Class 387

[Deepgreen]

If they were planning to get rid of first class, why would the units be specified with a partition in the 421xxx carriage?

Thameslink services only appear to need ten first class seats in each unit and that is how things are currently set up. What is to say that future users of the 387s (inclink Gatwick Express) won't use the full compartment as first class?

That would be because there is no such thing as sensible rolling stock design planning anymore.

 

[LBSCR Times]

That would be because there is no such thing as sensible rolling stock design planning anymore.

There hasn't been since the 1980's...

 

[deltic08]

That would be because there is no such thing as sensible rolling stock design planning anymore.

I have to agree with you.

 

[petersi]

Perhaps the problem rolling stock designers are solving to day is just harder to solve

On lot of routes the number of passengers has increased faster than the infrastructure capacity to carry us.

Plus passengers are more demanding in the 1980's there was no demand for wifi or charging points.

As infrastructure was not as intensively used dewell times were not as important etc

Designing rolling stock now many more factors have be considered

 

[Skimble19]

If they were planning to get rid of first class, why would the units be specified with a partition in the 421xxx carriage?

Thameslink services only appear to need ten first class seats in each unit and that is how things are currently set up. What is to say that future users of the 387s (inclink Gatwick Express) won't use the full compartment as first class?

There hasn't been since the 1980's...

Excluding the 365s....!

 

[southern442]

Perhaps the problem rolling stock designers are solving to day is just harder to solve

On lot of routes the number of passengers has increased faster than the infrastructure capacity to carry us.

Plus passengers are more demanding in the 1980's there was no demand for wifi or charging points.

As infrastructure was not as intensively used dewell times were not as important etc

Designing rolling stock now many more factors have be considered

Why is it, then, that in a time of passengers demanding little, were trains so well-designed, with space and comfort, and now, ALL new trains (excluding the 374's) built since the class 377/6 have had Regulation Ironing Boards, often no plug sockets or anything, little legroom, horrific first class, and less amenities than back in the 80's?

 

[superalbs]

Why is it, then, that in a time of passengers demanding little, were trains so well-designed, with space and comfort, and now, ALL new trains (excluding the 374's) built since the class 377/6 have had Regulation Ironing Boards, often no plug sockets or anything, little legroom, horrific first class, and less amenities than back in the 80's?

Sorry, but how did they get the name 'Regulation Ironing Board'?

 

[Class377/5]

Why is it, then, that in a time of passengers demanding little, were trains so well-designed, with space and comfort, and now, ALL new trains (excluding the 374's) built since the class 377/6 have had Regulation Ironing Boards, often no plug sockets or anything, little legroom, horrific first class, and less amenities than back in the 80's?

Because safety standards change and the new seats comply with the current rules where your older ones don't.

You may complain about less amenities but simple fact is everything is designed to stop you from being killed in the event of an accident. Something that is far more import, especially in today's world where seeing is considered a normal reaction to any event you dislike.

 

[trainmania100]

Hi does anyone know if 387/2 is out with Thameslink today? Looking to bash it before another week at work
Thanks

 

[LT3001]

387201's workings today so far include...

2W26 0959 Gatwick-Bedford
2W39 1220 Bedford-Gatwick
2W46 1500 Gatwick-Bedford

 

[southern442]

Sorry, but how did they get the name 'Regulation Ironing Board'?

They are not at all dissimilar to Ironing Boards (not all of them are shaped that way but they still feel like ironing boards when you sit on them) and they are Regulation, or at least they seem to be that way because pretty much all new build trains in the past few years have had them, including but not limited to:
377/6
377/7
387/1
387/2
321 demonstrator
700
317 demonstrator
144 demonstrator
800/801
AT200 mock up (future 385's)
AT100 mock up

 

[The Box Photter]

Because safety standards change and the new seats comply with the current rules where your older ones don't.

You may complain about less amenities but simple fact is everything is designed to stop you from being killed in the event of an accident. Something that is far more import, especially in today's world where seeing is considered a normal reaction to any event you dislike.

Clearly you know much more about train design than the rest of us.

Please explain how designing harder seats, more closely packed together with more standing passengers around you equates to a safer train in the event of a crash.

 

[TH172341]

It is indeed partly down to safety regulations - the higher seats back offering more protection - I don't know the ins and outs though.

The other factor for this is trying to fit more seats in the trains. More people are demanding a seat these days, and the only way to do that is to have thinner seats, and more of them in a carriage. The fact the 387s are 20m as opposed to the 23m that 172s/170s have hardly helps. Thus the seats are the way they are - if they were thicker, then they'll have less seats, which will lead to more moaning they can't get a seat. If you really hate the seats, bring along a soft jumper to put behind your back!

I personally don't mind the high backed seats, with less padding for medium journeys - and find them fine. Could be far far worse - the cardboard thin seats the CAFs have on the Midland Metro are the ones I'd moan about. Poor shape and no cover on them. Endure 40 minutes on those - makes anything else luxury!

 

[southern442]

The other factor for this is trying to fit more seats in the trains. More people are demanding a seat these days, and the only way to do that is to have thinner seats, and more of them in a carriage. The fact the 387s are 20m as opposed to the 23m that 172s/170s have hardly helps. Thus the seats are the way they are - if they were thicker, then they'll have less seats, which will lead to more moaning they can't get a seat.

Then why do the 700's have less seats to fit more standing passengers in them? Your argument is that thin seats mean you can fit more in, but that is the opposite of what has been happening.

 

[richa2002]

Because you can fit even more in by not having seats at all. Welcome to 2016!

 

[TH172341]

I admit, my argument kind of falls apart for the 700s...haha then in that case a different rule of thinner seats, and fewer, equals more standing space may apply Hopefully the Crossrail will be better - from the mock up computer drawings they have the same as the 379/172s which are better, however will that actually come to frutition...

 

[Bishopstone]

Then why do the 700's have less seats to fit more standing passengers in them? Your argument is that thin seats mean you can fit more in, but that is the opposite of what has been happening.

Because the 700s have to provide for medium distance flows such as Brighton - London, and short, dense, urban flows such as Sutton loop services and East Croydon - London Bridge, where (per London Underground) there shouldn't be an expectation of getting a seat, but there should be an expectation of squeezing onto the train: hence more standing room.

Therefore the design is a compromise.

Ideally, of course, Sutton loop services (and those to the Kentish suburbs) would fall under a London Overground type model with LOROL equivalent rolling stock, whilst Brighton - Bedford (etc) would be operated by something similar to a class 379, internally. But there are infrastructure and operational constraints, plus the Wimbledon/Sutton mob kicked-off at the initial suggestion they would lose services through the core, IIRC. And when London protests, London generally wins.

The broader context is significant population growth in London and the south-east, which happened by default rather than specific policy initiative and therefore was not accounted for in transport planning until very recently. (See also schools, hospitals and power generation capacity.)

 

[swt_passenger]

The early 377/1 variant with 2+2 'normal' seating throughout had 234 seats (first and standard) according to P5 books.
The 387/1 with 2+2 seating throughout apparently has only 226 seats.

So what is the justification for the claim earlier that the thinner current seats are being used to increase the overall seating capacity? Perhaps they actually allow for more legroom.

 

[Class377/5]

Ah. I don't necessarily disagree, but that wasn't what the item from Southern said when it talked of more first class seats. Anyhoo, as you have suggested, it may be prudent to see what changes (if any) GX make to the TL level of provision, and what formations are really diagrammed to Gatwick Airport once the 387/2s are in place.

It's 20 seats per 387/2 of first class. Basically the part of the DMOS between the partition and end of the coach away from the cab end is first class on a fully liveried unit.

 

[Starmill]

Therefore the design is a compromise.

Actually, a compromise would involve concessions to regional express passengers (such as Bedford or Brighton to London - both very very significant flows) and to metro passengers (such as your aforementioned East Croydon to London Bridge).

There are many concessions to the latter, including the space, the lack of toilets and armrests, tables and other things which get in the way, and also the thought not to bother providing sockets or wifi. Where are the concessions to the regional express passengers? Compare the provision onboard the new EGIP stock to work the expresses though the central belt (which is the same journey time as Brighton to London, but also carries huge short-distance commuter flows such as Croy - Glasgow) with the 700. Hmm.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But there are infrastructure and operational constraints, plus the Wimbledon/Sutton mob kicked-off at the initial suggestion they would lose services through the core, IIRC. And when London protests, London generally wins.

I remember this. Wasn't the notion that the loop would increase to 4tph terminating at the new bays at Blackfriars? This would keep good connectivity to the core, improve reliability and wasn't it also a driving factor in moving those bays over to that side? Now it seems those bays will have less usage despite the vast amount spent on rebuilding there and there will be no frequency increase up from 2tph at the stations between Sutton and Wimbledon exclusive.

 

[physics34]

Because the 700s have to provide for medium distance flows such as Brighton - London, and short, dense, urban flows such as Sutton loop services and East Croydon - London Bridge, where (per London Underground) there shouldn't be an expectation of getting a seat, but there should be an expectation of squeezing onto the train: hence more standing room.

Therefore the design is a compromise.

Ideally, of course, Sutton loop services (and those to the Kentish suburbs) would fall under a London Overground type model with LOROL equivalent rolling stock, whilst Brighton - Bedford (etc) would be operated by something similar to a class 379, internally. But there are infrastructure and operational constraints, plus the Wimbledon/Sutton mob kicked-off at the initial suggestion they would lose services through the core, IIRC. And when London protests, London generally wins.

The broader context is significant population growth in London and the south-east, which happened by default rather than specific policy initiative and therefore was not accounted for in transport planning until very recently. (See also schools, hospitals and power generation capacity.)

compromise or not, that still marks a drop in quality for people travelling on journeys longer than an hour

 

[The Box Photter]

Still no-one has explained how the need to provide more (or is it fewer) seats that are crammed in more closely together means that my backside doesn't deserve more than one inch of low-compressible padding. Would it compromise the seat pitch to increase the thickness and sponginess of the base of the seat?

Hasn't seating technology advanced to a stage where it is possible to make a seat that complies with all the relevant safety/fire retardant regulations and yet has some give in it.

After about 35 minutes, the poor design of the 387 seats starts to cut off the blood supply to my lower legs, before numbness begins to overwhelm my buttocks. Who in God's name tested these seats and pronounced them fit for use for more than 20 mins?

Maybe the real answer is to have two different types of seats, you know, like one for journeys of less than 30 mins and one for journeys over 30 mins. Perhaps they could use the trains with the crappy seats for trains that ONLY operate short-distance, high frequency stopping services.

Even the awful Ex-SR non-corridor 4SUBs and their like had reasonably comfortable seating, plus they managed to deliver hundreds of thousands of commuters into London and home again each day.

Why are we going backwards? Why will I be paying over £5,000 per year for the pleasure of hoping to get a seat that has all the comfort and attraction of an orthopedic sandal?

 

[Class377/5]

I remember this. Wasn't the notion that the loop would increase to 4tph terminating at the new bays at Blackfriars? This would keep good connectivity to the core, improve reliability and wasn't it also a driving factor in moving those bays over to that side? Now it seems those bays will have less usage despite the vast amount spent on rebuilding there and there will be no frequency increase up from 2tph at the stations between Sutton and Wimbledon exclusive.

Problem with terminating at Blackfrairs is the interchange penalty means the extra services isn't great increase that it's made out to be. Especially when your looking as long as 10mins change at Blackfrairs means no benefit.

Oh and there was a plan for 4tph from Loop to Blackfrairs, the same as today's service. Difference was the service would have been a London Bridge to Blackfrairs via Sutton so it's not quite an increase as guessed at as Sutton to Blackfrairs would see no increase in frequencies on direct trains.

However the bays are being used just as planned as until KO2 kicks in they were never supposed to be used. The plan is still 8tph SE services into the bays post KO2 being implement so those bays will see a fair bit of use.

 

[physics34]

Still no-one has explained how the need to provide more (or is it fewer) seats that are crammed in more closely together means that my backside doesn't deserve more than one inch of low-compressible padding. Would it compromise the seat pitch to increase the thickness and sponginess of the base of the seat?

Hasn't seating technology advanced to a stage where it is possible to make a seat that complies with all the relevant safety/fire retardant regulations and yet has some give in it.

After about 35 minutes, the poor design of the 387 seats starts to cut off the blood supply to my lower legs, before numbness begins to overwhelm my buttocks. Who in God's name tested these seats and pronounced them fit for use for more than 20 mins?

Maybe the real answer is to have two different types of seats, you know, like one for journeys of less than 30 mins and one for journeys over 30 mins. Perhaps they could use the trains with the crappy seats for trains that ONLY operate short-distance, high frequency stopping services.

Even the awful Ex-SR non-corridor 4SUBs and their like had reasonably comfortable seating, plus they managed to deliver hundreds of thousands of commuters into London and home again each day.

Why are we going backwards? Why will I be paying over £5,000 per year for the pleasure of hoping to get a seat that has all the comfort and attraction of an orthopedic sandal?

fully agree... the high back seating is a safety requirement but im not sure the thickness of cushions or even..... SPRINGS... (remember them...... they are even in the 377/1 and /3 seating!) has got that strict a guideline.

i understand the thinness of the seat backs to allow more room for more seats but its the seat cushions that are the issue.

 

[AM9]

... Who in God's name tested these seats and pronounced them fit for use for more than 20 mins?

The person who recognised that the average journey time (at least North of the Thames) was about 25 minutes.

Maybe the real answer is to have two different types of seats, you know, like one for journeys of less than 30 mins and one for journeys over 30 mins. Perhaps they could use the trains with the crappy seats for trains that ONLY operate short-distance, high frequency stopping services.

That wouldn't work (if all passengers thought like the posters here) as the trains with the better seats would be packed through the core and as far as St Albans/Harpenden, leaving fewer for the passengers going to/from outer suburban stations.

Even the awful Ex-SR non-corridor 4SUBs and their like had reasonably comfortable seating, plus they managed to deliver hundreds of thousands of commuters into London and home again each day.

I remember those seats, (on the GE ac EMUs) - they were awful and the bounce pulled shirttails out. They were necessary as the bogies on stock like that were poor riders (mostly on jointed track as well) even at 75mph!

Why are we going backwards? Why will I be paying over £5,000 per year for the pleasure of hoping to get a seat that has all the comfort and attraction of an orthopedic sandal?

We aren't going backwards, seat posture is regarded as a major health issue and those old seats were very damaging to the spine according to the experts.
As far as season ticket costs, a £6000 season ticket on the MML is calculated as about £25 per working day including zones 1-6 as required. That is a fair rate for a 50+ mile journey. Those travelling on "the trains with the crappy seats for trains that ONLY operate short-distance" are paying a similar amount per mile.

 

[Deepgreen]

It's 20 seats per 387/2 of first class. Basically the part of the DMOS between the partition and end of the coach away from the cab end is first class on a fully liveried unit.

OK - one end of the unit only then? Incidentally, why is it classified DMOS rather than DMOC?

 

[richa2002]

Is there really proof that the 'old seats' have resulted in a generation of spinal damage? Surely seating at home and work would be the cause and not a rail journey.

 

[Deepgreen]

We aren't going backwards, seat posture is regarded as a major health issue and those old seats were very damaging to the spine according to the experts.
As far as season ticket costs, a £6000 season ticket on the MML is calculated as about £25 per working day including zones 1-6 as required. That is a fair rate for a 50+ mile journey. Those travelling on "the trains with the crappy seats for trains that ONLY operate short-distance" are paying a similar amount per mile.

So it is our health that concerns the TOCs, not cost savings? I hadn't realised either that numb buttocks and legs after a journey were of health benefit!

 

[deltic08]

Because safety standards change and the new seats comply with the current rules where your older ones don't.

You may complain about less amenities but simple fact is everything is designed to stop you from being killed in the event of an accident. Something that is far more import, especially in today's world where seeing is considered a normal reaction to any event you dislike.

If train and plane designers and operators were that concerned about survivability in crashes then all seating would face backwards. Easier to do in planes, not so easy in trains but passengers prefer to travel facing forwards.

 

[physics34]

I remember those seats, (on the GE ac EMUs) - they were awful and the bounce pulled shirttails out. They were necessary as the bogies on stock like that were poor riders (mostly on jointed track as well) even at 75mph!



We aren't going backwards, seat posture is regarded as a major health issue and those old seats were very damaging to the spine according to the experts.
As far as season ticket costs, a £6000 season ticket on the MML is calculated as about £25 per working day including zones 1-6 as required. That is a fair rate for a 50+ mile journey. Those travelling on "the trains with the crappy seats for trains that ONLY operate short-distance" are paying a similar amount per mile.

seats on SUB/EPB/VEP/CIG were far from awful.

The 377/5, 377/6, 387 and 700 seats are much more likely to cause back problems because of lack of cushioning and springs and the impact on your lower back and coccyx, especially if you travel for a total of 3 hours or more per day.

Poor ride quality of this stock (cant comment on the 700s) doesnt help.

Posture on these seats is good though.