Class 387 to GN

[physics34]

One of the 387/2 needs to go to Derby for some work and the fleet doesn't have the slack for several months worth of a missing unit.

ta, thanks for that

 

[Hadders]

As for people constantly moaning about 387's... they're basically brand new trains with AC, power sockets, and airline seats that aren't so low to the ground that you can't even get back up (cough 317) replacing noisey, rusty old cattle trucks and people are STILL finding things to moan about. I think the majority of non-rail enthusiast passengers are happy with them.

Mechanically I'm sure they're great however for basically brand new trains I'd expect:

- a better ride quality
- a PIS system that works properly (not making erroneous announcements about 'one' services, for example)
- 1st class compartment with better seats than standard in an appropriate position in the formation

I'm sure they will do a decent job on Cambridge Cruiser services which I believe is their ultimate role but they shouldn't be deployed on 4-car services where there is an overall reduction in capacity.

 

[Fuzzytop]

I'm sure they will do a decent job on Cambridge Cruiser services which I believe is their ultimate role but they shouldn't be deployed on 4-car services where there is an overall reduction in capacity.

the Cambridge Cruiser service does have a well-patronised First Class provision, though. I think it was previously mentioned in this topic, but I'd second that the First Class area on the GN 387s is really lousy at the moment vice 365s.

(disclaimer - I only use GN 1st as part of longer-distance advances, but certainly couldn't think why many folks would pay the extra once the 387s come to town. )

 

[bramling]

Mechanically I'm sure they're great however for basically brand new trains I'd expect:

- a better ride quality
- a PIS system that works properly (not making erroneous announcements about 'one' services, for example)
- 1st class compartment with better seats than standard in an appropriate position in the formation

I'm sure they will do a decent job on Cambridge Cruiser services which I believe is their ultimate role but they shouldn't be deployed on 4-car services where there is an overall reduction in capacity.

For me the biggest gripe has to be the seating. As a concept I really like Electrostars, and have had many pleasant journeys on the earlier versions, especially those with the Connex interior specification. The rough ride wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't for the hard seats, although the rattles can be a pain on all contemporary Bombardier products. One could cope with the reduction in seating if it was compensated with longer formations where necessary.

Unfortunately, we are where we are, and the simple reality is the 365 is very much better. Personally, I would have preferred the original plan of getting the 377/5s, as at least they have some comfortable seating, although they would still have thrown up the other undesirable issues.

The first class is a separate issue, and isn't entirely down to the trains, although someone made a bad decision specifying the sliding dividing door where it is.

As posted elsewhere, we really have to hope that the 21x currently unallocated 365s will somehow manage to stay on the GN. The only thing against them is the lack of SDO. It would be terrible to see these superb trains rot away in storage.

 

[Class377/5]

For me the biggest gripe has to be the seating. As a concept I really like Electrostars, and have had many pleasant journeys on the earlier versions, especially those with the Connex interior specification. The rough ride wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't for the hard seats, although the rattles can be a pain on all contemporary Bombardier products. One could cope with the reduction in seating if it was compensated with longer formations where necessary.

The 379, which are the same bodyshells, show what is possible but it comes at a far higher rental price.

 

[superalbs]

So if GN only want about half of the Class 365s, what happens to the others?

I guess they just get added to the growing list of AC EMUs with no planned home!

 

[jon0844]

For me the biggest gripe has to be the seating. As a concept I really like Electrostars, and have had many pleasant journeys on the earlier versions, especially those with the Connex interior specification. The rough ride wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't for the hard seats, although the rattles can be a pain on all contemporary Bombardier products. One could cope with the reduction in seating if it was compensated with longer formations where necessary.

Unfortunately, we are where we are, and the simple reality is the 365 is very much better. Personally, I would have preferred the original plan of getting the 377/5s, as at least they have some comfortable seating, although they would still have thrown up the other undesirable issues.

The first class is a separate issue, and isn't entirely down to the trains, although someone made a bad decision specifying the sliding dividing door where it is.

As posted elsewhere, we really have to hope that the 21x currently unallocated 365s will somehow manage to stay on the GN. The only thing against them is the lack of SDO. It would be terrible to see these superb trains rot away in storage.

The 700s are the solution for overcrowding on the GN in the peaks (and providing ample seating off peak). Look at the width of the aisles. I don't have a photo to hand for the 387s, but the difference is huge.

The 365s are in between the two extremes, hence why the 387s are just not suited for their current operation.

Otherwise they're nice trains. A bit bouncy and jolty, but that's Bombardier for you. At least I'll always know when I'm approaching New Barnet southbound!



The 387s are probably closer to what a 700 is like in first class (due to those arm rests sticking out) which isn't really suitable for an entire train used on busy commuter routes.

 

[nmr1h]

I thought the plan was for GN to keep all 365's anyway now since GWR weren't having them? They really should keep them

As for people constantly moaning about 387's... they're basically brand new trains with AC, power sockets, and airline seats that aren't so low to the ground that you can't even get back up (cough 317) replacing noisey, rusty old cattle trucks and people are STILL finding things to moan about. I think the majority of non-rail enthusiast passengers are happy with them.

Whenever I get a 317 I can very rarely get a seat anyway, and when I do it's usually crammed in with someones legs sprawled out opposite me and too big to fit around. They may have more seats in number but who really sits in that middle seat of 3? I'm sorry but I won't miss 317's or 321's. I really don't find 387's uncomfortable either, they're no different to tube seats.

Well I fit into the broader rail enthusiast category, and agree with you that the 387's are a significant step up on the 317/321's where I have the same problem that you reference namely people sitting opposite intruding into your space, they may have more seats but that is because they are crammed in and that makes it very uncomfortable.

I try and get the aisle seat of the 3's by a door so that no one is sitting opposite, but you then get whacked by every person moving through the train as the aisle is far too narrow.

There is still a 321 knocking around the system and it turns up on the 16:40 PBO service far too frequently.

The 365's are superb trains if only they could just retrofit aircon to them....

 

[hwl]

The 379, which are the same bodyshells, show what is possible but it comes at a far higher rental price.

The far higher rental price has a lot to do with the timing of the original deal and thus expensive financing costs at the time combiined with new entrant ROSCO who haven't done any other deals since. The 379 ROSCO will need to be more realistic if they don't want to pay to watch their assets corrode away in sidings post Anglia. They might even decide it is a good point to exit the business and sell the stock on to another ROSCO as theit management (inc specialist technical knowledge) overhead will be comparatively higher for just a small total fleet size.

 

[D365]

Well I fit into the broader rail enthusiast category, and agree with you that the 387's are a significant step up on the 317/321's where I have the same problem that you reference namely people sitting opposite intruding into your space, they may have more seats but that is because they are crammed in and that makes it very uncomfortable.

That's exactly what I meant when I was saying that the Class 317/321 units are not popular with Cambridgeshire commuters, and why I was surprised people like them at all. They've got more seats, sure, but the seats are cr*p.

 

[physics34]

So if GN only want about half of the Class 365s, what happens to the others?

I guess they just get added to the growing list of AC EMUs with no planned home!

I guess if the 319 diesel conversions are a success then alot more will be done, the 313s, 315s and 317s will be scrapped i guess

 

[D365]

In terms of diesel conversion, the 21 spare 365s would be far more risky. Aside from the fact that there's fewer anyway, by design they are far more complex.

 

[Failed Unit]

I took refuge aboard 317339 + 317342 from Welwyn Garden City on 2C91 (the 0755) this morning. I got a seat in the rear coach, but plenty of standees on this, way more than 2C93 (the 0825) used to have back in class 317 days.

Reflecting more on the class 387 first class situation. The RPI yesterday told me that they were responding to complaints from first class ticket holders. But have they really thought this through? Trains like 2C91 and 2C93 each carry at most 4 to 6 people across both first class sections. Yet the seating capacity of standard class has been reduced from 542 seats per 8 car train to 404 per 8 car train, while the first class capacity has been reduced from 44 seats per 8 car train to, err... 44 seats per 8 car train. Across the three key trains from Welwyn Garden City that removes 414 standard class seats.

To put this in perspective, the 414 passengers who must now stand account for at least £1,169,136 of annual revenue for GTR (assuming they pay the equivalent of a season ticket from Welwyn Garden City - many will pay more), whereas the 18 first class passengers (6 per train) account for a mere £81,360.

And yet someone in GTR, or several people in a meeting decided that it is a high priority to be seen to be responding to the complaints from first class ticket holders. I have to ask my railway industry colleagues, "what were you thinking?" How can it be a good idea to further annoy many of your 414 customers, customers you have already given a substantial worsening of their experience?

I'm sure, if I had a first class ticket I would complain too, but not just about the presence of standard class passengers, but the seats which are clearly exactly the same as standard class and pretty poor even by the standard of standard class, plus the completely random position of first class on the train! But I fail to see what yesterday's exercise achieved other than annoyance on everybody's part. Even with the RPI babysitting throughout on yesterday's 2C93, the one poor man who clearly was a first class passenger looked very uncomfortable and embarrassed by the whole thing - as Jonmorris0844 observed, passengers were not actually removed from the first class area or charged an excess fare - the RPI clearly also thought that would cause a riot, they were just made to stand all the way!

I'm afraid I have to disagree with 377/5 and others further up the thread about the first class being part of the design specification. It may be true that a door was inserted into one of the driving vehicles with a nod to possible future use as first class, but the train was self-evidently specified to fitted out as Standard Class only! And on these three peak trains, that is clearly how it should be used, the revenue gained from the few people who do use first class for such short hauls, surely can't justify the RPI hours and aggravation it will take to keep them sufficiently empty to provide anything approaching a customer experience worthy of the label first class.

Nothing about the train need be changed to facilitate this, simply downgrade the services to be standard class only on timetable leaflets and posters, and add an announcement (as is already common on Thameslink) saying, "customers may use any part of this train, the first class is not in use". Where the 387s are adequate to carry the load, as they may well be on the 12 car services from further out and trains after the high peak, such as the 0859 from Welwyn Garden City (2R35 0835 Letchworth to London Kings Cross), then the timetable would continue to show first class and announcement wouldn't play. The situation could be re-evaluated once the 700s are fully rolled out and the new Thameslink timetable introduced. This would even align with DfT policy on other franchises, which has been to reduce first class where demand pressure was not easily met by other ways - an example being the FGW HSTs on shorter routes. If they did this, at least 132 of the 414 passengers would feel a bit better about GTR...

I guess the 387s will warm us up.

317 - 496 standard - 44 First
387 - 360 standard - 44 First
700 - 373 standard - 52 First

Won't get into why the 700s have as many 1st class seats on and 8 and 12 car set. But you can see why we are looking forward to the 700s!

The 717s will also be a big improvement- crush loading is what is needed to Moorgate and 2 cabs less will make a large difference.

 

[jon0844]

We have to accept that on the inner suburban (717 run) route, it's all about people moving. Seats are a luxury that not everyone will enjoy, but then many don't today (and would rather get on the train than wait for the next).

The 700s are going to divide opinion because they'll be great for the peaks, but not great for the (relative few) going a long distance on them - say Cambridge to Gatwick or Brighton, or WGC to Maidstone East etc.

 

[43096]

So if GN only want about half of the Class 365s, what happens to the others?

I guess they just get added to the growing list of AC EMUs with no planned home!

DfT are paying Eversholt to store them.

 

[jon0844]

DfT are paying Eversholt to store them.

I assume there's some plan for them, although as every new franchise seems to come with new builds of rolling stock, it does seem increasingly unlikely.

I mean, once GA get all their new trains, all those 317s, 360s, 321s etc will be free. The 317s will probably get scrapped by then, but the others will all be available - to add to an ever growing list.

 

[physics34]

The 700s are going to divide opinion because they'll be great for the peaks, but not great for the (relative few) going a long distance on them - say Cambridge to Gatwick or Brighton, or WGC to Maidstone East etc.

thing is, small tables, softer seats and armrests are not much to ask for and the DfT have got this very wrong.

 

[bramling]

They've got more seats, sure, but the seats are cr*p.

May be, but if the seats on the 317/321s are crap, then those on the 387s are worse. On the whole people seem happy with the Networker seats.

 

[chickenwings12]

DfT are paying Eversholt to store them.

A 3 year full refurbishment that cost in the millions and now they're getting rid of half of them? And to be replaced by the much less superior 387 which are still in southerns spec... What an absolute joke, Govia and the DfT really are an embarrasment

 

[jon0844]

Has the refurbishment finished? Where's the CCTV and upgraded PIS, and are all the toilets done yet?

 

[bramling]

Has the refurbishment finished? Where's the CCTV and upgraded PIS, and are all the toilets done yet?

They're still doing residual works on at least some units. There are definitely units still running with the old accessible toilets, or which haven't received the LED lighting. 365520 is still under repair following its collision too.

 

[Hadders]

A 3 year full refurbishment that cost in the millions and now they're getting rid of half of them? And to be replaced by the much less superior 387 which are still in southerns spec... What an absolute joke, Govia and the DfT really are an embarrasment

It wasn't a full refurbishment. It was an internal refresh of new seat covers, flooring, internal grab handles, internal paint, a disables compliant toilet, removal of a few seats to create a large wheelchair/cycle area and more seats in an airline layout . I don't think anything mechanical was done.

In any case a refurbishment implies an upgrade in facilities. This most definitely didn't happen - this was a downgrade to get us ready for the 700s.

 

[jon0844]

In any case a refurbishment implies an upgrade in facilities. This most definitely didn't happen - this was a downgrade to get us ready for the 700s.

I remember when it was said about mechanical works, including the fitting of air conditioning. But the PIS does need updating (especially if these trains are to move elsewhere) and it's crazy they don't have CCTV on them. (Or at least I'm pretty sure they still don't).

 

[Class377/5]

Just read a staff brief that states Cambridge North will receive 2tph 387 service from Kings Cross from opening on the 21st May.

Weirdly it says 1tph Kings Cross to Cambridge North and 1tph Kings Cross to Ely.

 

[TheDavibob]

Just read a staff brief that states Cambridge North will receive 2tph 387 service from Kings Cross from opening on the 21st May.

Weirdly it says 1tph Kings Cross to Cambridge North and 1tph Kings Cross to Ely.

My understanding was the semi-fast would terminate at Cambridge North and the new enhanced fast would stop at Cambridge North and terminate at Ely, though I haven't checked this against previously seen timetables. This would fit with that, with no 387s running to Kings Lynn as yet.

 

[MikePJ]

Weirdly it says 1tph Kings Cross to Cambridge North and 1tph Kings Cross to Ely.

The Timetable Consultation document explains (p62): currently, of the two hourly fast services between Cambridge and KX, one terminates at Cambridge and one continues to King's Lynn. The Cambridge train will be extended to Ely from May 2017, and call at Cambridge North. The document says "From May 2017 these trains will also serve Cambridge North new station initially once per hour.", so I guess the King's Lynn train will not call at Cambridge North until a later revision of the timetable. Once Ely North Junction eventually gets rebuilt (don't hold your breath) then both trains will serve King's Lynn.

 

[OFFDN]

Just read a staff brief that states Cambridge North will receive 2tph 387 service from Kings Cross from opening on the 21st May.

Weirdly it says 1tph Kings Cross to Cambridge North and 1tph Kings Cross to Ely.

I've been told it's actually closed 21st May due to engineering works - but the timetable change is that day hence the 'opening' commences with the timetable change. Hence first service will actually be 22nd May.

I shall check my documents and report back.

 

[Class377/5]

My understanding was the semi-fast would terminate at Cambridge North and the new enhanced fast would stop at Cambridge North and terminate at Ely, though I haven't checked this against previously seen timetables. This would fit with that, with no 387s running to Kings Lynn as yet.

The Timetable Consultation document explains (p62): currently, of the two hourly fast services between Cambridge and KX, one terminates at Cambridge and one continues to King's Lynn. The Cambridge train will be extended to Ely from May 2017, and call at Cambridge North. The document says "From May 2017 these trains will also serve Cambridge North new station initially once per hour.", so I guess the King's Lynn train will not call at Cambridge North until a later revision of the timetable. Once Ely North Junction eventually gets rebuilt (don't hold your breath) then both trains will serve King's Lynn.

Ah I understand now thanks guys. Been awhile since I last looked at the timetable up that way.

I've been told it's actually closed 21st May due to engineering works - but the timetable change is that day hence the 'opening' commences with the timetable change. Hence first service will actually be 22nd May.

I shall check my documents and report back.

Wouldn't surprise me!

 

[Ianno87]

Just read a staff brief that states Cambridge North will receive 2tph 387 service from Kings Cross from opening on the 21st May.

Weirdly it says 1tph Kings Cross to Cambridge North and 1tph Kings Cross to Ely.

It's all now viewable on OpenTrainTimes etc:

Standard hourly pattern:
The xx06 King's Cross-Cambridge (and xx55 return) start back at Cambridge North
xx14 King's Cross-Cambridge non-stop (and xx15 return) start back at Ely, calling at Cambridge North
xx28 Liverpool St-Cambridge stopper (and xx21 return) start back at Cambridge North
All Cambridge-Norwich services stop.

A few variations and oddities apply for the peak. E.g. the 'empty' parts of the 0645, 0715 and 0745 Cambridge-King's Cross (the bits that don't come from King's Lynn) will start back from Ely (calling Cambridge North) or Cambridge North. Rear portion of 1814 ex-King's Cross (that gets dropped at Royston to serve the villages) extends from Cambridge to Ely, calling Cambridge North

King's Lynn train will generally not stop (other than a few very early/late services). XC services will also not stop.

 

[jopsuk]

so, on the standard pattern the current Kings Lynn service will call at Waterbeach but not Cambridge North, and the current Cambridge-Kings Cross service will start at Ely and call at Cambridge North but not Waterbeach?

They do realise that lots of people that live in Waterbeach and nearby work at the Science Park/Business Park yes? I mean this should be easy stuff. As should the XC services stopping to provide connections for all the businesses straight to and from the airport. I despair.