Are class 377 trains not fit for their purpose?

[miklcct]

Class 377 trains has cramped 3+2 seats and little standing space, unlike class 700 trains, which have a wide gangway and large standing space, which are designed to be crush-loaded by standing passengers. However, most of the Southern routes are commuter routes which are frequently crush-loaded, for example, Victoria - Brighton, Brighton - Worthing, etc. Are the trains not fit for their purpose?

 

[Sutton in Ant]

These trains are fit for purpose as there are part of the 377s which only have 2 by 2 seating and where it is a lot easier to ride on. The 377s still have a good 20 years of service left in them and have been refurbished.

 

[RobShipway]

Class 377 trains has cramped 3+2 seats and little standing space, unlike class 700 trains, which have a wide gangway and large standing space, which are designed to be crush-loaded by standing passengers. However, most of the Southern routes are commuter routes which are frequently crush-loaded, for example, Victoria - Brighton, Brighton - Worthing, etc. Are the trains not fit for their purpose?

As Sutton in Ant states the class 377 units are fit for purpose, but from your description I think that you are specifically talking about 377/1 - 3 which where designed more as Metro trains, than doing long distance commuter journeys from Brighton to London.

 

[miklcct]

As Sutton in Ant states the class 377 units are fit for purpose, but from your description I think that you are specifically talking about 377/1 - 3 which where designed more as Metro trains, than doing long distance commuter journeys from Brighton to London.

Yes. My point is that a train with cramped 3+2 seating is not fit for use as a metro train, because it can't fit a lot of standing passengers when crush loaded, in contrast to class 378 or 700 trains.

 

[Jan Mayen]

I find it a lottery as to what seating style you have on class 377. Is there a definitive list anywhere?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I find it a lottery as to what seating style you have on class 377. Is there a definitive list anywhere?

There is one on this forum somewhere.

The 377/3 definitely have the softer comfortable seats throughout.

The 377/4, I think, have the better seats in the driving vehicles.

Within the 377/1s there is some variation between batches of units.

 

[JonathanH]

I find it a lottery as to what seating style you have on class 377. Is there a definitive list anywhere?

377101-377119 have 2+2 seating throughout. The outer coaches have mainly bay seating with tables. The inner coaches have mainly unidirectional seating.

377120-377139 have 2+2 seating at the outer end of every coach and 3+2 seating in the centre of every coach. Within the 3+2 area, the 3s are mainly in bays. The 2s are mainly unidirectional.

377140-377164 have 2+2 seating in the outer coaches, mainly in bays with tables, and 3+2 seating in the middle coaches

377201-377215 have the same interior as 377140-377164 but are dual voltage

377301-377328 have 2+2 seating throughout but have half tables where applicable.

The change to half tables only happened when they moved to metro work.

377401-377475 and 377501-377523 have a similar layout to 377140-377164 and 377201-377215, but have doors to the first class area and the seats next to the driving cab bulkhead face inwards.

377601-377626 and 377701-377708 have 2+2 seating throughout but most of it is arranged in a unidirectional arrangement, other than at the ends of the carriages.

I think that you are specifically talking about 377/1 - 3 which where designed more as Metro trains, than doing long distance commuter journeys from Brighton to London.

None of them were designed as metro trains. 377/3s started off on the Victoria to Brighton fasts and the Coastway stoppers, and lasted on these duties for some time.

There were never enough 455s and 456s to run all of the metro services. Connex converted the first class areas on 19 VEPs to bench seating to operate metro services in the late 1990s. These were effectively replaced by half of the 377/4 build, which also initially worked East Grinstead diagrams. The carriage working notices of the time identified 377M for Selhurst based units. Later all 377/4s were reallocated to Brighton, with higher numbered 377/1s allocated to Selhurst instead.

Separate 'metro' and 'coast' allocations of the 4-car fleet ended when Southern needed to eek out a bit more availability.

 

[Mikey C]

I've often thought that with the demise of the 455s, Southern lacks a proper metro train, when Southeastern will have both the 707s and the 376s, and SWR the 701s.

Maybe instead of returning the borrowed 377s to Southern, Southeastern should send over some 376s instead...

 

[JonathanH]

Maybe instead of returning the borrowed 377s to Southern, Southeastern should send over some 376s instead...

There is certainly an argument that if Southeastern had a fleet replacement, the 376s should find their way to Southern, although the most appropriate routes are perhaps those via Tulse Hill which can't take 10-car trains. 376s would be fine for the London Victoria to London Bridge and West Croydon services.

Whether they would be suitable to just drop in instead of the 377/6s and run to Caterham / Tattenham / Epsom / Dorking is another matter.

 

[Magdalia]

class 700 trains, which have a wide gangway and large standing space, which are designed to be crush-loaded by standing passengers.

The design of the class 700 is primarily to minimise dwell time at stations in the core, not specifically for crush loading.

The nearest equivalent is the SWR refurbished class 455s primarily designed to minimise dwell time at Clapham Junction, Wimbledon and Richmond.

Class 377 trains has cramped 3+2 seats and little standing space

People travelling longer distances usually like to sit down, and at one time there was a target that nobody should have to stand for more than 20 minutes. So the priority for longer distance trains is to get as many seats as possible into the available space. The modern equivalent of the 3+2 class 377 is the class 720 on Greater Anglia, not the class 700.

 

[PGAT]

Crush loading on routes is more to do with train frequencies and formations than specific rolling stock in this case.

3 + 2 seating is an annoying pet-peeve for sure, but doesn't mean its not fit for purpose.

 

[blelic]

Later all 377/4s were reallocated to Brighton, with higher numbered 377/1s allocated to Selhurst instead.

Does anybody have a current list of allocations for the 377 fleet, out of interest?

 

[miklcct]

The design of the class 700 is primarily to minimise dwell time at stations in the core, not specifically for crush loading.

The nearest equivalent is the SWR refurbished class 455s primarily designed to minimise dwell time at Clapham Junction, Wimbledon and Richmond.

People travelling longer distances usually like to sit down, and at one time there was a target that nobody should have to stand for more than 20 minutes. So the priority for longer distance trains is to get as many seats as possible into the available space. The modern equivalent of the 3+2 class 377 is the class 720 on Greater Anglia, not the class 700.

The only Southern routes which can be considered long distance are the Victoria - Southampton / Portsmouth / Littlehampton / Brighton / Eastbourne / Ore, and possibly Brighton - Portsmouth / Southampton / Hastings services. All the others, including the London suburban services and Brighton coastway services, are basically commuter services mainly for short-distance passengers. And for the long distance services, the majority of passengers travel between Victoria and Gatwick Airport only, which is a 35-minute journey, apart from the Brighton trains on weekends.

In my opinion, the 377s are only appropriate for the long distance services. All the London suburban services and coastway services should use trains which are better suited for standing.

 

[London Trains]

3+2 seating can be quite comfortable, for example on the refurbished SWR 450's, but the 3+2 seats on the 377s are absolutely horrible in my opinion.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Does anybody have a current list of allocations for the 377 fleet, out of interest?

From the 2023 Combined Volume, the entire fleet is allocated to Selhurst.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

In the old Brighton Express trains, you'd often get a 3+2 377 on a Victoria-Clapham-Croydon-Brighton service off peak. Because there was less travellers on such a fast train it felt nice to sprawl out over the wide seating arrangement for the journey. I know that folks over on the Portsmouth Line were having similar gripes with SWT when they were going to run the Portsmouth Direct as 450 only a few years ago

 

[blelic]

the entire fleet is allocated to Selhurst.

None to Brighton?

 

[Magdalia]

The only Southern routes which can be considered long distance are the Victoria - Southampton / Portsmouth / Littlehampton / Brighton / Eastbourne / Ore

That's a lot of routes, a lot of passengers, and a lot of train mileage. When the class 377s were new there was a lot of commuting on all of these routes to/from London Bridge and Victoria.

for the long distance services, the majority of passengers travel between Victoria and Gatwick Airport only, which is a 35-minute journey, apart from the Brighton trains on weekends.

That assertion is incorrect. I use the Southampton/Portsmouth (and you missed out Bognor Regis) trains from time to time: while some passengers are for Gatwick they are the minority.

All the others, including the London suburban services and Brighton coastway services, are basically commuter services mainly for short-distance passengers.

Until recently these were mainly covered by classes 455 and 313 respectively, not class 377s.

 

[bramling]

Class 377 trains has cramped 3+2 seats and little standing space, unlike class 700 trains, which have a wide gangway and large standing space, which are designed to be crush-loaded by standing passengers. However, most of the Southern routes are commuter routes which are frequently crush-loaded, for example, Victoria - Brighton, Brighton - Worthing, etc. Are the trains not fit for their purpose?

Two sides to this one. One the one hand they’re clearly not metro trains, indeed it’s quite surprising that Southern is one of the few operators who don’t have a metro fleet with a more metro-oriented interior. But on the other hand this has been the case for quite some years now, and doesn’t seem to have been causing a massive problem.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

None to Brighton?

Not any more. The whole fleet is at Selhurst.

A number of units will always be stabled at Lovers Walk, of course.

 

[Purple Train]

Not any more. The whole fleet is at Selhurst.

A number of units will always be stabled at Lovers Walk, of course.

Out of interest, how did Lovers Walk get its name? Is it just named after a street? It's always surprised me that such a name can be applied to a place that is as romantic as sock fluff.

Where are West Coastway services usually stabled?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Out of interest, how did Lovers Walk get its name? Is it just named after a street? It's always surprised me that such a name can be applied to a place that is as romantic as sock fluff.

Where are West Coastway services usually stabled?

I think it was people who had a fondness for 09026

 

[Purple Train]

I think it was people who had a fondness for 09026

Not that kind of romantic!

 

[dastocks]

Out of interest, how did Lovers Walk get its name? Is it just named after a street?

Lover's Walk is part of an old road between Preston and Seven Dials that passed through the site of the depot. I believe this was the main route into Brighton and Hove from that direction before the railway was built.

 

[Starmill]

My point is that a train with cramped 3+2 seating is not fit for use as a metro train

Most of the work isn't "netro" though, it's regional express. Nearly all of the twelve car 700s also don't work "metro" either and is the same kind of regional express. So surely it's the 700 that isn't fit for purpose?

The obvious solution is two hybrid layouts, with the eight car 700s and some "metro" 377s with bays of four seats and a half table interspersed around mostly longitudinal seating, similar to a 345, but with more bays and half tables. The twelve car 700s and "express" 377s would have the the reverse, similar to a 331 or SWR 455, with large circulation areas around the doors, but all 2+2 seats and tables. Ideally the same interior for each of the types too, with brand neutral colours so they can interwork during engineering works or if needed in the future.

However, all of this would take some money so there's no chance of it happening.

 

[bramling]

Most of the work isn't "netro" though, it's regional express. Nearly all of the twelve car 700s also don't work "metro" either and is the same kind of regional express. So surely it's the 700 that isn't fit for purpose?

The obvious solution is two hybrid layouts, with the eight car 700s and some "metro" 377s with bays of four seats and a half table interspersed around mostly longitudinal seating, similar to a 345, but with more bays and half tables. The twelve car 700s and "express" 377s would have the the reverse, similar to a 331 or SWR 455, with large circulation areas around the doors, but all 2+2 seats and tables. Ideally the same interior for each of the types too, with brand neutral colours so they can interwork during engineering works or if needed in the future.

However, all of this would take some money so there's no chance of it happening.

The only issue with the above is that the 700/0s also do an element of longer-distance work, both planned and unplanned.

What you’re describing sounds very close to a 365 interior, which is one of the few types of train interior which seemed to work reasonably well on *all* work.

 

[PGAT]

Most of the work isn't "netro" though, it's regional express. Nearly all of the twelve car 700s also don't work "metro" either and is the same kind of regional express. So surely it's the 700 that isn't fit for purpose?

I believe many people don’t think the 700 isn’t fit for purpose; they’re very controversial units

 

[Mag_seven]

Class 377 trains has cramped 3+2 seats and little standing space

So you are saying people would rather stand than sit?

 

[PGAT]

If you’re on a busy rush hour train it’s unlikely that the extra seats 3+2 seating grant will actually give you a seat. I’ve always found that a big problem is moving through the train (which is necessary if there’s a short platform)

 

[miklcct]

So you are saying people would rather stand than sit?

Being able to stand is better than not being able to squeeze onto the train at all