiding the duel voltage requirement and wasted shoegear?

Possibly because the routes that the 387's will go to aren't electrified yet and if you sent the. 387's to the Northern Franchise, all hell would break lose if you replaced them a few years down the line with non refurbished 319's, so you put them on a line that will get newer trains in a few years and cascade the battered all stock to the north.

Cynic mode off

 

[NotATrainspott]

I do see the point of he OP though; why bother getting the 387s so you can send the 319s elsewhere wait for the 700s, then send the brand new 387s elsewhere as well?

Why not just leave the 319s where they are until the 700s and just send the 387s direct to where they are planned to end up, hence saving a near pointless transfer and avoiding the duel voltage requirement and wasted shoegear?

To make a modern EMU dual-voltage doesn't require a vast amount of additional cost. When running on 25kV AC, they have a transformer which converts this to around 750V DC which is then fed back into a DC-AC converter which powers the AC motors. To enable third-rail operation you just need to take the power in without going through the transformer first, and so for third-rail-only trains they are simply lacking a transformer and pantograph completely.

Having more dual-voltage stock is not a bad thing right now as it will help for the future conversion of the Southern network to AC. Since this is going to happen in a piecemeal fashion, with the outer reaches probably electrified before the London termini, it adds that extra flexibility in where the stock can go. Similarly, the Merseyrail network will likely go to dual-voltage operation with the tunnels remaining third-rail and the surface sections converted to AC to allow all trains to use the network.

There is likely some real operational reason why it is still better for the 319s to head up north and be replaced temporarily by the 387s. Just a thought, but it may be that the additional capacity, efficiency and reliability provided by replacing the 319s with the 387s would provide more good on Thameslink than it would being used by Northern (not that Northern doesn't need more capacity, but its capacity requirements are still an order of magnitude less than Thameslink).

 

[Bald Rick]

I do see the point of he OP though; why bother getting the 387s so you can send the 319s elsewhere wait for the 700s, then send the brand new 387s elsewhere as well?

Why not just leave the 319s where they are until the 700s and just send the 387s direct to where they are planned to end up, hence saving a near pointless transfer and avoiding the duel voltage requirement and wasted shoegear?

Perhaps because the Dft wanted the units building and into service quickly, and needed to contract a TOC who had recent experience of managing the construction and introduction of a fleet of dual voltage electrostars, and had somewhere to put them into service immediately. And a TOC with a very good Electrostar fleet engineer *doffs cap*. Not a very long list.

 

[al.currie93]

Perhaps because the Dft wanted the units building and into service quickly, and needed to contract a TOC who had recent experience of managing the construction and introduction of a fleet of dual voltage electrostars, and had somewhere to put them into service immediately. And a TOC with a very good Electrostar fleet engineer *doffs cap*. Not a very long list.

I guess it makes sense if they really wanted new trains quickly, so in that circumstance I see why. Still think it's a little unnecessary though ha!

 

[samuelmorris]

I don't know how the up-front cost of procuring stock that's fitted with dual-voltage equipment compares with the difficulties of having to re-allocate stock multiple times, but it seems fairly logical to me that any fleet orders that are being placed for franchises where multiple voltages can be used, or where there is any likelihood that the units would be transferred to a franchise using the opposite type, for them all to come dual voltage. It'd make the flexibility of switching stock around so much easier, even if the retrofitting process is fairly simple, you can only have so many units out at a time (usually).

To be honest, I'm a little surprised they bothered with the DC-only version of the 378, but presumably they were confident that they had enough dual-voltage units to cover such eventualities - I note that the three extra units at the tail end of the order were dual voltage despite (if I recall correctly?) primarily being acquired to help cover the ELL Clapham Junction route.

Jcollins: What's the source on the Windsor, Reading-Basingstoke, Reading-Newbury, Maidenhead-Marlow and Twyford-Henley routes being electrified? All I can find after a brief search is the main routes that IEP will serve, and the line to Oxford. Electrifying the Windsor & Eton Central branch seems a little bit wasteful perhaps, unless they'll need every last 165 to pinch after they start cascading them?

 

[swt_passenger]

What's the source on the Windsor, Reading-Basingstoke, Reading-Newbury, Maidenhead-Marlow and Twyford-Henley routes being electrified? All I can find after a brief search is the main routes that IEP will serve, and the line to Oxford. Electrifying the Windsor & Eton Central branch seems a little bit wasteful perhaps, unless they'll need every last 165 to pinch after they start cascading them?

DfT added the GW branches and the GWML to NLL link by means of the 2012 HLOS, with the requirement to include it in the rest of the GWML wiring project. Swansea and the Valleys was announced the same way.

Newbury was part of the original announcement, like Oxford, Bristol and Cardiff.

It's definitely confirmed going ahead, it's in the recently published details in the CP5 stuff that came out last week. Page 95 of the enhancements plan - separate page to the main project.

Last but not least, Basingstoke is identified separately as part of the Electric Spine...

 

[47802]

Possibly because the routes that the 387's will go to aren't electrified yet and if you sent the. 387's to the Northern Franchise, all hell would break lose if you replaced them a few years down the line with non refurbished 319's, so you put them on a line that will get newer trains in a few years and cascade the battered all stock to the north.

Cynic mode off

Indeed so and clearly the 319's had to released some how otherwise you would have had newly electrified lines with no electric trains to run on them,

As for where they will go hasn't it been indicated that is probable use of at least some on the Corby route.

As for what they will look like a 377/7 with 4 coaches I imagine, with same interior but presumably a different colour scheme.

 

[northwichcat]

Indeed so and clearly the 319's had to released some how otherwise you would have had newly electrified lines with no electric trains to run on them

The 319s could have been left for later electrification projects with new EMUs being ordered for the North West. The new EMUs could have been a mix of 3 and 4 car units with corridor connectors, which would then have better suited what was required for the North West. 4 car units with 20m carriages and no SDO or corridor connectors isn't ideal rolling stock for the North West needs based on current and predicted passenger numbers and infrastructure. If you're going to spend millions making the 319s 3 car with corridor connectors or extending platforms to be 8 car, where 6 car would be sufficient then I don't buy the story of the business case for North West electrification didn't allow for new trains so DfT had to do everything to ensure that they got the 319s and the new EMUs (387s) went elsewhere.

 

[MK Tom]

The only thing we have is the techincal drawings. Basically they look like a 379 in a different livery.

http://sparkyscrum.wordpress.com/2014/03/04/class-3871-for-techincal-details/

Slight deviation from topic but why has First Class been placed 2/3 of the way through the first carriage?

 

[Fincra5]

Its the same as the 377/6 and /7 the FC is at one end of the train. Which I actually prefer! The First Class behind each Cab on a 4car is a pain to patrol etc. I actually think it makes more sense.

Is the 387 a direct like for like in numbers with 319s or will they run more 12cars?

 

[bnsf734]

I was under the impression that the 387 class are going into Thameslink service so that they can run more 12 car trains, whereas the 319 units cannot run as 12 cars due to the underground section in London and no through gangways to allow emergency egress at the end of the trains.

 

[swt_passenger]

I was under the impression that the 387 class are going into Thameslink service so that they can run more 12 car trains, whereas the 319 units cannot run as 12 cars due to the underground section in London and no through gangways to allow emergency egress at the end of the trains.

The requirement for end access apparently ceased (according to previous discussions) with the closure of the Moorgate branch. Class 700/0 and 700/1 will not have end access. There must be another reason 319s do not run as 12 car, perhaps there just aren't enough of them...

 

[Class377/5]

I was under the impression that the 387 class are going into Thameslink service so that they can run more 12 car trains, whereas the 319 units cannot run as 12 cars due to the underground section in London and no through gangways to allow emergency egress at the end of the trains.

Is the 387 a direct like for like in numbers with 319s or will they run more 12cars?

The 387 are to replace 319 or that's what's been announced. Whispers of train lengthening.

The 319s could have been left for later electrification projects with new EMUs being ordered for the North West. The new EMUs could have been a mix of 3 and 4 car units with corridor connectors, which would then have better suited what was required for the North West. 4 car units with 20m carriages and no SDO or corridor connectors isn't ideal rolling stock for the North West needs based on current and predicted passenger numbers and infrastructure. If you're going to spend millions making the 319s 3 car with corridor connectors or extending platforms to be 8 car, where 6 car would be sufficient then I don't buy the story of the business case for North West electrification didn't allow for new trains so DfT had to do everything to ensure that they got the 319s and the new EMUs (387s) went elsewhere.

But is 6 cars sufficient? I don't understand this opinion that going to 8x 20m is bad but the north should stay on 6x 23m because its sufficient when the comments are always the north railways are currently badly crowded and this will only get worse. Replacing old for new with no other improvements is not going to address over crowding and on a franchise that needs to cut costs more frequent trains isn't a sensible option to increase capacity due to increase costs!

The requirement for end access apparently ceased (according to previous discussions) with the closure of the Moorgate branch. Class 700/701 will not have end access. There must be another reason 319s do not run as 12 car, perhaps there just aren't enough of them...

The 319 safety case was built on 8 only for passenger service. Its the same today.

What's a class 701?

 

[northwichcat]

But is 6 cars sufficient? I don't understand this opinion that going to 8x 20m is bad but the north should stay on 6x 23m because its sufficient when the comments are always the north railways are currently badly crowded and this will only get worse. Replacing old for new with no other improvements is not going to address over crowding and on a franchise that needs to cut costs more frequent trains isn't a sensible option to increase capacity due to increase costs!

At the moments on the routes being electrified the Northern services are up to 4 car and the TPE services are up to 6 car. It would be nice if the Northern services going over to class 319 operation were already 6 car 156 / 6 car 158* but they aren't. No TPE routes are set to get 319s at the current time, so the comparison of a current 6 car operation to 319s makes no sense.

The plan seems to be to replace the 'up to 4 car' services with a standard 4 car 319 formation, meaning some services won't get any extra capacity while others will get extra capacity when they don't need the extra capacity. There are no plans for platform lengthening on the newly electrified lines in CP5 (other than on TPE North) and the only option being put forward to date as a solution to any growth is for the 319s to become 3 car with corridor connectors. If Platform lengthening needs to go ahead instead then Network Rail will need to ask for a bigger CP5 budget.

* Think of how quickly we could start to introduce new services and withdraw Pacers if Northern had 6 car DMU formations which were getting EMUs instead.

 

[Class377/5]

At the moments on the routes being electrified the Northern services are up to 4 car and the TPE services are up to 6 car. It would be nice if the Northern services going over to class 319 operation were already 6 car 156 / 6 car 158* but they aren't. No TPE routes are set to get 319s at the current time, so the comparison of a current 6 car operation to 319s makes no sense.

The plan seems to be to replace the 'up to 4 car' services with a standard 4 car 319 formation, meaning some services won't get any extra capacity while others will get extra capacity when they don't need the extra capacity. There are no plans for platform lengthening on the newly electrified lines in CP5 (other than on TPE North) and the only option being put forward to date as a solution to any growth is for the 319s to become 3 car with corridor connectors. If Platform lengthening needs to go ahead instead then Network Rail will need to ask for a bigger CP5 budget.

* Think of how quickly we could start to introduce new services and withdraw Pacers if Northern had 6 car DMU formations which were getting EMUs instead.

You were comparing the 319s/4 car EMUs to 6 car DMUs, hence me doing so in reply to you doing that.

I note you ignore my point over why does the over crowded north just require new trains rather than lengthened trains? You idea of new trains isn't in the budget the same as platform lengthening so why dig at another suggestion that could b funded perhaps through Rail North.

Again you ignore the question of how to provided the extra capacity the north requires whilst making claims that the NW wires budget was rigged against the NW! As for other new EMUs went elsewhere, are you seriously suggesting that Northern, a franchise than needs a subsidy to keep going can afford new trains over cascaded 319s when new stock is estimated to be 4x the cost of unfurnished units and 2x that of refurbished units? Again we come to the money question which you've ignored before.

You can't complain of over crowding and needing new rolling stock when your ideas are based on no increased capacity and fail to deal with the reality of needing more money to achieve.

My suggestion is extend platforms on the busier routes to take 8 car 319s and cascade units else where to increase the worst over crowded services while keeping operating costs (compared to more frequent trains) similar to now, refurbished the 319s as a group. Allowing for the sparks effect and train lengthening the extra revenue generated by new or returning passengers (been mentioned on here many have gone to cars over capacity issues) to fund new EMUs within say 10yrs or follow Merseyrail's example and build up a fund for a large Rail North order with run on options to keep the price down based on existing designs (ie 387, Desiro City, Adventra etc) to let others (like the SE) work out the bugs to keep service introduction risk low (reducing costs) to allow brand new EMUs on the busiest sections and cascade the 319s to other areas newly electrified to keep the pattern going (although the 319s won't last forever).

And I'm very off topic now.

 

[swt_passenger]

.

What's a class 701?

I think it's about leaving a few numbers out when typing quickly - I'll fix it!

 

[Class377/5]

I think it's about leaving a few numbers out when typing quickly - I'll fix it!

Ah cool. Thought I'd missed something.

 

[swt_passenger]

Is the 387 a direct like for like in numbers with 319s or will they run more 12cars?

Nothing like the same numbers. Only 29 x 387s ordered for the temporary use (so far). They come nowhere near replacing the total of 86 x 319s of all variants.

My conclusion is that the number of 387s ordered is designed just to allow for the same number of 319s to be gradually released, but the rest must await the first 700s arrival...

 

[transmanche]

The requirement for end access apparently ceased (according to previous discussions) with the closure of the Moorgate branch. Class 700/0 and 700/1 will not have end access. There must be another reason 319s do not run as 12 car, perhaps there just aren't enough of them...

Could it be down to the fact that in a 700, passengers can walk the entire length of the unit, in an emergency - and because of the inter-unit gangways they can do the same in a 12-car 377. But in a 319, you can only move within a single 4-car unit.

 

[FOH]

Could it be down to the fact that in a 700, passengers can walk the entire length of the unit, in an emergency - and because of the inter-unit gangways they can do the same in a 12-car 377. But in a 319, you can only move within a single 4-car unit.

I thought the restriction was due to lack of DOO platform equipment. The 377s have onboard cameras.

 

[Class377/5]

I thought the restriction was due to lack of DOO platform equipment. The 377s have onboard cameras.

That along with no SDO on the 319 (not every platform is 12 cars on stations where 12 car Thameslink trains call) is the reason why the safety case for the 319s won't permit 12 car services on Thameslink.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Could it be down to the fact that in a 700, passengers can walk the entire length of the unit, in an emergency - and because of the inter-unit gangways they can do the same in a 12-car 377. But in a 319, you can only move within a single 4-car unit.

I think any trains that operate in a tunnel have to have some sort of access door at each end, probably for evacuating a train inbetween stations. I believe that the original DLR stock over on the DLR weren't allowed down the tunnels to Bank, partly because they didn't have any doors at the ends.

 

[starrymarkb]

I think any trains that operate in a tunnel have to have some sort of access door at each end, probably for evacuating a train inbetween stations. I believe that the original DLR stock over on the DLR weren't allowed down the tunnels to Bank, partly because they didn't have any doors at the ends.

That's not the case. As long as there is room to evacuate from the side then end doors are not needed. Thameslink required them for the Moorgate branch with its narrow single track tunnels. Now the only single track tunnels are the new bores to the ECML which have wide escape walkways so doors are no longer required

On the DLR Refurbished P89 stock (no end doors) did work to Bank (though was rare) but P86 was not permitted. I believe the doors were added as the emergency walkways in the Bank tunnel were ruled too narrow after the Kings Cross Fire (though were compliant with rules when construction began)

An interesting example on the main line was the works a few years ago in the single track tunnels between Dover and Folkestone to slew the track to one side to allow space for 395s to be evacuated. Without this they'd be unable to serve Dover.

 

[northwichcat]

You were comparing the 319s/4 car EMUs to 6 car DMUs, hence me doing so in reply to you doing that.

....

Again you ignore the question of how to provided the extra capacity the north requires whilst making claims that the NW wires budget was rigged against the NW!

I suggest you re-read my earlier post. I was suggesting new EMUs which could have been ordered in lieu of 319s could have been ordered in 3 and 4 car formations, which would have then allowed 6 car formations (by doubling up the 3 car formations.) As a consequence of you mis-reading that it has meant some of the other points you made earlier were irrelevant. Nothing official has suggested 319s will go on to services currently run by TPE, so my idea is replacing 4 car DMU formations with 6 car EMU formations.

The whole point of the EMU cascade is to provide extra capacity that was supposed to be provided a couple of years back by a new DMU order. The extra capacity is already overdue. How does replacing a 4 car Sprinter diagram with a 319 provide extra capacity? Should we double capacity on services where 5/6 car cars would be sufficient? How much would that cost in platform lengthening and track access, leasing and maintenance costs for the carriages that would just carry fresh air?

As for other new EMUs went elsewhere, are you seriously suggesting that Northern, a franchise than needs a subsidy to keep going can afford new trains over cascaded 319s when new stock is estimated to be 4x the cost of unfurnished units and 2x that of refurbished units? Again we come to the money question which you've ignored before.

The HLOS for CP4 initially had Northern getting new 3 car EMUs. LM is a subsided franchise as well yet they've introduced a large number of both DMUs and EMUs, Southeastern is a subsided franchise and yet they can afford to operate luxurious class 395s!

The 319s in their current state will only attract a small number of rail enthusiasts to use the services they operate for Northern. New vehicles can attract a lot of extra passengers as we've seen with the 175s and 185s.

 

[transmanche]

Could it be down to the fact that in a 700, passengers can walk the entire length of the unit, in an emergency - and because of the inter-unit gangways they can do the same in a 12-car 377. But in a 319, you can only move within a single 4-car unit.

I think any trains that operate in a tunnel have to have some sort of access door at each end, probably for evacuating a train inbetween stations.

The 319s do have an access door at the end (which can be used for emergency evacuation), but it's not a connected gangway - so couldn't be used to move between units with the train in motion.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think any trains that operate in a tunnel have to have some sort of access door at each end, probably for evacuating a train inbetween stations.

That's correct, but only for 'tight' tunnels, e.g. those 'bored' underground to the bare minimum size for the original stock.

Therefore the Thameslink limitation was only on the now closed route to Moorgate as I pointed out a bit earlier. The remaining T/L tunnels are generally twin track and would allow for emergency egress through side doors.

 

[asylumxl]

That's correct, but only for 'tight' tunnels, e.g. those 'bored' underground to the bare minimum size for the original stock.

Therefore the Thameslink limitation was only on the now closed route to Moorgate as I pointed out a bit earlier. The remaining T/L tunnels are generally twin track and would allow for emergency egress through side doors.

I believe the access doors were only required for the tight bores of the Snow Hill Tunnel. As a result of the Thameslink Programme, the majority of the original tunnel has been replaced and as such has allowed for the restriction to be removed.