Class 387 to GN

[LNW-GW Joint]

There's a very simple answer to your question: no, it's not reached in service on the ECML. I can't remember the details but it's something to do with the pantograph and the overheads that has given Network Rail cause to limit them to 100mph, whether that will ever change or not I do not know.

If you do a forum search I believe Class377/5 posted a detailed reason some time back.

Thank you very much.
I though it would be something like that.

 

[jon0844]

If the 387s ever do 110mph, will the buttons start falling off again?

(sorry!)

Sent from my VTR-L29 using Tapatalk

 

[387star]

313055 going white though off topic

 

[SprinterMan]

313055 going white though off topic

313055 was the one that came off the tracks at Welwyn last year. I guess they did repair it after all :P

 

[class387]

313055 going white though off topic

Any pictures?

 

[Skimble19]

313055 was the one that came off the tracks at Welwyn last year. I guess they did repair it after all :P

It's still being repaired I believe, from what I've heard it won't be too long until it's back though (unless it's been finished in last few days or so!).

 

[Tom C]

There are at least two 321s still on the sidings at Hornsey as of today, although not being used for service unless anyone knows different. With 12x 317s for 4x diagrams at the moment, there's no real need for 321s

321's are now officially finished on the GN. 401, 403 and 404 are still at Hornsey now fully withdrawn and waiting to go wherever they are going next

Its now 7 317's for 4 diagrams, 344, 345, 346 and 348 are now withdrawn and 347 is still at Ilford. All the rest are still being used, 4 for booked diagrams and 3 spare

Of note, 340 and 342 ended up on the 17:44 KGX-ELY and return vice 365's.

The booked workings are likely to last for the foreseeable future.

055 remains out of traffic at the moment

 

[jopsuk]

so how many 387s are there now at GN? are all drivers (including Kings Lynn) trained yet?

 

[D365]

so how many 387s are there now at GN? are all drivers (including Kings Lynn) trained yet?

All have left Thameslink, though 124 might still be with GX.

 

[notverydeep]

I noticed another issue with class 387s on GN that seems to cause some extra delay (and passenger irritation) on occasion. Some of the PM peak trains with pairs, such as 2C32 and 2C34 (the 18:22 and 18:52 Royston / Cambridge splitters) consist of an all day diagram that combines with a set empty from Hornsey in the platform at King's Cross. Class 317s allowed the driver coupling the sets to release the doors from where they were located to couple up - in the centre cab.

387s seem not to allow this, so the driver has to close down that cab, walk from their to the now leading north end cab and then open up that cab before the passenger doors are released and boarding can commence. This means that the passengers are camped outside the train and that departure isn't possible until at least 90 seconds after the driver is in position at the north end.

Yesterday a delay to 2C32 (which would have been a bit late anyway) was exacerbated because the passengers were kept on the platform, cold and distinctly unimpressed until all this 'faffing around' (as they will have perceived it) took place. Had this been a pair of 317s, they would have finished boarding as the driver walked up to the north end - and the train could depart as soon as he was ready, rather than then having to wait for everyone to shuffle on.

To make matters worse, 2C32 seemed to be hit by an object (I presume a stone thrown at it - it sounded like a hard door knock) just after Wood Green tunnel. The driver stopped at New Southgate to check for damage, having clearly and understandably been a bit shaken by this; as we were braking to a stop he said over the PA that we had had a 'collision' with an object. For a moment I suspected a PUT, but we were soon underway and with the fast line to Welwyn Garden City, we got recovered the time lost at New Southgate. Looking at the front once we got to Welwyn Garden City, nothing appeared to be amiss. Subsequent trains were clearly cautioned as 2C34 behind was 22 minutes late according to RTT...

Sad to hear that 317348 is now out of service again, no sooner had it returned from Ilford. It looks quite smart, with a repainted (black background) and buffed up nameplate. In the couple of weeks it has been back, I hadn't got the chance for a last trip aboard...

 

[bramling]

I noticed another issue with class 387s on GN that seems to cause some extra delay (and passenger irritation) on occasion. Some of the PM peak trains with pairs, such as 2C32 and 2C34 (the 18:22 and 18:52 Royston / Cambridge splitters) consist of an all day diagram that combines with a set empty from Hornsey in the platform at King's Cross. Class 317s allowed the driver coupling the sets to release the doors from where they were located to couple up - in the centre cab.

387s seem not to allow this, so the driver has to close down that cab, walk from their to the now leading north end cab and then open up that cab before the passenger doors are released and boarding can commence. This means that the passengers are camped outside the train and that departure isn't possible until at least 90 seconds after the driver is in position at the north end.

Yesterday a delay to 2C32 (which would have been a bit late anyway) was exacerbated because the passengers were kept on the platform, cold and distinctly unimpressed until all this 'faffing around' (as they will have perceived it) took place. Had this been a pair of 317s, they would have finished boarding as the driver walked up to the north end - and the train could depart as soon as he was ready, rather than then having to wait for everyone to shuffle on.

To make matters worse, 2C32 seemed to be hit by an object (I presume a stone thrown at it - it sounded like a hard door knock) just after Wood Green tunnel. The driver stopped at New Southgate to check for damage, having clearly and understandably been a bit shaken by this; as we were braking to a stop he said over the PA that we had had a 'collision' with an object. For a moment I suspected a PUT, but we were soon underway and with the fast line to Welwyn Garden City, we got recovered the time lost at New Southgate. Looking at the front once we got to Welwyn Garden City, nothing appeared to be amiss. Subsequent trains were clearly cautioned as 2C34 behind was 22 minutes late according to RTT...

Sad to hear that 317348 is now out of service again, no sooner had it returned from Ilford. It looks quite smart, with a repainted (black background) and buffed up nameplate. In the couple of weeks it has been back, I hadn't got the chance for a last trip aboard...

These trains are just a pain all round. Fundamentally the basic design is ok, although it could do with a bit more efficient use of interior space, it's just completely spoiled by some annoying features.

It's so annoying sitting on a train at King's Cross waiting to depart and keep hearing the door bleeps every time someone gets on, then a few seconds later the doors self-close, only to be opened up again almost immediately. 15 or 20 minutes of this is enough to do one's head in. It must also put a lot of needless wear on the doors. The self-close delay needs to be extended a little.

The seats remain awfully uncomfortable, and the ride quality on these units is atrocious in places. Far worse than 317s, 321s or 365s.

The interior is stuffy, and it's noticeable some units are starting to run around with the windows open now. Wonder how that's happening?

Meanwhile we *still* have the ridiculous situation where the fleet is split with first class at opposite ends. This is an absolute nuisance particularly in the morning peak. Have GTR started turning any trains yet, or made any effort to have the recent arrivals arrive facing the 'right' way, whatever GTR in their non-existent infinite wisdom have decided is such?

Worst of all, the seating availability on an 8-car train is substantially reduced compared to 2x365, let alone 2x317. This simply isn't good enough. Removing the luggage stacks and replacing with seats would be a start. Whilst they're a "nice to have", the trains don't serve any airports on the GN, so given the reduction in seating these are a feature we could manage without. On busy trains these end up with people sitting on them anyway. Of course, on the 365s there are copious luggage racks at the vehicle ends which are well used, and don't impinge on seating availability.

I for one would happily return to 317s and 321s - much more comfortable. I know a few people moan about the legroom, but it seems to be the case of "as long as *I* get a seat and someone else is standing then all is well". In the off-peak legroom isn't an issue as most of the time there won't be someone sitting opposite. In the peak there's a trade-off between getting a seat and having spacious legroom - quite simply people can't have both. It's not like the 317s/321s are unbearable - the 317s have been running on the GN for three decades and I don't recall hearing mass moaning about legroom, it's just a fact of life if one chooses to commute in the high peak.

 

[TheDavibob]

Removing the luggage stacks and replacing with seats would be a start. Whilst they're a "nice to have", the trains don't serve any airports on the GN, so given the reduction in seating these are a feature we could manage without.

TBF, the Cambridge fasts often see a large amount of luggage (tourists mainly, though students too) and once moved to these fasts copious luggage space becomes sensible. Not at the moment of course, though.

 

[jon0844]

The problem, as with the 365s (possibly worse as people didn't see them on boarding), is that people don't like to use the luggage racks. And the aisles are so narrow on a 387 that you haven't gained anything either way.

I am much prefer the 700s and wonder if the interior will be changed on the 387s later in their life.

Sent from my VTR-L29 using Tapatalk

 

[bramling]

TBF, the Cambridge fasts often see a large amount of luggage (tourists mainly, though students too) and once moved to these fasts copious luggage space becomes sensible. Not at the moment of course, though.

"*I*'ve got a nice cosy seat for *me* and a nice cosy spot for *my* luggage so everything's wonderful." Never mind that someone else is having to stand as a result.

Nothing wrong with having luggage in the doorways, especially as the Cambridge services will be of the more limited-stop variety. They will still load heavily in the peaks to the point where seating availability will be an issue -- most peak Cambridge 3x365 services are "all seats taken" today at the London end, this will become much more of an issue when people start finding they turn up for their train and having changed to 387s there are substantially fewer seats. Especially for those boarding at places like Royston and Letchworth.

In the meantime this isn't helping people *today*. Especially on the 4-car services. Being unable to board a train on a Saturday is ridiculous. The fleet cascade shouldn't have been planned in this way - it's unacceptable for this situation to have been allowed to exist for months on end.

 

[bramling]

The problem, as with the 365s (possibly worse as people didn't see them on boarding), is that people don't like to use the luggage racks. And the aisles are so narrow on a 387 that you haven't gained anything either way.

The aisles on the 365 are of course wide enough to accommodate small items of luggage without causing a major problem. As an aside, the old 365 interior layout also offered litter bins between some seat backs, which were a worthwhile feature and well used.

I am much prefer the 700s and wonder if the interior will be changed on the 387s later in their life.

Wonder how feasible it would be to enlarge the doorway areas - albeit reducing the seat availability yet further? One could put different seats in which would widen the aisle a little - I find the armrests are more nuisance than useful. Something like a 2+2 class 357 layout wouldn't be too bad at all, although still not as fit-for-purpose as the 365.

 

[387star]

Is it general consensus electrostar ride quality is poor and does this extend to turbos tars?

 

[bramling]

Is it general consensus electrostar ride quality is poor and does this extend to turbos tars?

Yes the earlier Electrostars have always been prone to sideways jerking over points or the slightest imperfection on plain track, however the 387s seem worse. Personally I've never found the same on Turbostars, but being cynical perhaps they rarely go fast enough!

The trouble with the 387s is that every now and again one gets thrown sideways, in the worst cases one way then the other, enough to cause one to bash into the armrests. The one next to the window is fixed down so you can't avoid this by raising the armrest. Plus the lack of cushioning on the seats means there's no damping from these movements.

It still happens on the earlier Electrostars, try taking a ride on one of the Southern Region routes where every time the train goes over a level crossing there is a jolt! But less of an issue as the trains don't go so fast and there's more cushioning.

 

[jon0844]

Wonder how feasible it would be to enlarge the doorway areas - albeit reducing the seat availability yet further? One could put different seats in which would widen the aisle a little - I find the armrests are more nuisance than useful. Something like a 2+2 class 357 layout wouldn't be too bad at all, although still not as fit-for-purpose as the 365.

You'll normally find most of the armrests in the aisle in the up position, and I really don't see how they benefit anyone. But even in the up position, they still narrow the aisle.

Without those, you could squeeze the seats a bit closer and create a fair bit of extra space to help people passing, or allow people to put carry-on sized bags in the aisle. I doubt it would make things any more cramped (certainly nothing like my recent Easyjet flight in the back row!).

As I've said before, if the train is in the middle of a week day and you're about the only person on it, getting a bay of 4 with a table is fine. Almost luxurious, but that's not what they should have been designed for.

 

[sk688]

Is it general consensus electrostar ride quality is poor and does this extend to turbos tars?

It does seem to be poorer. Southern 377s on the WCML seem to ride a lot worse than LM 350s, and when I used TL 387s between Gatwick and Farringdon, they had a horrible ride on the 90mph section, swaying and stuff

 

[Spur365]

All I seem to travel on at the minute is 387's. Obviously there is a problem with the lower amount of seats etc, god knows how that will sort out But....Don't shoot me down.... I'm Warming to them. 0558 HIT-KGX now switched from 317 and far nicer experience all round, still room just about for seats at the rear after SVG but yes it's busier with the less seats.

1404 home past couple of days (missed the fast) and no one sat next to me in the front coach. I know someone will say that's not the peak yes I get that, it's certainly not ideal in peak times.

Maybe it's me but they seem to handle well. Even in the damp conditions past couple of days despite slipping they still pulled away and slow well compare to 317/321. It could be the drivers are more used to them now but haven't had a late arrival for over a week!

Maybe I'm just lucky!

 

[D365]

Mechanically they are an improvement on the old BR units. Four powered bogies per unit rather than two, and a far superior WSP system.

 

[bramling]

far nicer experience all round, still room just about for seats at the rear after SVG but yes it's busier with the less seats.

There you go, unfortunately there's the problem. You may be okay on that relatively non-crowded service, on a good day at least and if you happen to board near the rear (assuming you win the first-class positioning lottery), but there will be other services where a substantial number of people will be standing who wouldn't otherwise have been doing so. Or who may have someone sitting directly opposite or adjacent to them, which they wouldn't have on a 365 or 317.

 

[wls1]

Its the same issue that I have with the 387s on c2c, they don't have enough seats for the peak demand. Even worse on GN as 321 & 317s have around 300 seats compared to around 220 on 387s.
At least the introduction of aircon and PIS screens are better than what they replaced.

 

[D365]

Surely you'll always have someone sitting opposite/next to you on a 317. Which is why I often prefer airline seats.

 

[bramling]

Its the same issue that I have with the 387s on c2c, they don't have enough seats for the peak demand. Even worse on GN as 321 & 317s have around 300 seats compared to around 220 on 387s.

It's not just an issue at peak times. Off-peak services which were hitherto nice and spacious now have a distinctly crowded feel. As has been posted many times, even worse are the 4-car services. I don't think there are enough units to extend all these to 8 cars, so this situation will continue until the 700s enter service, which bring their own drawbacks. What a sad state of affairs all round.

At least the introduction of aircon and PIS screens are better than what they replaced.

Aircon maybe, but I've yet to travel on a 387 where the PIS has worked correctly. We've read on here many times, especially from one particular poster, how important the PIS is, but it's equally important to have a PIS which actually shows correct information. It's not just some gimmick to say "look how wonderful these shiny new trains are", but is infact supposed to be a useful facility for people who rely on it.

 

[bramling]

Surely you'll always have someone sitting opposite/next to you on a 317. Which is why I often prefer airline seats.

On a 365 only if the train is over 50% loaded, whilst on a 317 that increases towards 60% as an extra person can fit in the 3 side of the 2+3 before compromising anyone's space to spread out. Naturally on a 387 it's also 50%, but you get to that point quicker due to there being less rows of seats overall in the comparable length of train. I'm sure someone can work out the exact percentages for each class of train if that interested!

 

[whoosh]

Mechanically they are an improvement on the old BR units. Four powered bogies per unit rather than two, and a far superior WSP system.

THREE powered bogies per unit, but yes WSP is much better.

 

[bramling]

Mechanically they are an improvement on the old BR units. Four powered bogies per unit rather than two, and a far superior WSP system.

I will grant that they are mechanically superior, being based on mature technology not outdated technology (317s) or that designed during a time of rapid technological advance (365s). This doesn't excuse the poor interior though!

One point though, I believe they have three motor bogies, one each on each of the three motor cars, always at the inner end (well done GTR for managing to place first class directly over one of these!). Can anyone confirm this for definite? Of course the 365 is actually, arguably, more distributed having four motor bogies, albeit spread over two vehicles instead of three.

 

[SprinterMan]

I will grant that they are mechanically superior, being based on mature technology not outdated technology (317s) or that designed during a time of rapid technological advance (365s). This doesn't excuse the poor interior though!

One point though, I believe they have three motor bogies, one each on each of the three motor cars, always at the inner end (well done GTR for managing to place first class directly over one of these!). Can anyone confirm this for definite? Of course the 365 is actually, arguably, more distributed having four motor bogies, albeit spread over two vehicles instead of three.

(I work for them) As far as I know, you are 100% correct in your summary of the layout of 387s

 

[notverydeep]

I have noticed several comments about 387s poor ride and excessive lateral movements over points, but on a few recent rides I have noticed something else: 'hunting' on plain track at speed. This is something I've rarely encountered since the days of loco hauled Mark 1s with BR1 bogies on the Portsmouth - Cardiff services in the 1980s and more generally the old Diesel Mechanical 'heritage' DMUs.

Those Mark 1s that survived longer tended to have either Commonwealth bogies or B4 / B5 bogies, especially EMUs and catering vehicles - which both were much less susceptible to hunting. They were permitted to go 100 mph rather than 90 mph as was the case with BR1 bogies. I don't recall any ride issues with the longer lived EMUs with Gresley bogies (such as 304s and 308s) either.

Hunting is rare now and many of the younger readers on this forum may not have heard the term. It refers to a high frequency sideways (that is lateral) oscillation of the bogie. I am no engineer and so can't describe the precise set of causes, but I believe that additional 'yaw' damping has often been used to prevent excessive hunting. Wikipedia has a fairly detailed article (with lots of scary equations!): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunting_oscillation. Please correct me if my 'layman's' definition isn't really correct though!