How do you work that out?
We know an 8 car 387 has less seats than an 8 car 321 / 317 / 365.
We also know that a 387 has less space to stand than any of the above. We know that GTR has no intention of using SDO (as they stated on the web forum) so Saturday has significantly less capacity.
I can't see how passengers using the 0655 Cambridge-London service are getting any improvements in capacity? (As an example) In fact it is getting significantly worse.
They may increase some shoulder peak services from 4 - 8 car but the majority of people who travel in the peak or at weekends are going to see a significant deterioration in their service until the class 700s arrive.
Its the interim period where stock is currently not in its final set up. But you, like another poster are forgetting than long term, less seats have to be offered as the accessibility regs means changes to toilets will reduce capacity on the older trains had they stayed in service meaning the gap comes down.
You need to modify that I think. I'm not having much success working out you actually meant to write...
It still means that there are more "ex Thameslink" units going to "Southern" than previously planned when a number of them were going to Great Northern. But I wasn't actually referring to a "numerical advantage" as you must have assumed, but the "practical advantage" of having 377 variants being able to work in multiple.
But you then introduce a different and separate point, which I assume is to do with the fact that the total number of 377 variants with Southern is staying the same overall, because a batch are now leaving to somewhere else, perhaps Southeastern?
Easy.
32x 377 leave Thameslink
29x 387 leave Thameslink
GN gain 29x 387 vice 19x 377 so gain 10 extra units
32x 377 go to 'Southern' who release 32x 377 to Southeastern so Southern have zero gain but Southeastern has 7x more than the original 25x 377 announced.
So no there isn't actually any additional 377s going to Southern from the original stock plan, in fact the complete opposite is true!
I'd love to know where the increased capacity is on the 18:23 KX to Cambridge. Reduction in seating, and reduction in standing room.
Hardly an upgrade in any sense of the word.
Wait until the upgrade is finished before writing it off.
Wrong. It isn't an increase in seated capacity.
29 387s replace 25 317/321s, so an increase of 16 vehicles. That equates to 6467 seats replacing 7391 seats, a REDUCTION of 924.
Only on "planet GTR" is that an increase.
I was actually talking about capacity increase of swapping 19x 377 for 29x 387 but as for your figures on the 317/321, seems you've made some rather silly errors...
317 - 270 seats x 12 = 3240
321 - 271 seats x 13 = 3523
387 - 213 seats x 29 = 6177
317+ 321 = 6763 seats and that's without
taking into account the requirement for accessible toilets meaning each unit will be lowered by something like 10-20 seats. Take a mean average of 15 seats removed and the totals are 317 + 321 = 6388
So yes there is some seating capacity loss but this will be off set by the increased length of trains meaning more seats. Once again it proof of the ability of this forum tunnel vision to block the overall picture whilst not actually comparing like for like.
Also note tat many users complain of not cycle spaces, new trains allow for this as well.
Please, please, *please*, can we get away from this complete myth that the middle seats aren't used?
Take a trip on any 317 or 321 peak service, and you'll see that they most certainly are used. Granted they're the last to fill, but it's a complete misnomer that they aren't used.
Yet every single time its discussed with commuters they want rid of it. There is research to back this view up. So what should you go with? Actually evidence or comments on a forum? Think you know the answer.
Had a fair few passengers and other staff commenting on it, and noticed it on at least 3 units myself. Not sure if they're the more recently transferred units or not.
