Some good points but some of them miss the point what a passenger really wants when travelling over 20 minutes on any train.
They want a comfortable seat – that means one they can sit in and do things like read newspapers/books or work their IT.
People will move away from trains if they have to stand beyond 20-25 minutes – I know I have and others have done similar – I’ve been driving into London for the last 8 months because I’d rather do that than stand for 40 minutes. (However I’m moving jobs and the new job doesn’t have parking so it’s back to the trains on Monday but at least its Victoria services which you can often get seats on)
Very true. Seat is the most important thing. You also pick up my point that standards change, something one of the posters seems to have issue with.
People who drive have a choice of environment they travel in. That's why you need updated trains with interiors to help them achieve the kind of jounery they want, ie using a laptop.
I assume the new 700’s have already got planned seating arrangements agreed with Siemens. I’m very disappointed that this is not being made properly public so we can make comments before its too late. As far as I understand from this forum they will have wide door vestibules and narrow 2+2 seating with wide aisles which being 6 ft 3 and broad across the shoulders I know instinctively I will be taking up almost two seats as I do on the current 319’s
Seating plan has been offered by Siemens in accordance with DfT demands on capacity but I've not seen it. It can't be made public before deal is signed as its a business deal. To expect others is unlikely in these conditions.
I'm 5ft 6 but broad shouldered and don't have an issue. Although there is a general issue with population getting bigger yet our loading guage isn't.
What is really required is an arrangement like the 377’s 2+2 wider seating with tables – but with only 6 bays in the centre to allow wider door opening, and an airline set removed at the ends for same purpose. Tip up seats could then be put in the vestibules to use out of London and tipped up in London to allow more standing in the core.
I'm sure when I read the ITT the only request was for 10 tables in each first class end. I suspect that tip up seats would be used in the Core.
The current 319’s are the most uncomfortable trains that I have ever travelled on (I discount 378’s which I hate because they serve a purpose on very short routes). The seats are generally far too small for a normal human being to sit in as they are 3+2 seats with a seat removed. The 3+2 seats are a problem because they are too narrow not because people hate the middle seat – which they do. If that middle seat was a decent width there would be no complaints – unfortunately our railway is not broad gauge – hats off to IKB on that one
I generally only use the 319 on a stopper daily and ont have an issue. That said I also use the a tube without problems as well. But seems your bigger than me and 95% of the people I see travelling daily on the Tubend don't have a problem with the seats.
The 18:27 from London Bridge which is the 12 car southbound Thameslink train is rammed from London Bridge every night from reports I have – but empty in the core. Shows that demand from the core is limited but from London Bridge desperate. I think this will change massively when Crossrail is introduced as many London Bridge and Victoria commuters will use Crossrail to Farringdon rather than London Bridge
Perhaps your also forgetting that in peak most Thamelink trains don't go via London Bridge and I'm sure that's one of the first southbound ones for awhile. Hence the demand. However main peak flow I was referring o is the MML (3 services a day versus 1 for BML in the peak flow).
There is huge demand for Brighton services from the Core. I've know eight cars full and standing by Farringdon. However if your a London Bridge on mutter you won't see this. High peak sees all trains well loaded.
...it kinda refers back to me wanting to fix the poor provision of service to the stations on the MML between the M25 and West Hampstead using the capacity on the freight lines by both increasing tph to all existing stations as well as opening more stations...e.g. Napsbury, Scratchwood Parkway (for the M1), Grahame Park, Silkstream (for the Northern Line) & Minster Road (though obviously, any additional service north of Hendon/Mill Hill requires the lines to be extended to St Albans as originally planned).
That way, Thameslink would just be providing the semi-fast services within the M25, so outer suburban services could call all-stations Bedford to Luton, St Albans, West Hampstead, then the core. Inner suburban services could call all-stations Luton to St Albans, West Hampstead, then the core...and the new service could serve all the metro stations between St Albans and West Hampstead, thence onwards however deemed fit.
By way of illustration here's
an old experiment to plot things out visually...
Most stations see an increasing of tph from 16 today to 18 under Thameslink Programme and your idea for the other services is pretty much what they now expect all stations to St Albans. Missing out Luton Airport Parkway is madness especially as is right next to Luton so EMUs won't be going very fast by this point anyway. Then you Harpenden. Adding more trains with great capacity is better all round.
Note that as well as increased services, every station from Mill Hill Broadway north gets some 12 car services (along with West Hampstead). Current services are. Mix of 4, 8 & 12 cars with various calling patterns, the TLP will give every station an increase of capacity. Extra lines not required.
..but swinging it back on topic, properly segregating the service patterns enables you to have stock that is correctly targeted to the services it is used to provide. By way of example, say a 700/1 designed for outer suburban services could have tables etc. along with some of the non-capacity-detrimental features described in the thread, and would exclusively operate Bedford all stations to Luton, semi fast to Three Bridges, then all station to Brighton. A 700/2 could have no tables, but have more luggage racks as it would be serving both Luton Airport Parkway as well as Gatwick, serving Luton all stations to St. Albans, then semi-fast to Redhill, then all stations to Three Bridges.
Swinging back on target would be talking about the new eight 5 car 377s Southern has announced its ordering with additional 116+100 110mph dual voltage units possibility happening.
Currently we don't know seating plan of all but I can tell you thats not what's going to happen. DfT specified luggage areas on the 12 cars (along with two cycle places).
...if the decision was made to try and slot in a metro service into the core, then a set of 700/3s with longitudinal seating could be built to run all-stations St. Albans to Redhill. I suspect something more appropriate would be used, i.e. 378s operated by LO and not running through the core.
How can you have St Albans to Redhill Core service without running through the Core? Quite frankly this sort of trip would have lots of people travelling over 20mins would like seats. St Albans to London all stations is roughly 30mins and some people have no choice but to use this service.
You also bring up multiple configurations, well that comes at a cost of needing many more units than is planned.
One other thing you seem to fail to notice is the current users want London. There's long standing commuting patterns and some of your ideas stop that or give them inferior opitions.
