Southern add 40 vehicles to order

[Skimble19]

That's precisely why I made the comment about them being far too similar to 317/321s for my liking.. the 380s are indeed lovely and spacious, with plenty of windows and very few large pillars, whilst judging by the CGI images that have been put out so far the 700s are the complete opposite of that.

 

[Bald Rick]

Check out the number of windows, the size of the pillars etc. and compare that to 317s, then look at a 365. If you enjoy sitting next to a nice cream wall then they're going to be great (just like 321s!).

To be honest, if you manage to get a seat at all on a class 700, you will be thanking your lucky stars, window or not.

 

[Skimble19]

Indeed. Should be interesting to see if any commuters actually change their current locations on the train (I.e commuters from Kings Cross getting off at Stevenage in the evening generally tend to crowd into the fourth carriage on 8 car services, leaving it nice and empty after).

Do we know if the 12 car sets will have any form of inter-carriage doors at any point, or will just be open for the entire length of the train yet?

 

[Class377/5]

Indeed. Should be interesting to see if any commuters actually change their current locations on the train (I.e commuters from Kings Cross getting off at Stevenage in the evening generally tend to crowd into the fourth carriage on 8 car services, leaving it nice and empty after).

Do we know if the 12 car sets will have any form of inter-carriage doors at any point, or will just be open for the entire length of the train yet?

Walk through the entire train just like the S Stock.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

To be honest, if you manage to get a seat at all on a class 700, you will be thanking your lucky stars, window or not.

The problem with Thameslink is that the route is too long for any one type of stock to be suitable. The train that is suitable for a long journey is not going to be suitable for that section of the route through central London subject to crush loading, where something more like the class 378 is needed, which you would not want to travel in between London and Brighton.

The same will apply to Crossrail. The whole concept of these lines is wrong for this and other reasons. They should be cut back to run within the LUL area and be part of London Overground. And Crossrail could have been built for a fraction of the cost as another tube line, which was the original requirement to relieve the Circle and Central lines by providing another east-west route. A classic example of mission creep.

 

[jopsuk]

Nah, Crossrail's length will be OK- Shenfield and Maidenhead are a similar distance out from central London as Chesham and Amerhsam, not much further than Epping. Right on the limit for a Metro, really. The length is good reason to not extend any further, mindyou

 

[northwichcat]

319s have the same power output as 321s and are slightly, if only slightly, lighter than 321s, so in my, admittedly limited, experience of travelling on the two different classes their performance has been comparable. I feel that 323s accelerate somewhat quicker than 319s, in my experience. Given that 323s have twice as many powered axles and slightly more power per unit to accelerate three carriages instead of four, this would make sense.

So I wonder how running times would compare if 323s were replaced by 319s. I imagine the extra 10mph might cancel out any poorer acceleration on the longer Stoke services but what about on Glossop services and Airport stoppers where the acceleration is more important than the top speed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm sure TPE would enjoy a new run of 380 units as they are an improved 444. Also they come in three or four car 23m configuration, idea for TPE.

Hopefully a 3 car EMU option won't be considered for North TPE. Yes 3 car EMUs with the option for adding a 4th car wouldn't be a poor option if there are additional services and enough units for peak time doubling up but after the fiasco when that method was employed for the class 185 order it doesn't seem a sensible option to take up.

As the number of station calls on the 4 x Victoria TPE services are set to be reduced the doors at 1/3, 2/3 positions will have less justification especially considering the exterior temperature at stations like Huddersfield in the winter.

 

[Wolfie]

The problem with Thameslink is that the route is too long for any one type of stock to be suitable. The train that is suitable for a long journey is not going to be suitable for that section of the route through central London subject to crush loading, where something more like the class 378 is needed, which you would not want to travel in between London and Brighton.

The same will apply to Crossrail. The whole concept of these lines is wrong for this and other reasons. They should be cut back to run within the LUL area and be part of London Overground. And Crossrail could have been built for a fraction of the cost as another tube line, which was the original requirement to relieve the Circle and Central lines by providing another east-west route. A classic example of mission creep.

my bold

The French seem to manage quite well eg the Paris RER! Not to mention existing UK experience with Thameslink!

So your bright idea is that there should be no cross-London services, only connections? The extant Thameslink line proves both the concept and the demand so sorry NO WAY JOSE!

Yes, there will have to be some rolling-stock compromises but the significant easing to large number of journeys massively outweigh any downside of these.

 

[Aictos]

I'd rather the slows north of Hitchin were upgraded to 100mph first though! You can really feel the difference in speed on a 365 if you use both the fast non-stop and the slow services from KGX to somewhere like Biggleswade.

From a personal point of view, I'd also much rather we kept the 365s than get a new fleet. The new 700 class look far too similar to 317s for my liking.

Thing is IF the slows north of Woolmer Green got upgraded to even 90mph, the timings that would improve as a result would easily be felt.

At the moment, a FCC takes about 50 minutes between Stevenge and Peterborough while a EC takes 30 minutes now if the slows get upgraded to a faster line speed then in theory it might only take 10 mins off the FCC service which makes it that much more attractive seeing as there's only 10 minutes difference between the two operators.

I know there's a lot of work to be done on line speeds in the southern part of the ECML but take the Hertford Loop for example, it would be nice if diverted services could take advantage of a higher speed to pass though the area ie 85mph even if the usual rolling stock is timetabled for 75mph stock.

As to the 700s I'm looking forward to seeing them

 

[The Ham]

The problem with Thameslink is that the route is too long for any one type of stock to be suitable. The train that is suitable for a long journey is not going to be suitable for that section of the route through central London subject to crush loading, where something more like the class 378 is needed, which you would not want to travel in between London and Brighton.

The same will apply to Crossrail. The whole concept of these lines is wrong for this and other reasons. They should be cut back to run within the LUL area and be part of London Overground. And Crossrail could have been built for a fraction of the cost as another tube line, which was the original requirement to relieve the Circle and Central lines by providing another east-west route. A classic example of mission creep.

If they were just underground/self contained metro services then it would have cost a lot more to provide new termini for the longer distance services than you'd have saved (by many multipliers). Without the added bonus of being able to run more services.

Most people using them will use them for fairly short distances or will have the choice to use other services. For instance from Brighton to London and Luton to London there are other (non Thameslink) trains which are an option for passengers to use.

Also as the trains reach the outer ends of their run they will be lightly loaded so passengers travelling longer distances are likely to be able to get a seat for part of their journey.

 

[tbtc]

Nah, Crossrail's length will be OK- Shenfield and Maidenhead are a similar distance out from central London as Chesham and Amerhsam, not much further than Epping. Right on the limit for a Metro, really. The length is good reason to not extend any further, mindyou

Agreed - just about the right length of service for the type of stock being provided - certainly any ideas about running Crossrail to Oxford/ Basingstoke/ Ipswich etc are a bit daft as things stand though

 

[The Ham]

Agreed - just about the right length of service for the type of stock being provided - certainly any ideas about running Crossrail to Oxford/ Basingstoke/ Ipswich etc are a bit daft as things stand though

Basingstoke might JUST be OK, as passenger loadings would be fairly light between Reading & Basingstoke (unlike Oxford). As no one will change at Basingstoke to a Crossrail train. Also the travel time via Crossrail is likely to not that attractive compared with the existing trains to Waterloo with a change to the tube.

 

[thameslink2000]

A thought that has just occurred to me that I don't think has been mentioned here already, is that some of the planned future 116/216 dual voltage vehicle order for Southern could be useful for when Basingstoke to Southampton gets wires, as they would potentially be using the Eastleigh/St Denys to Southampton section. Obviously the 110mph capability would not required here.

 

[RobShipway]

Basingstoke might JUST be OK, as passenger loadings would be fairly light between Reading & Basingstoke (unlike Oxford). As no one will change at Basingstoke to a Crossrail train. Also the travel time via Crossrail is likely to not that attractive compared with the existing trains to Waterloo with a change to the tube.

I think it would be more of a Basingstoke to Shenfield service myself. However, you could have Newbury to Shenfield as well and if the Governments recommendations to electrify further west than Newbury, maybe have Exeter to Shenfield or Exeter to Stanstead Airport?

 

[tbtc]

I think it would be more of a Basingstoke to Shenfield service myself. However, you could have Newbury to Shenfield as well and if the Governments recommendations to electrify further west than Newbury, maybe have Exeter to Shenfield or Exeter to Stanstead Airport?

On a toiletless train with only a few dozen seats?

 

[swt_passenger]

I think it would be more of a Basingstoke to Shenfield service myself. However, you could have Newbury to Shenfield as well and if the Governments recommendations to electrify further west than Newbury, maybe have Exeter to Shenfield or Exeter to Stanstead Airport?

Completely ridiculous ideas, I'm sorry to have to say.

How about for once just accepting that rail planners might have got it right? They are building a metro service to relieve the Central Line with rolling stock to suit that purpose.

 

[RobShipway]

Completely ridiculous ideas, I'm sorry to have to say.

How about for once just accepting that rail planners might have got it right? They are building a metro service to relieve the Central Line with rolling stock to suit that purpose.

Sorry, I was taking it to extremes but no more so than others have done within this thread before me and you have not commented about their comments now have you?

 

[mr_jrt]

Depends if you'd achieve more benefits by relieving the Central line verbatim or by removing interchanging suburban passengers from it between Ealing Broadway and Stratford. I suspect that you'd get more benefit from getting all the suburban passengers close to their destination in zone 1 than those which generally have the option of multiple existing metro lines.

Slough to Shenfield is the reasonable limit of a toiletless metro service, not Maidenhead, and certainly not Reading. To make the most of the tunnel you would want all the suburban services running through though, which means Newbury/Didcott to Reading as the outer suburban services and Reading to Slough as the inner suburban services then semi-fast with appropriate stock, and likewise on the GEML, with a separate all-stations metro service operating on a 3rd pair of lines.

 

[anthony263]

A thought that has just occurred to me that I don't think has been mentioned here already, is that some of the planned future 116/216 dual voltage vehicle order for Southern could be useful for when Basingstoke to Southampton gets wires, as they would potentially be using the Eastleigh/St Denys to Southampton section. Obviously the 110mph capability would not required here.

A goo dpoint to raise however I have a feeling there is more going on in the background than we know about.

It wouldnt surprise me to see FCC getting additional electrostars to allow some of the class 319's to be casaded up to Northern or for some of the class 377's to end up being subleased to operators like FGW.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

If they were just underground/self contained metro services then it would have cost a lot more to provide new termini for the longer distance services than you'd have saved (by many multipliers). Without the added bonus of being able to run more services.

Not necessarily. At the west, Crossrail could have taken over the Hammersmith branch, with possibly some running to Heathrow. At the east end of the route it could have joined end-on to the Jubilee line thus the service could have run from Hammersmith to Stanmore, crossing over itself at Bond Street. A good interchange could have been built at Westbourne Park.

Apart from the Brighton run, most of the Thameslink services do not run far south of the river. The northern limit should probably be Luton at the most.

Most people using them will use them for fairly short distances or will have the choice to use other services. For instance from Brighton to London and Luton to London there are other (non Thameslink) trains which are an option for passengers to use. A comfortable relaxing journey was replaced, at a stroke, by a stressful and uncomfortable one.

Also as the trains reach the outer ends of their run they will be lightly loaded so passengers travelling longer distances are likely to be able to get a seat for part of their journey.

Not very appealing to have to stand all the way down from London Bridge to Haywards Heath. It has been a source of complaint on the Brighton line ever since Thameslink came in - bear in mind that these trains replaced CIG/BIG/CIG formations with buffet cars. They were badly received by Brighton commuters, I can tell you.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

my bold

The French seem to manage quite well eg the Paris RER! Not to mention existing UK experience with Thameslink!

So your bright idea is that there should be no cross-London services, only connections? The extant Thameslink line proves both the concept and the demand so sorry NO WAY JOSE!

Yes, there will have to be some rolling-stock compromises but the significant easing to large number of journeys massively outweigh any downside of these.

Brighton to Bedford is much too far away from the centre for cross London services. The introduction of Thameslink on that route was highly unpopular with regular travellers who had previously enjoyed the higher quality CIG/BIG/CIG 12-car sets with comfortable 2+2 seating. A further issue is that the service became less reliable as delays on the Midland are transferred to the Southern, and vice-versa. Apart from Brigton, most of Thameslink south of London goes quite a short distance out. Trains currently running to Brighton could take over another route, perhaps Caterham/Tattenham Corner, so that both Brighton lines had trains suitable for the route, starting from London Bridge or possibly even Charing Cross.

The RER is more like the London Overground and surface lines in the size of area covered. It does not run all the way to Rouen or Auxerre, which are equivalent distances to Thameslink.

 

[jopsuk]

Whilst I do agree that Brighton-Bedford is too far for Thameslink, which gets used as a cross-city metro line in the core, the problem is now the north side. There's plenty of places that are suitable for termination on the south side, with Brighton services sent either all into Victoria or some terminating at London Bridge, but Bedford trains would have nowhere to go, what with St Pancras having been filled up with International and Kent services- the longer distance MML services are all those four Midland platforms can cope with.

 

[paul1609]

Not necessarily. At the west, Crossrail could have taken over the Hammersmith branch, with possibly some running to Heathrow. At the east end of the route it could have joined end-on to the Jubilee line thus the service could have run from Hammersmith to Stanmore, crossing over itself at Bond Street. A good interchange could have been built at Westbourne Park.

Apart from the Brighton run, most of the Thameslink services do not run far south of the river. The northern limit should probably be Luton at the most.
Not very appealing to have to stand all the way down from London Bridge to Haywards Heath. It has been a source of complaint on the Brighton line ever since Thameslink came in - bear in mind that these trains replaced CIG/BIG/CIG formations with buffet cars. They were badly received by Brighton commuters, I can tell you.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Brighton to Bedford is much too far away from the centre for cross London services. The introduction of Thameslink on that route was highly unpopular with regular travellers who had previously enjoyed the higher quality CIG/BIG/CIG 12-car sets with comfortable 2+2 seating. A further issue is that the service became less reliable as delays on the Midland are transferred to the Southern, and vice-versa. Apart from Brigton, most of Thameslink south of London goes quite a short distance out. Trains currently running to Brighton could take over another route, perhaps Caterham/Tattenham Corner, so that both Brighton lines had trains suitable for the route, starting from London Bridge or possibly even Charing Cross.

The RER is more like the London Overground and surface lines in the size of area covered. It does not run all the way to Rouen or Auxerre, which are equivalent distances to Thameslink.

The 4 trains per hour was always an ORCATs raid on the Brighton Line pre privatisation. Thameslink otherwise relied on a pretty meagre share of the travelcard split made very complicated by the ticketing to the Core stations (which was disputed up even to the last few years) plus a share of the London Gatwick trade. Thameslinks big earners have always been South of the core which is why it has to merge with the Southern Franchise.

 

[Minstral25]

It wouldnt surprise me to see FCC getting additional electrostars to allow some of the class 319's to be casaded up to Northern or for some of the class 377's to end up being subleased to operators like FGW.

I think this is most likely as the 700's are unlikely to arrive before 2017 with the current delay to order seeming endless.

The Extra 377's could then release the 455's and 442's to railway heaven when they come back from Thameslink making Southern a virtually 377 railway and the appropriate cost savings that brings. Alongside a Thameslink with just 700's south of the river.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Whilst I do agree that Brighton-Bedford is too far for Thameslink, which gets used as a cross-city metro line in the core, the problem is now the north side. There's plenty of places that are suitable for termination on the south side, with Brighton services sent either all into Victoria or some terminating at London Bridge, but Bedford trains would have nowhere to go, what with St Pancras having been filled up with International and Kent services- the longer distance MML services are all those four Midland platforms can cope with.

Victoria seems full for Southern trains on the Brighton side - judging by the speed of turn round of most services. London Bridge is going from 9 to 6 terminating platforms so where are the Brighton Trains going to turn round if they don't go to Thameslink.

I don't think there will be a huge issue with Thameslink Core overcrowding, mostly as currently there isn't a lot of traffic on that route, the locations aren't that populous and we are going to be talking 24 plus trains per hour over half of which are 12 coach and all of which will have wide door aisles.

 

[northwichcat]

I think this is most likely as the 700's are unlikely to arrive before 2017 with the current delay to order seeming endless.

The Extra 377's could then release the 455's and 442's to railway heaven when they come back from Thameslink

I think that's unlikely to happen as early as 2017. There are many other DMUs and EMUs that are higher priority for withdrawal. As EMUs are supposed to have a shelf-life of up to 40 years so the expected withdrawal date should be 2023-2028, which could be brought before to the end of 2019 if the owners decide it's non-economically viable to make them DDA complaint.

 

[tbtc]

I think this is most likely as the 700's are unlikely to arrive before 2017 with the current delay to order seeming endless.

The Extra 377's could then release the 455's and 442's to railway heaven when they come back from Thameslink making Southern a virtually 377 railway and the appropriate cost savings that brings. Alongside a Thameslink with just 700's south of the river

Or use the spare 455s to justify Marshlink/ Oxted electrification (to free up 171s)?

(maybe even the North Downs line too?)

 

[Wath Yard]

As the current thinking appears to be to convert 3rd rail to OHLE I don't think future 3rd rail electrification schemes are that likely.

 

[Wolfie]

I think this is most likely as the 700's are unlikely to arrive before 2017 with the current delay to order seeming endless.

The Extra 377's could then release the 455's and 442's to railway heaven when they come back from Thameslink making Southern a virtually 377 railway and the appropriate cost savings that brings. Alongside a Thameslink with just 700's south of the river.

That could happen....

Of course, at least in the short term what could equally happen is that 3rd rail EMUs, which can only operate in the South East (except for a small number in Merseyside) will be retained there until they are life expired, while dual capable EMUs could be sent North to operate in the newly wirsed areas until such time as the stock intended for operation there becomes free. Presentationally, economically and logically it would be disasterous to scrap perfectly serviceable EMUs in one part of the countrty while continuing to operate DMUs under newly installed wires in another.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

I don't think there will be a huge issue with Thameslink Core overcrowding, mostly as currently there isn't a lot of traffic on that route, the locations aren't that populous and we are going to be talking 24 plus trains per hour over half of which are 12 coach and all of which will have wide door aisles.

That should crack the problem of overcrowding in the core section. The irony is that for years, BR resisted the re-opening of Thameslink on the grounds of lack of demand, but the trains were overcrowded in the core from the day it opened.

The Brighton line Thameslink problem could be solved by sending trains that currently go there to Caterham/Tattenham Corner and Gatwick instead. Brighton trains could then run through London Bridge and terminate at Charing Cross or possibly Cannon Street, which would be a good destination for people travelling to the City. That way all the Brighton line services get to operate with suitable stock. Not so sure what to do north of London though. Perhaps terminate at a sensible destination about 20 miles out.

 

[mr_jrt]

There is the potential to add more platforms to the MML section of St. Pancras by building out over the road. Might only manage 2-3 platforms, but every little helps.

Personally, I don't have a problem with Thameslink being longer-distance per se, but it needs to match distance-wise on both sides. Brighton to Bedford does match at about 60 minutes to St Pancras/Blackfriars from each direction. Again, on the northern half it's then just West Hampstead until Mill Hill (limited 8 car stops at Kentish town, Cricklewood and Hendon notwithstanding), whereas on the southern side it's just London Bridge until East Croydon. Beyond there I'd prefer a cleaner demarcation of services, but Thameslink is limited by the fact it's not on a 6-track route, so beyond Mill Hill to St. Albans it has to serve double-duty as a metro. That said, inner suburban services between St Albans and Luton are fine, and outer suburban services from Luton to Bedford are fine. The southern side is a bit better as the metro services between East Croydon to Purley/Redhill are handled by Southern, but likewise, the inner Suburban services from Redhill to Haywards Heath and outer suburban services from Brighton to Haywards Heath all match up fairly well.

In an ideal world the MML freight lines would be extended north from Mill Hill to St Albans and south to somewhere like the LO network and then Thameslink could just solely focus on suburban duty. They would then just need two type of stock: a higher-density layout with lots of luggage storage for the inner suburban (airport serving) Luton-Haywards Heath service, and a lower density layout for the Bedford-Brighton outer suburban service. The MML has East Midlands services for fast services, and Brighton has the East and West Coastway services via a reversal as well as the fast services it justifies all on it's own.

 

[387star]

quick question the 442s all run as DOO don't they? Gatwick Express staff don't work as conventional conductors? is this because all stations they stop at have train dispatch or RA/CDs ? must be tough dispatching those units on time with their tiny doors