Southern add 40 vehicles to order

[LNW-GW Joint]

You'd be offered Adventra

Aventra

 

[jon0844]

Should have called it Adventure, as in that's what any TOC buying them would be about to enjoy.

 

[GodAtum]

i hope Southern improve there 1st class seating with these carriages!

 

[Class377/5]

That is precisely the reason why Thameslink should be cut back to run within, more or less, LU Zone 6.

Trains designed to have 45 second dwell times are not going to have a suitable internal layout for long distance routes.

The whole scheme needs a rethink. It is worth noting that when LT took over routes formerly operated by the main line companies in the 1930s, the strategy was to cut them back and separate them from the main lines.

May interest to know that current dwell times are similar now with less than a minute now. I've timed multiple peaks in both directions in different stations while I was platform staff so it doesn't need a rethink. (Note this pre 12 car timetable).

Remember LUL can do 32tph timetabled with units using ATO, can't see how with a a tube sized 8 car train (133m) compared with 240m 12 car train. In fact checking figures 160m train 8 car 700 will have roughly twice as many seats and 67% of the standing. So I don't see how any of your points are justified once actual facts are used.

Aventra

I knew it didn't look right!

i hope Southern improve there 1st class seating with these carriages!

Which carriages? New eight 5 car units?

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Things have to move forward other wise we'd still be in steam. Don't forget that the Electrostar has its roots in BR, it's not a new product at all. There are things that need changing as technology has moved on since they units were designed.

"Moving on" does not necessarily mean better VFM which has to be the bottom line here. And it has to be done at the right pace.

And there is even a place for steam too. BR got rid of it in the most wasteful, ill-judged and hasty way, driven by a concern for image, and a head of political pressure from private industry. It continued for several years longer in France and West Germany, where the replacement was done with more prudence.

In the first place, the capital cost per unit of steam horsepower was 20% of any of the alternatives. That is a huge advantage and takes a lot of effort to squander. But with a few honourable exceptions, Chapelon and Porta in particular, squandered it was. The technology suffered from, first, that the hardware lasted too long for its own good, and second, a lack of development. Water treatment, combustion systems and exhaust systems are critical to the effectiveness of steam but the best of R&D in these areas took place in the 1970s by which time it had lost its place, suffering from the perception that it was hopelessly old fashioned, which you obviously share. Yet there is nothing better than fireless steam locomotives in situations where there are issues of noise, pollution or fire hazard.

Unfortunately, engineers like Roger Waller at DLM do not even get taken seriously, though the firm still does quite nicely with niche applications including tourist trains and hire of steam locomotives to SBB for infrastructure work.

As regards the Electrostars, having travelled in them regularly, I would say that they are far from being in every way better than slam door trains they replaced and one would hope that their shortcomings would be addressed. They have, however, settled down to a high standard of reliability and if you pick your place carefully you can have a comfortable journey. We shall see. If the new trains are an evolutionary development from the Electrostars then there should be little trouble. But the usual warning should apply - if something ain't bust, don't try to fix it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

OK, so Thameslink (and by your logic Crossrail) should be LU, seams a reasonable comment on face value, but where do you build the new terminus station to cope with the trains from further afield?

It would require large concourses to cope with all the passengers who would be changing from the Mainline to LU services. The distance between platforms needs to be big enough that you can have a lot of people changing without it being too long that no one wants to change.

How much of an overlap do you provide between the Mainline & LU services, the bigger the overlap the more people who may not join the Mainline services and just join the LU services, but make it too long and the LU services will be full before the terminus. Have the terminus too far our and virtually everyone will change services. Too close in and the build costs rocket as extra lines are required.

Yes there are problems with what stock to purchase, but that is small fry in comparison to trying to build a self contained LU route and get everyone to change from the Mainline services.

Spend a day watching the crowds at Waterloo, Victoria, Paddington, etc and you'll see why most people in the UK think that such a cross London line is such a good idea.

A chunk of those crowds, ie those from within the LU area, will not be there because they will have been picked up further down the line. And there is scope for cross-platform interchange further down the line at places like East Croydon and the new interchange at Old Oak Common. That is how it works at places like Finchley Road. People change from the Jubilee to the Metropolitan and vice-versa. It all works smoothly. The main thing is that the tracks must be paired by direction.

But Thameslink south of London could take over suburban services currently starting from London termini. That leaves room for the Brighton trains.

 

[jon0844]

The biggest problem for Thameslink will be the fact that a lot of people will be seeking to board and alight at St Pancras, for St Pancras, King's Cross and international trains - as well as King's Cross now being an area that is seeing huge development and might become a place that people wish to visit in its own right.

So, straight away, it's going to be a very busy place to be when trains are arriving every minute or so.

With more routes, you now have people waiting for trains that follow the next one or two to arrive. Will these people be in the way of others? Almost definitely.

At many terminal stations, trains are announced late to keep people on the concourse. I am not sure how this might work at St Pancras, as people don't generally congregate around the screens in The Circle - and I am not sure trains can be hidden from view until the last minute, so as to try and keep people upstairs and not waiting on the platform.. especially if there are delays or cancellations.

It's going to be very interesting to see how things pan out, such as whether regular commuters will avoid St Pancras as a place to board or alight and use other stations instead. For example, Farringdon is clearly a better place to change to the Circle/Met/H&C line. Finsbury Park might be favoured for a quicker change to the Victoria Line etc.

 

[Class377/5]

"Moving on" does not necessarily mean better VFM which has to be the bottom line here. And it has to be done at the right pace.

And there is even a place for steam too. BR got rid of it in the most wasteful, ill-judged and hasty way, driven by a concern for image, and a head of political pressure from private industry. It continued for several years longer in France and West Germany, where the replacement was done with more prudence.

As regards the Electrostars, having travelled in them regularly, I would say that they are far from being in every way better than slam door trains they replaced and one would hope that their shortcomings would be addressed. They have, however, settled down to a high standard of reliability and if you pick your place carefully you can have a comfortable journey. We shall see. If the new trains are an evolutionary development from the Electrostars then there should be little trouble. But the usual warning should apply - if something ain't bust, don't try to fix it.

In the case of Thameslink, VfM means moving on nd getting a purposes designed fleet. Otherwise to not be able to run enough trains means the benefits of the £3.5bn infrastructure works are less beneficial than if you get a fleet designed for the job.

I don't really see how steam relates to this. Moving on is required, end of.

Electrostars high level of reliability? Not compared to the Desiro. Overall they are poor units but January's Modern Railways will show us the latest situation.

Funny how your views that if it isn't broken dint fix it. Well to passengers standards have moved on and so does train design.

A chunk of those crowds, ie those from within the LU area, will not be there because they will have been picked up further down the line. And there is scope for cross-platform interchange further down the line at places like East Croydon and the new interchange at Old Oak Common. That is how it works at places like Finchley Road. People change from the Jubilee to the Metropolitan and vice-versa. It all works smoothly. The main thing is that the tracks must be paired by direction.

But Thameslink south of London could take over suburban services currently starting from London termini. That leaves room for the Brighton trains.

Do you realise how established travel patterns are with huge crowds from Brighton line wanting City Thameslink, Farringdon and St Pancras. That cannot be achieved by your desire to terminate the trains at terminal stations. Look at the out cry of passengers from Sutton/Wimbledon loop at possibility of thier services bing cut back for evidence of the strength of feelings.

The biggest problem for Thameslink will be the fact that a lot of people will be seeking to board and alight at St Pancras, for St Pancras, King's Cross and international trains - as well as King's Cross now being an area that is seeing huge development and might become a place that people wish to visit in its own right.

So, straight away, it's going to be a very busy place to be when trains are arriving every minute or so.

With more routes, you now have people waiting for trains that follow the next one or two to arrive. Will these people be in the way of others? Almost definitely.

At many terminal stations, trains are announced late to keep people on the concourse. I am not sure how this might work at St Pancras, as people don't generally congregate around the screens in The Circle - and I am not sure trains can be hidden from view until the last minute, so as to try and keep people upstairs and not waiting on the platform.. especially if there are delays or cancellations.

It's going to be very interesting to see how things pan out, such as whether regular commuters will avoid St Pancras as a place to board or alight and use other stations instead. For example, Farringdon is clearly a better place to change to the Circle/Met/H&C line. Finsbury Park might be favoured for a quicker change to the Victoria Line etc.

All interesting points. Look at how passengers line the platform edge for the Ashford and Rochester services in the evening peaks blocking others trying to board trains that arrive first.

Managing the crowds on normal basis will be a huge tasks yet alone when there are problems. Travel patterns will be hugely changed once the full KO2 timetable comes into force.

 

[tbtc]

Ignoring passenger demand (and the fact that people from Brighton etc now expect a direct service through the heart of London), I guess that operationally you could restrict the southern side of Thameslink to "Greater London" services (including Caterham, Tattenham Corner etc) because of the large number of "suburban" services south of the Thames.

But what do you do on the north side of the river? There's insufficient space at St Pancras for the current EMT services, so where do people propose to terminate the Bedford/ Luton trains? Impossible!

 

[Class377/5]

Current figures off WNXX forum...

"What about the even more maligned Class 458s?"

Northern Class 333 23,257
First Scotrail Class 334 9,564
London Midland Class 350/1 73,294
London Midland Class 350/2 88,905
c2c Class 357 46,477
Greater Anglia Class 360 41,827
Heathrow Connect Class 360 17,316
Southeastern Class 375/3,6&7 23,827
Southeastern Class 375 8/9 35,709
Southeastern Class 376 13,298
First Capital Connect Class 377 14,402
Southern Class 377 34,434
London Overground Class 378/1 12,528
London Overground Class 378/2 13,712
Greater Anglia Class 379 18,636
First Scotrail Class 380 15,337
Southeastern Class 395 37,366
South West Trains Class 444 45,985
South West Trains Class 450 42,588
South West Trains Class 458 102,526
Average 28,539

Latest Rolling 13 month averages

Ignoring passenger demand (and the fact that people from Brighton etc now expect a direct service through the heart of London), I guess that operationally you could restrict the southern side of Thameslink to "Greater London" services (including Caterham, Tattenham Corner etc) because of the large number of "suburban" services south of the Thames.

But what do you do on the north side of the river? There's insufficient space at St Pancras for the current EMT services, so where do people propose to terminate the Bedford/ Luton trains? Impossible!

Currently theres the ability of 1tph from Thameslink into St Pancras high level maximum so it doesn't work.

 

[jon0844]

I actually think a lot of current FCC GN services should continue to start and end at King's Cross.

I doubt many existing commuters are that happy about having to get their train home from a single platform, with the train coming in and only offering a minute or so to get on (compared to maybe having 10+ minutes to get on at KGX) - as well as the fact that trains coming into St Pancras won't be empty as they are when starting at KGX.

Given the 5 minute walk from KGX to STP, it's not as if people on the ECML can't easily walk over to get Eurostar and how many people will (initially) want to go on to destinations that they never could get to before without changing.

 

[tbtc]

I take your point Jon, but there is a slight contridiction between

how many people will (initially) want to go on to destinations that they never could get to before without changing

...and...

trains coming into St Pancras won't be empty as they are when starting at KGX

Either the "through London" link will benefit a large number of people who will be able to continue their journey without having to change at Kings Cross between the crowded Undergound and the FCC stations or the trains arriving at St P Northbound will be fairly empty.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

In the case of Thameslink, VfM means moving on nd getting a purposes designed fleet. Otherwise to not be able to run enough trains means the benefits of the £3.5bn infrastructure works are less beneficial than if you get a fleet designed for the job.

Yes but Thameslink attempts to perform two mutually exclusive jobs.

Moving on is required, end of.

"Moving on" is in itself not a good reason for doing anything.

Funny how your views that if it isn't broken dint fix it. Well to passengers standards have moved on and so does train design.

Do you realise how established travel patterns are with huge crowds from Brighton line wanting City Thameslink, Farringdon and St Pancras. That cannot be achieved by your desire to terminate the trains at terminal stations.

In what way have standards moved on? I used the Brighton line several times a week continuously from 1978 until last year. Taking one thing with another I saw no real improvement - on the contrary.

Thameslink added convenience but it has been heartily detested by Brighton passengers ever since it started, due to the discomfort and shortage of seats on the trains. When you have to stand all the way you have effectively wasted an hour, and the seats are so cramped and uncomfortable that you may have someone big sitting next to you so you cannot even work on your laptop or read a newspaper. A lot of people will use Victoria so that they can make use of their journey time even though it is a detour.

All interesting points. Look at how passengers line the platform edge for the Ashford and Rochester services in the evening peaks blocking others trying to board trains that arrive first.

Managing the crowds on normal basis will be a huge tasks yet alone when there are problems. Travel patterns will be hugely changed once the full KO2 timetable comes into force.

The underlying problem is that the system is overloaded. However, I wonder if it is carrying more passengers than it did around 1955? Perhaps someone has the answer to that question. I suspect that part of the trouble is due to the abolition of slam door trains, and this was known when the decision was taken to replace the original Southern EMUs with a fresh generation of "obsolete" slam door trains in the 1950s. That decision was criticised at the time but it may have been instrumental in maintaining capacity. But in those days passengers were well trained to use slam door trains and closed doors after them, also there were more platform staff then. And a steady trickle of accidents, mostly people on platforms hit by doors opened before trains had stopped. So this is the price of a safer railway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ignoring passenger demand (and the fact that people from Brighton etc now expect a direct service through the heart of London), I guess that operationally you could restrict the southern side of Thameslink to "Greater London" services (including Caterham, Tattenham Corner etc) because of the large number of "suburban" services south of the Thames.

But what do you do on the north side of the river? There's insufficient space at St Pancras for the current EMT services, so where do people propose to terminate the Bedford/ Luton trains? Impossible!

There were nothing but complaints in Brighton when Thameslink was introduced. The benefits of the through service were not at all appreciated as the 2 x 319s were so much inferior to the CIG/BIG/CIG sets they replaced.

North of London, Thameslink trains might generally terminate at somewhere like St Albans or Luton as indeed many already do. Bedford is a lot further north and is served by the semi-fasts anyway.

 

[Bald Rick]

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
There were nothing but complaints in Brighton when Thameslink was introduced. The benefits of the through service were not at all appreciated as the 2 x 319s were so much inferior to the CIG/BIG/CIG sets they replaced.

North of London, Thameslink trains might generally terminate at somewhere like St Albans or Luton as indeed many already do. Bedford is a lot further north and is served by the semi-fasts anyway.

But when Thameslink was introduced, it was only hourly to Brighton. And IIRC it didn't replace anything from Brighton, it was an additional service. It was only on 1994 that it went 1/4 hourly as an early example of competition between shadow franchises. At some point 319s took over Victoria to Brighton expresses, but Thameslink they were not.

On the second point, there are stations between Luton and Bedford that might miss Thameslink services. To see how popular MML to Thameslink is, there is the daily challenge of the 0802 from St Albans. A 12 car service which starts Bedford, calling only at Flitwick, Luton, Harpenden and St Albans, and never has fewer than 1200 people on it approaching London.

 

[The Ham]

The underlying problem is that the system is overloaded. However, I wonder if it is carrying more passengers than it did around 1955? Perhaps someone has the answer to that question.

Passenger numbers (journeys) for the whole network stood at about 1,100,000,000 in the peak in 1956 (ish) (or a little less than 1,000,000,000 in 1955) whilst passenger numbers (journeys) for 2010/2011 stood at 1,322,430,000 (including interchange numbers) or 1,156,900,000 (just number of entries).

It is fairly likely that for almost any station or line you can think of that passenger numbers will have risen (about 15% assuming both counts are just entries and the 1955 figure isn't including interchanges) since 1955 whilst the number of stations/route miles have fallen.

Passenger numbers 1919-2007
http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/File/publicationsdocuments/nps4480_tmp.pdf

Passenger numbers 2010/2011
http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/server/show/nav.1529

 

[Class377/5]

Yes but Thameslink attempts to perform two mutually exclusive jobs.

"Moving on" is in itself not a good reason for doing anything.
In what way have standards moved on? I used the Brighton line several times a week continuously from 1978 until last year. Taking one thing with another I saw no real improvement - on the contrary.

Standards have moved on, people expect far better than the current interior especially when compared to a 319. They want proper real time info that gives them updates while they are on the train. The want air con, plugs at every seat. Not to mention tha faster accretion means a real time improvement n jounery times. The jounery time on a class 700 is expect to be atleast 9.5% on current 319 timing. You'll note that almost all Thameslink timings are for 319s expect the 12 car services. That is a large saving of time for anyone. Now do you understand why it's to important in this case to step up to a new generation?

So rather than making statements of 1978 vs 2012 care to actually say why thing haven't improved?

Thameslink added convenience but it has been heartily detested by Brighton passengers ever since it started, due to the discomfort and shortage of seats on the trains. When you have to stand all the way you have effectively wasted an hour, and the seats are so cramped and uncomfortable that you may have someone big sitting next to you so you cannot even work on your laptop or read a newspaper. A lot of people will use Victoria so that they can make use of their journey time even though it is a detour.
The underlying problem is that the system is overloaded.

So standing all the way from Brighton isn't enough of a issue to warrant a new generation of trains? Simple fact is they all should have a seat expect in the high peak. Now also you need faster accerlating trains than the current Electrostars/Desiro fleets due to core dwell times. Don't forget that they are expected to 24tph in peak however when things go wrong these trains are to step up to 30toh for a limited period. Not possible with current fleet.

However, I wonder if it is carrying more passengers than it did around 1955? Perhaps someone has the answer to that question. I suspect that part of the trouble is due to the abolition of slam door trains, and this was known when the decision was taken to replace the original Southern EMUs with a fresh generation of "obsolete" slam door trains in the 1950s. That decision was criticised at the time but it may have been instrumental in maintaining capacity. But in those days passengers were well trained to use slam door trains and closed doors after them, also there were more platform staff then. And a steady trickle of accidents, mostly people on platforms hit by doors opened before trains had stopped. So this is the price of a safer railway.

So your comparing the 1950s rail network with today without takinginto account line closures or the rise of the car?

Interesting you mention passengers were well trained, now they refused to be such and require looking after. Fact LUL withdrew its close button feature are people closed doors on others and babies in buggys so that with today's I deserve this, me meme attitude that things are very different. I suspect you are comparing things in isolation when if you step back and look at the bigger picture it's very different.

There were nothing but complaints in Brighton when Thameslink was introduced. The benefits of the through service were not at all appreciated as the 2 x 319s were so much inferior to the CIG/BIG/CIG sets they replaced.

North of London, Thameslink trains might generally terminate at somewhere like St Albans or Luton as indeed many already do. Bedford is a lot further north and is served by the semi-fasts anyway.

Complaints yet the service was used? Dont forget the Thameslink 2000 project was being drawn up same time as the core opened. If there was such a hostile reaction as you say, why would it be felt passenger numbers required such a massive upgrade?

I'm not so sure a 319 is a downgrade from a salm door by any men's, however this is personal taste and I've limited experience on them.

On the second point, there are stations between Luton and Bedford that might miss Thameslink services. To see how popular MML to Thameslink is, there is the daily challenge of the 0802 from St Albans. A 12 car service which starts Bedford, calling only at Flitwick, Luton, Harpenden and St Albans, and never has fewer than 1200 people on it approaching London.

You raise an interesting point, the only 12 car southbound in the evening peak for FCC used to have about 20 people on it when it first started in Dec 2011. I saw it last week for a few days and it's busy now. 20-30 people per carriage. One day it even had one local overcrowding in the middle with people standing by the doors.

That not to mention every peak flow 12 car is very heavily loaded with almost full and standing from St Pancras on the intital two.

 

[tbtc]

There were nothing but complaints in Brighton when Thameslink was introduced. The benefits of the through service were not at all appreciated as the 2 x 319s were so much inferior to the CIG/BIG/CIG sets they replaced.

North of London, Thameslink trains might generally terminate at somewhere like St Albans or Luton as indeed many already do. Bedford is a lot further north and is served by the semi-fasts anyway.

Do you think that there would be complaints if Brighton lost its direct services to City Thameslink, St Pancras etc? I'd guess that there would...

The point about terminating them at St Albans misses the point that there are a lot of stations north of there that aren't served by any EMT services (and do you really want EMT to squeeze all the Luton/ Bedford passengers onto their four/five coach Meridians? Presumably as long as Brighton is okay, that's all that matters?

 

[bronzeonion]

I would definitely say a 319 is a huge downgrade from a 421 or similiar

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/52/145208796_daf0c407ac_b.jpg Class 421 interior

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...SO_Internal.JPG/800px-319363_TSO_Internal.JPG Class 319 interior

I know which one I'd rather have...

 

[Class377/5]

I would definitely say a 319 is a huge downgrade from a 421 or similiar

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/52/145208796_daf0c407ac_b.jpg Class 421 interior

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...SO_Internal.JPG/800px-319363_TSO_Internal.JPG Class 319 interior

I know which one I'd rather have...

Interesting but doubt those in wheelchairs, blind or deaf would agree. Modern trains are much better for all passengers overall.

Personally something about that picture I don't like look of and personally prefer the 319. However 2+2 picture might have been better fit as the space between the sets looks very narrow.

 

[northwichcat]

Interesting but doubt those in wheelchairs, blind or deaf would agree. Modern trains are much better for all passengers overall.

Personally something about that picture I don't like look of and personally prefer the 319. However 2+2 picture might have been better fit as the space between the sets looks very narrow.

Yes there are certainly more advantages to the change than just capacity. Newer trains being more accessible and more reliable. While the 421s had a lower top speed and poorer acceleration.

Some routes in the North West have gone from 2 car Sprinters to 4 car Pacers, where the only advantage seems to be the extra capacity.

 

[Bald Rick]

Interesting but doubt those in wheelchairs, blind or deaf would agree.

Or those who had the underframe of the adjacent coach coming through their seat back, as at Clapham etc. Hence the Hidden recommendation to have them replaced.

 

[Class377/5]

Yes there are certainly more advantages to the change than just capacity. Newer trains being more accessible and more reliable. While the 421s had a lower top speed and poorer acceleration.

Some routes in the North West have gone from 2 car Sprinters to 4 car Pacers, where the only advantage seems to be the extra capacity.

A pacer can never be an upgrade!

I think there is a tendency from those looking back that all was well for them but others were excluded from this. Modern stock is in part addressing this need. It's an important point o make as well as railways are a social service but just a business.

Or those who had the underframe of the adjacent coach coming through their seat back, as at Clapham etc. Hence the Hidden recommendation to have them replaced.

Not great.

 

[mr_jrt]

The point about terminating them at St Albans misses the point that there are a lot of stations north of there that aren't served by any EMT services (and do you really want EMT to squeeze all the Luton/ Bedford passengers onto their four/five coach Meridians? Presumably as long as Brighton is okay, that's all that matters?

Surely then there's an argument for more coaches on the EMT services then...full-length 9 car HSTs for example...or once the wires are up, your standard 12-car EMU.

 

[tbtc]

Surely then there's an argument for more coaches on the EMT services then...full-length 9 car HSTs for example...or once the wires are up, your standard 12-car EMU.

EMT can't serve all of the stations north of St Albans, and nor should they.

Whilst there's some logic in wanting longer distance services from the south terminating at Victoria/ London Bridge, because there are plenty of inner/outer suburban services from south London that could be put through the Thameslink tunnel, there are almost no "suburban" services north of the river (due to the Underground filling that role)

 

[Class377/5]

Surely then there's an argument for more coaches on the EMT services then...full-length 9 car HSTs for example...or once the wires are up, your standard 12-car EMU.

That's like saying use the 390s all stations from Milton Keynes to Watford Junction. Great waste of intercity services. After all they are just an EMU.

 

[mr_jrt]

That's like saying use the 390s all stations from Milton Keynes to Watford Junction. Great waste of intercity services. After all they are just an EMU.

We'll see what happens once HS2 opens...

...but I was thinking more along the lines of a lot more fast stops at St. Albans, Luton and Bedford, with Thameslink just providing the local service to connect into them, point being that you'll only be on Thameslink between fast stops, or you accept a longer journey to not have to change. Insta-capacity.

 

[HSTEd]

After HS2 opens the Cl390s are probably more likely to go to XC really....

Then ICWC (or whats left of it) can get some mini Pendos or something for its legacy services.

 

[fgwrich]

After HS2 opens the Cl390s are probably more likely to go to XC really....

Then ICWC (or whats left of it) can get some mini Pendos or something for its legacy services.

Why? Surley they would be unsuitible for the XC Services, and with rising passenger numbers, wouldn't it be far better to keep the Pendos on the West Coast and something smaller for XC services.

 

[HSTEd]

Why? Surley they would be unsuitible for the XC Services, and with rising passenger numbers, wouldn't it be far better to keep the Pendos on the West Coast and something smaller for XC services.

HS2 will likely drastically reduce the primary flows that ICWC depends upon for income, they are likely to be left serving primarily secondary destinations that will not require full length Pendolinos.
Rising passenger numbers just means longer double deck formations on HS2 fo the most part.

Meanwhile XC passenger numbers would already justify a fleet of 8-9 Pendolinos if the lines were electrified (HST and double Voyager workings), and it is not unreasonable to assume that most services would benefit from being worked by 9 or 11 car Pendolinos by the time HS2 is opened.

 

[Class377/5]

We'll see what happens once HS2 opens...

...but I was thinking more along the lines of a lot more fast stops at St. Albans, Luton and Bedford, with Thameslink just providing the local service to connect into them, point being that you'll only be on Thameslink between fast stops, or you accept a longer journey to not have to change. Insta-capacity.

Yes but we were commenting on the fact a poster said no Thameslink services past St Albans forcing the EMT services to do all stations. So you can't have your proposed calling pattern without closing stations.

However your idea missing out Luton Airport Parkway. Restoring St Albans on inter cities will be interesting however once full Thameslink programme is completed they will have enough fast services to not warrant the EMTs calling there.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Or those who had the underframe of the adjacent coach coming through their seat back, as at Clapham etc. Hence the Hidden recommendation to have them replaced.

It was time to start thinking about replacing the mark 1 stock by 1989 but the replacements were not altogether an improvement. And the Clapham accident was not caused by the use of mark 1 stock.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes there are certainly more advantages to the change than just capacity. Newer trains being more accessible and more reliable. While the 421s had a lower top speed and poorer acceleration

You cannot criticise the 421s for not having something that was not a requirement when they were introduced. A five minute time saving on a journey of nearly an hour is neither here nor there. But for space and comfort and general ambience, the CIGs, though not the VEPs, were a pleasanter vehicle for most passengers in most circumstances. We did not get a like-for-like replacement with the 377s, though the 444s are another story. Incidentally the new stock is heavier, which is certainly not progress.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do you think that there would be complaints if Brighton lost its direct services to City Thameslink, St Pancras etc? I'd guess that there would...

Depends on the alternative that was offered. If the 442s were put on the route and terminated at London Bridge or Charing Cross or Blackfriars, I would think that most people would appreciate the improvement. Huge numbers of passengers for the City only go as far as London Bridge and then walk into the City out of choice.

The point about terminating them at St Albans misses the point that there are a lot of stations north of there that aren't served by any EMT services (and do you really want EMT to squeeze all the Luton/ Bedford passengers onto their four/five coach Meridians? Presumably as long as Brighton is okay, that's all that matters?

That is just an argument for longer trains, and as someone pointed out that there was a shortage of capacity at St Pancras (a situation created by the habit of not joining up the thinking), there is the solution.

Everything can be otherwise.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would definitely say a 319 is a huge downgrade from a 421 or similiar

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/52/145208796_daf0c407ac_b.jpg Class 421 interior

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...SO_Internal.JPG/800px-319363_TSO_Internal.JPG Class 319 interior

I know which one I'd rather have...

Brighton passengers were thoroughly annoyed about those trains when they were introduced. The poor design, and the loss of the popular buffet cars, outweighed the benefit of the through service.

The service was also unreliable due to the teething troubles with the trains, which took a long time to fix, and the transfer of delays between two networks which had previously been separated.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Standards have moved on, people expect far better than the current interior especially when compared to a 319. They want proper real time info that gives them updates while they are on the train. The want air con, plugs at every seat. Not to mention tha faster accretion means a real time improvement n jounery times. The jounery time on a class 700 is expect to be atleast 9.5% on current 319 timing. You'll note that almost all Thameslink timings are for 319s expect the 12 car services. That is a large saving of time for anyone. Now do you understand why it's to important in this case to step up to a new generation?

So rather than making statements of 1978 vs 2012 care to actually say why thing haven't improved?

So standing all the way from Brighton isn't enough of a issue to warrant a new generation of trains? Simple fact is they all should have a seat expect in the high peak. Now also you need faster accerlating trains than the current Electrostars/Desiro fleets due to core dwell times. Don't forget that they are expected to 24tph in peak however when things go wrong these trains are to step up to 30toh for a limited period. Not possible with current fleet.

So your comparing the 1950s rail network with today without takinginto account line closures or the rise of the car?

Interesting you mention passengers were well trained, now they refused to be such and require looking after. Fact LUL withdrew its close button feature are people closed doors on others and babies in buggys so that with today's I deserve this, me meme attitude that things are very different. I suspect you are comparing things in isolation when if you step back and look at the bigger picture it's very different.

Complaints yet the service was used? Dont forget the Thameslink 2000 project was being drawn up same time as the core opened. If there was such a hostile reaction as you say, why would it be felt passenger numbers required such a massive upgrade?

I'm not so sure a 319 is a downgrade from a salm door by any men's, however this is personal taste and I've limited experience on them.

You raise an interesting point, the only 12 car southbound in the evening peak for FCC used to have about 20 people on it when it first started in Dec 2011. I saw it last week for a few days and it's busy now. 20-30 people per carriage. One day it even had one local overcrowding in the middle with people standing by the doors.

That not to mention every peak flow 12 car is very heavily loaded with almost full and standing from St Pancras on the intital two.

People want... all the things you listed, most of which are really frills. What they want before that is a comfortable seat rather than having to stand, a reliable heating and ventilation system, which until just a few years ago ruled out air conditioning, a reliable service, a reasonable journey time, and fares that are not outrageous. Clipping 5 minutes off a one hour journey is neither here nor there, especially if people are comfortably seated and can get on with something while they are on the train, whether reading a book, working on their laptop, or boozing in a buffet car.