Class 387

[physics34]

There is an internal layout change in the PTOSL coach.the disabled area has moved from by the toilet, and is now in the 2/3 position on the other side of the external doors.

think 377/6 and 7s are also like that.

 

[30yearsadriver]

Your spot on. from a passenger perspective class 387 is almost identical to a 5 car electro star, with 1 less vehicle. The commuters generally prefer the newer electro stars, as they have around 25 to 30 power sockets per vehicle.

 

[59CosG95]

With the same three as yesterday.

387107/106/105.

Saw them at Rugby yesterday on test, from the 1B56 New Street-Euston. Well chuffed I got those!

 

[RobShipway]

These will be good if they replace the Class 165/166 on the Great Western routes. With regards them replacing the Class 222's to Corby, the answer I believe is no as I thought that route was getting IEP's Class 800?

 

[physics34]

These will be good if they replace the Class 165/166 on the Great Western routes. With regards them replacing the Class 222's to Corby, the answer I believe is no as I thought that route was getting IEP's Class 800?

Yeh nobody really knows who put the Corby thing up on wiki...... a rumour with no substance.

 

[RobShipway]

Yeh nobody really knows who put the Corby thing up on wiki...... a rumour with no substance.

Well, the comment is actually as follows:

However, the Network Rail CP5 delivery plan published in March 2014 specifies a key assumption that 125 mph (201 km/h) electric units will be used on the Midland Mainline except for Corby-London which will be operated by Class 377s in up to 12 car formation.[6]

It is saying Class 377s, and I don't believe those are moving from TSGN? Could it be that the services to Corby will come under the TSGN umbrella in some way?

 

[jopsuk]

Yeh nobody really knows who put the Corby thing up on wiki...... a rumour with no substance.

If you know how to work wikipedia you should be able to work out whether it was at least a registered member or an anonymous edit.

 

[swt_passenger]

Well, the comment is actually as follows:

However, the Network Rail CP5 delivery plan published in March 2014 specifies a key assumption that 125 mph (201 km/h) electric units will be used on the Midland Mainline except for Corby-London which will be operated by Class 377s in up to 12 car formation.[6]

It is saying Class 377s, and I don't believe those are moving from TSGN? Could it be that the services to Corby will come under the TSGN umbrella in some way?

What the delivery plan actually says is:

The following rolling stock is being assumed;
Class 377 up to 12 cars, multiple pantographs (London to Corby);

They have to assume something to get on with the OHLE design. It doesn't mean they definitely will be 377s, and it certainly doesn't follow that 'if its 377s it must be going to TSGN'.

There have been suggestions that no more 377s will be built anyway, and as you say they are all spoken for, especially now we now some are going to SE and some are going to GN routes. OTOH we now that what has become 387s was originally referred to as 377/8. But 387s are also speculation for this route, at this stage. It's probably far to early to discuss stock, might be an idea to wait until the wiring is actually started...

 

[samuelmorris]

Your spot on. from a passenger perspective class 387 is almost identical to a 5 car electro star, with 1 less vehicle. The commuters generally prefer the newer electro stars, as they have around 25 to 30 power sockets per vehicle.

Agreed - charging my phone on a 10 minute metro service journey is pretty handy - just the extra boost needed to get home with it

Long distance I'm not sure I like it, but for intermediate lengths I think I prefer the interior in general as well.

 

[jon0844]

Browsing on youtube and found this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqPSy7gxca0&app=desktop

(not my video)

Okay, so what fell off the train here? (1m 13s)

http://youtu.be/wqPSy7gxca0?t=1m13s

I thought it was just the buttons....

 

[jopsuk]

hard to tell, as the chap taking the video decided that something falling off the unit was far less interesting than the detail of the light clusters...

 

[causton]

Okay, so what fell off the train here? (1m 13s)

http://youtu.be/wqPSy7gxca0?t=1m13s

I thought it was just the buttons....

Not wishing to put whoever the driver is in trouble, but it looks like a piece of rubbish thrown rather than a part of the train, if it fell off it would have had to be caught by a bit of wind to come out at that angle from the centre of the open doorway!

 

[ModernRailways]

Not wishing to put whoever the driver is in trouble, but it looks like a piece of rubbish thrown rather than a part of the train, if it fell off it would have had to be caught by a bit of wind to come out at that angle from the centre of the open doorway!

Looks the same to me. When you watch it in slow motion (0.25x speed) it looks like the guy standing on the platform drops it. Hard to tell though.

 

[Class377/5]

Yeh nobody really knows who put the Corby thing up on wiki...... a rumour with no substance.

The rumor comes from Rail originally who but it in an article quite a while back now. In fact the wiki entry is pretty much word for word what was out in Rail. Of course no sources to back that up but in the TSGN ITT it did state that one road of Cauldwell Depot was to be given over the EMT franchise in 2017 for three new electric stock that supposed to be running to Corby.

So its got some substance behind it but requires some logical leaps to reach.

 

[FOH]

Not wishing to put whoever the driver is in trouble, but it looks like a piece of rubbish thrown rather than a part of the train, if it fell off it would have had to be caught by a bit of wind to come out at that angle from the centre of the open doorway!

Looks to me like a soggy leaf caught in the droplight

 

[physics34]

The rumor comes from Rail originally who but it in an article quite a while back now. In fact the wiki entry is pretty much word for word what was out in Rail. Of course no sources to back that up but in the TSGN ITT it did state that one road of Cauldwell Depot was to be given over the EMT franchise in 2017 for three new electric stock that supposed to be running to Corby.

So its got some substance behind it but requires some logical leaps to reach.

oh okay. Wish there was more info floating about. There is no need for it to be confidential surely?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Looks to me like a soggy leaf caught in the droplight

could be a teabag!

 

[Class377/5]

oh okay. Wish there was more info floating about. There is no need for it to be confidential surely?

The problem is the use of these units in 2017, its too early to tell right now as until a contract is signed its still a plan. I don't expect we will know properly for a few years yet.

 

[andyb2706]

With the same three as yesterday.

387107/106/105.

Glad Iwasn't seeing things. Saw 387105/387106 just outside Watford Junction on the 5th November as I was hurtling past on a Pendolino to Euston.

According to Realtime Trains there was VSTP put in for a 5B89 0833 Bletchley CS to Brighton, which fits in to the time I saw it quite well.

 

[Class377/5]

387109 being deliveries to Bletchley 10/11. Other path in for delivery on Wednesday.

387105-107 now with Thameslink branding on them.

 

[richa2002]

I lose track, do these 387s have identical interiors to the 377/6s where even first class is everyone's favourite ironing board seats? If so, I'll certainly be waiting an extra 15 minutes if required for my regular trips from Harpenden to Brighton for a 377/2, 377/5 or 319. What a shame it's come to this.

 

[Manchester77]

Looking at a photo taken through the window of one of these units on flickr they look to have the same 377/6 or /7 seats. Preparing comuters for the 700s which will have these seats I suplose?

 

[Class377/5]

I lose track, do these 387s have identical interiors to the 377/6s where even first class is everyone's favourite ironing board seats? If so, I'll certainly be waiting an extra 15 minutes if required for my regular trips from Harpenden to Brighton for a 377/2, 377/5 or 319. What a shame it's come to this.

They pretty do have the same seating. However you wont have a choice of a 319 if you catch a Brighton train from next May.

The Class 700s have the same seats but have padding unlike the 377/6s.

EDIT:

387105/106/107 now have Thameslink branding.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/chris-chaplin/15573228047/

 

[Minstral25]

The Class 700s have the same seats but have padding unlike the 377/6s.

Not quite - they may have same seat cushions and frame but 700's don't have arm rests and tray tables. Plus they seemed to have less leg room on the 700's judging that on the mock up my knees were jammed into the seat in front.

I find the 377/7's very comfortable on the West London line and the seat layout pretty good - plus there is lots of space for standing in the seated areas with grab rails which is very good too.

 

[Class377/5]

Not quite - they may have same seat cushions and frame but 700's don't have arm rests and tray tables. Plus they seemed to have less leg room on the 700's judging that on the mock up my knees were jammed into the seat in front.

I find the 377/7's very comfortable on the West London line and the seat layout pretty good - plus there is lots of space for standing in the seated areas with grab rails which is very good too.

As I said same seats. Rest are optional extra to a seat.

After doing a 377/7 Milton Keynes to Clapham Junction, I disagree with the comfortable part but its subjective anyway.

 

[physics34]

As I said same seats. Rest are optional extra to a seat.

After doing a 377/7 Milton Keynes to Clapham Junction, I disagree with the comfortable part but its subjective anyway.

This debate goes on

 

[Fincra5]

This debate goes on

 

[jon0844]

I've never really been on a train that has had uncomfortable seats, whatever the design, and on a long journey I'll have decided to go and stretch by legs long before any uncomfort forces me to do so.

 

[Bishopstone]

Do we know what part of which carriage will be allocated to First Class? If all of the 'passive provision' is used, I think this will give more First Class seats than the 319s (and 377/2 and 377/5), which is unlikely to be tolerated given the crowding through the core.

 

[Kite159]

Do we know what part of which carriage will be allocated to First Class? If all of the 'passive provision' is used, I think this will give more First Class seats than the 319s (and 377/2 and 377/5), which is unlikely to be tolerated given the crowding through the core.

Would make sense if the FC section will be in the end section (like on the 377/2&5s) to avoid confusing the poor passengers.

 

[swt_passenger]

Would make sense if the FC section will be in the end section (like on the 377/2&5s) to avoid confusing the poor passengers.

According to the diagram linked on one of the early pages, (in post #46 by Class377/5) the 387/1's 'allocated area' for first class is 22 seats split either side of the non-driving end doors of DMOS(A).