Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[bramling]

I can't see those platforms being extended into Moorgate, so the only solution I can think of is a higher service frequency.

I know in the peak you can have a train every five minutes or so, but whether you could increase that frequency further I have no idea.

With the open nature of the trains, no intermediate cabs and wider doors/aisles I do think many of the problems will be eradicated in the short term though. The total number of people that could fit on a 6 car 70n will be far greater than a 6 car 313 - even if most won't be seated.

That's all well and good, except that some journeys from the extremeties of the Hertford line can be quite lengthy. For a journey like Cuffley to Moorgate ideally you would want a seat.

Moorgate will never see Victoria Line frequencies simply because of the track layout and lack of overrun tunnels. Perhaps you could squeeze in a couple of extra tph with stepping back of drivers, but only if you can unload/load the trains (and platforms) quickly. Whatever frequency you achieve into Moorgate has to be shared between Hertford and Welwyn. If Thameslink took over all the Welwyn services Hertford could get a metro-style service, and could be completely segregated from the rest using the additional tracks in the FP to AP area. Welwyn would benefit from an all 8-car service, with only a handful of platforms needing extension, the only difficult one being Brookmans Park and (perhaps) Hornsey. Would only work if the Thameslink destinations provided an alternative to Moorgate however, of if interchange at Finsbury Park could be made to work efficiently.

 

[D365]

If you've used them all your life I am truly amazed you haven't seen them... They're at the ends of the carriages, in standard. Great big things right next to the doors between the carriages.

Well that proves exactly what jonmorris0844 was saying. Something to look out for next time I come down from Peterborough...

 

[jon0844]

Of course ideally you'd want a seat, but I think we need to accept that isn't going to be happening in the peaks. Off peak, it's going to be possible to have a loads of seats to choose from.

Maybe another solution, if many trains currently terminating at KGC will go through the core, will be some trains going into King's Cross from the Hertford Loop?

Already many people from Hertford alight at Finsbury Park (or Highbury & Islington) so another option could be to terminate some trains at FPK and turn them back from there? That could up the frequency, without having to make some very expensive changes to the underground section?

This is all off the top of my head, so I expect someone will be quick to say why neither idea is plausible.

 

[Skimble19]

Well that proves exactly what jonmorris0844 was saying. Something to look out for next time I come down from Peterborough...

Board a Peak service and you might even end up choosing one as a seat.. They're surprisingly comfortable!

 

[jon0844]

Board a Peak service and you might even end up choosing one as a seat.. They're surprisingly comfortable! [emoji38]

That is what they're mostly used for in my experience. I walk through them a lot (board country end at KGX for a seat, alight London end to save a walk) so see just how many people sit there almost every time.

They're a good place, in theory, for luggage as they're not near exists and the chance of theft is minimal, but in reality unless the train is near empty and you're getting off at the end station then on a busy service you're going to struggle to get bags to or from there.

I suppose they're good for the Cambridge express services. Maybe only for them!

 

[deltic08]

So do you think the walk-through design offers more, less or the same level of protection to passengers in a high-speed violent derailment than a conventional design? The issue is not so much about how the design compares to a class 365, but how it might compare to a conventional design. Surely there is no way it could be as safe, in the class 700 those positioned near the ends of the vehicle must be at greater risk of ejection from the vehicle, and from outside objects entering. Thankfully such incidents are rare, but it seems a backwards step especially considering not so long ago there was a desire to eliminate Mk1s as quickly as possible partly due to crashworthiness weaknesses. Even during the lifespan of the class 365 there have been two high-speed (one at 115 mph and one at 100mph) derailments on the section of ECML which will be used by the class 700, which involved separation and roll-over of vehicles.

During a linear or non linear derailment, there is sudden deceleration causing bodies to become projectiles. The more seating there is the more bodies are contained within the seating. Airline seating is better at this than face to face seating in bays. Bodies leave the seats at the speed of the train immediately at the start of deceleration but are contained by the seats after only a short distance and time and decelerate with the seats or staged deceleration if the seat breaks from its fixings.

Those standing are less fortunate as they are catapulted within the coach for a greater length of time impacting after the coach has decelerated considerably. It is this greater deceleration on impact that causes damage not necessarily to organs and skeleton but to the brain within the cranium. With more open gangways, initial containment is even less as bodies can potentially pass from one coach to another for longer time before stopping. It is the length of time before containment that is the critical factor in surviving any crash.

Open gangways at 100mph are bad news in the event of any type of crash.

Seat belts and air bags are designed to be virtually instantaneous in containment for survivability.

Prior to seat belt laws, occupants contained within the car were found dead with little or no fatal injuries except sudden impact and swelling of the brain within a fixed brain space.

Less seating and more standing will lead to potentially more fatalities in a derailment.

This is one time I am glad I live in the North.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is there any indication that the introduction of the 700s will coincide with a recast of the Bedford - London timetable to give a more even spacing of trains in the peaks? Currently its too easy for a fast to catch up with a semi-fast. At Flitwick in the mornings there are two London-bound trains that leave at 07.04 and 07.08, with nothing then until 07.26, 07.40, 07.44 and 07.58. The xx.44 and xx.58 are just a little too late to give a pre-09.00 arrival time for most office workers.

Only six an hour in brand new trains. That's awful. No wonder you are complaining.

This is one time I am glad I live in the North and only have one or two an hour. Actually where I live the service is less than one a year.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I've wondered if some class 700s going to Hertford North wouldn't be more appropriate, providing relief to the chronically overcrowded Moorgate service. I'm not sure how much of an alternative Farringdon, City TL or London Bridge would provide for Moorgate, but it would relieve the worst overcrowding. Needless to say some Peterborough or Cambridge services would go to KX instead and be formed of 12-car 365 or 377.

A very sensible suggestion and why can't some Bed-Pan services terminate at St Pancras? Only 24tph through the core is very limiting.

If Crossrail can be built, why can't stations to Moorgate be lengthened? Money doesn't appear to be a problem as far as London commuters are concerned. Again there is a limit to capacity on the GN if frequency is increased.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That is what they're mostly used for in my experience. I walk through them a lot (board country end at KGX for a seat, alight London end to save a walk) so see just how many people sit there almost every time.

Do you mean alight London end to save time (unless you can levitate or the brakes on 365s are exceptionally good, leaves on the line season excepted)?

 

[jon0844]

To save a walk at Hatfield because the train stops so far down the platform, and save time - which can make the difference between getting a bus/taxi or not. I can do the walking on the train. (not sure why I needed to explain that?!)

 

[DerekC]

During a linear or non linear derailment, there is sudden deceleration causing bodies to become projectiles. The more seating there is the more bodies are contained within the seating. Airline seating is better at this than face to face seating in bays. Bodies leave the seats at the speed of the train immediately at the start of deceleration but are contained by the seats after only a short distance and time and decelerate with the seats or staged deceleration if the seat breaks from its fixings.

Those standing are less fortunate as they are catapulted within the coach for a greater length of time impacting after the coach has decelerated considerably. It is this greater deceleration on impact that causes damage not necessarily to organs and skeleton but to the brain within the cranium. With more open gangways, initial containment is even less as bodies can potentially pass from one coach to another for longer time before stopping. It is the length of time before containment that is the critical factor in surviving any crash.

Open gangways at 100mph are bad news in the event of any type of crash.

Seat belts and air bags are designed to be virtually instantaneous in containment for survivability.

Prior to seat belt laws, occupants contained within the car were found dead with little or no fatal injuries except sudden impact and swelling of the brain within a fixed brain space.

Less seating and more standing will lead to potentially more fatalities in a derailment.

This is one time I am glad I live in the North.

According to the RSSB safety performance report for 2014/2015 railways are 4x safer than bus and 22x safer than car. The number of passenger equivalent fatalities in derailments and collisions is around 1 per year and has been for nearly a decade. There is never room for complacency, but don't try to squeeze out improvements (and open wide gangways are an improvement from many points of view) by bringing in theoretical safety arguments about crashes which might happen in your imagination.

 

[AM9]

Less seating and more standing will lead to potentially more fatalities in a derailment.

OK, so let's stop all standing on trains. All Eurostar trains are seated passengers only, so are all aircraft. Maybe using toilets and catering facilities should only be allowed when trains are standing in stations. What a negative argument you proffer.
If you personally don't like the risk, then don't use trains. Try your luck sitting and belted in your car (if you drive). There's a much higher risk there.

 

[bramling]

According to the RSSB safety performance report for 2014/2015 railways are 4x safer than bus and 22x safer than car. The number of passenger equivalent fatalities in derailments and collisions is around 1 per year and has been for nearly a decade. There is never room for complacency, but don't try to squeeze out improvements (and open wide gangways are an improvement from many points of view) by bringing in theoretical safety arguments about crashes which might happen in your imagination.

Given that I was due to travel out of KX on the afternoons of both Hatfield and Potters Bar, on the day of the latter I was intending to be on the 1351 out of KX (1hr 7mins after the one which derailed) I'd say the risk is non-zero. I know it's minimal and it wouldn't stop me travelling, but on balance I'd prefer not to be on a walk-through train. This is, of course, on top of all the other negative attributes of the class 700s, and TLP in general.

I certainly would prefer not to be flying through the air at 100mph with bits of OHLE free to enter the carriage taking out anything in their path.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I certainly would prefer not to be flying through the air at 100mph with bits of OHLE free to enter the carriage taking out anything in their path.

You've failed to explain how the OLE will be entering the carriage.

The worst I've seen with OLE was Hatfield where the buffet car hit one of the masts.

We did have an incident a few years back with a Class 365, where bits of OLE entered the train via a broken window, but that was a seriously freaky incident due to pan deflection being much worse than we had anticipated on already compromised OLE.

I can't say I've seen or heard of any other incidents where OLE has entered the carriage through cab end gangway doors, inter-vehicle gangways or any other way which would make the Class 700s more dangerous.

 

[Skimble19]

To save a walk at Hatfield because the train stops so far down the platform, and save time - which can make the difference between getting a bus/taxi or not. I can do the walking on the train. (not sure why I needed to explain that?!)

I know this is somewhat off topic, but if you're doing this on an 8 car service please don't walk right back to the rear 2 coaches as there are already far too many people doing that to "save the walk". Unfortunately all they're doing is wasting their time as it takes longer to get off the train than walk down the platform, and they're just risking getting stuck on until Welwyn Garden City..

 

[jon0844]

I know this is somewhat off topic, but if you're doing this on an 8 car service please don't walk right back to the rear 2 coaches as there are already far too many people doing that to "save the walk". Unfortunately all they're doing is wasting their time as it takes longer to get off the train than walk down the platform, and they're just risking getting stuck on until Welwyn Garden City..

I do stop sooner if it's busy!

 

[Domh245]

A very sensible suggestion and why can't some Bed-Pan services terminate at St Pancras? Only 24tph through the core is very limiting.

If Crossrail can be built, why can't stations to Moorgate be lengthened? Money doesn't appear to be a problem as far as London commuters are concerned. Again there is a limit to capacity on the GN if frequency is increased.

There are 4 platforms for MML traffic at St Pancras. You would be very hard pressed to fit more terminating services in there between the current EMT services. That may change post electrification, if the Corby services become a semi-fast service calling at the larger stations.

As for Moorgate. Money may not be a problem (in your eyes) but the problem is that it is a live railway, and as such you can only work on it for short periods of time, or take an extended blockade and irritate all the passengers. The easy part would be installing more platform, the hard part is creating the room to install it in.

 

[jon0844]

If you asked every commuter to chip away at the end of the platform each day, you could easily extend the tunnels! And at little to no cost.

Then you could potentially run 10 car 442s down there....

 

[JamesT]

Open gangways at 100mph are bad news in the event of any type of crash.

Seat belts and air bags are designed to be virtually instantaneous in containment for survivability.

Prior to seat belt laws, occupants contained within the car were found dead with little or no fatal injuries except sudden impact and swelling of the brain within a fixed brain space.

Less seating and more standing will lead to potentially more fatalities in a derailment.

I'm sure I remember seeing reports of a study that claimed you were safer standing in a crowded train as you'd merely squash up against other soft humans.

The RSSB have looked at seatbelts and believe they would result in more injuries http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/study-says-no-to-seat-belts-on-trains.html

 

[jon0844]

Seat belts just aren't going to happen.

Belts on a plane are more for keeping you seated during takeoff and landing, or through turbulence than protecting you in an accident.

They're essential on the road as there are many risks of collision that are outside of your control. Not so with a train, except perhaps at level crossings.

Even an emergency stop on a train isn't that fast you'd likely benefit from a belt.

 

[southern442]

Seat belts just aren't going to happen.

Belts on a plane are more for keeping you seated during takeoff and landing, or through turbulence than protecting you in an accident.

They're essential on the road as there are many risks of collision that are outside of your control. Not so with a train, except perhaps at level crossings.

Even an emergency stop on a train isn't that fast you'd likely benefit from a belt.

Plus there would still be standees so it wouldn't be at all logical.

 

[AM9]

Plus there would still be standees so it wouldn't be at all logical.

Maybe they should install those ridiculous standing bays that Mr O'Leary toyed with. There is plenty of standing space on the 700s.

 

[The Box Photter]

As Deltic08 said : "Only six an hour in brand new trains. That's awful. No wonder you are complaining.

This is one time I am glad I live in the North and only have one or two an hour. Actually where I live the service is less than one a year."


Its no good having six trains an hour if two of them leave within four minutes of each other and one is usually delayed by the other. A major factor in delays to Thameslink trains and limits the number of paths available is the equally unreliable EMT service. The 07.30 train from Bedford into London is regularly delayed because a southbound EMT HST is running late. The HST carries fewer passengers than the Thameslink train it is delaying and yet is given priority. In a sane world, surely it should be the other way round.

Even six trains per hour is nowhere near 24 trains per hour that seems to be the only selling point of these new trains. It just goes to show that 24 tph is meaningless unless your journey starts at St Pancras and ends at Blackfriars or vice versa.

The Thameslink media machine was so inept at putting across its message that The Brighton Argus newspaper published an article promising Brighton passengers they wouldn't need a timetable, they'd just have to turn up and get on one of the trains that would be departing every two and a half minutes for London.

My opinion remains that cramming 24 tph through the core is of use to very few and likely to be a massive problem for most. The infrastructure is unable to cope now and the timetable goes tits up even if a single train has a technical fault or a driver fails to respond to their alarm clock in the morning.

If everything works out of the box and if by some miracle there aren't multiple signal/points failures in 1930s 3rd-rail land, I'll be the first on this forum lauding the magnificent foresight of the powers that be and the mighty god Siemens. ---- but don't hold your breath.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Maybe they should install those ridiculous standing bays that Mr O'Leary toyed with. There is plenty of standing space on the 700s.

Don't give them ideas!

 

[DerekC]

. Then you could potentially run 10 car 442s down there....

Hmm - might have problems with gauge clearance, though.

I have a feeling we are wandering way off the point of the thread.

 

[deltic08]

According to the RSSB safety performance report for 2014/2015 railways are 4x safer than bus and 22x safer than car. The number of passenger equivalent fatalities in derailments and collisions is around 1 per year and has been for nearly a decade. There is never room for complacency, but don't try to squeeze out improvements (and open wide gangways are an improvement from many points of view) by bringing in theoretical safety arguments about crashes which might happen in your imagination.

I think you should be careful what you say. You can prove anything with statistics.

I worked for two years in the aircraft industry analysing survivability in a crash and know just a little about the subject.

If you look at fatalities/passenger miles, air travel is safer than rail but when there is an air crash there are very few survivors due to impact and sudden deceleration. These are passengers who would normally be strapped into seats.

It is not unknown that passengers are found outside the body of an aircraft after impact walking around when those contained within the aircraft are fatally injured where there has been no fire. Statistically these passengers have been at the back of the aircraft at the point where the tail section fractures away from the main body. This is because their deceleration was slower or staged and survivable.

I attended a crash site one day where all passengers and crew had been thrown clear of the disintegrated body. All passengers and crew, except the pilot, were still strapped in their seats when found many yards away from the impact point but had been stopped in their progress by a stone wall at the end of the field the aircraft crashed into.

One passenger had stopped only feet from the wall and initially survived. His deceleration was controlled enough to survive a crash. Had it not been for the wall others may have survived the impact also.

If a train derails and hits an overbridge abutment, even if the deceleration is survivable for seated passengers, injuries to standing passengers will most likely be fatal from unrestrained bodies being catapulted into others at the speed of the train like billiard balls. More passengers will survive at the back of the train due to crushability of front coaches as is now built into the front of cars to allow controlled deceleration.

The more standing passengers the more potential fatalities. There is a Law of Physics where the more particles there are in a contained gas, the more likely they are to collide. If the temperature of the gas is raised this increases the likelihood of collision. Was it one of Boyle/s Laws? The higher the speed of the train the more likely standing passengers will collide with others in a derailment.

 

[AM9]

The bottom line is that there is no such thing as risk-free travel. In the grand scheme of things, rail travel trumps most others as a part of normal human travel experiences. As has been covered in this thread several times (and the original thread for class 700s) the class 700s as a key part of the Thameslink Programme have been specified, designed and are being deployed as a solution for the predicted levels of passenger traffic over the next 30+ years. Within the bounds of acceptable capital expenditure, the infrastructure will be resilient and streamlined commensurate with the demands of other routes and services. The trains will represent a major increase in capacity, and by the open design of the trains, every assitance is provided to ensure that space is effectively used.
Despite some posters here envisaging their personal comforts that they currently enjoy disappearing or being changed, the probability is that compared to what would happen if conventional outer suburban stock that they espouse, was deployed, the maximised capacity of the class 700 style of train will be the only game in town to deal future high passenger densities.
The alternative to this would be that passengers, given the severe overloading that conventional stock would soon suffer would:

take to the roads, increasing road traffic levels, along with pollution and inevitably, traffic injuries and deaths
or
be unable to travel to their current jobs and maybe not be able to find suitable employment, (some may see this as a price to pay in reducing the London-centric nature of the UK economy but that is the subject of another discussion)​

Debating the finer points of 'what-if this collision' or 'that derailment' occurred is largely irrelevant. The design has been tested and approved and deliveries of series production equipment are now running on their intended tracks. When the full service starts, passengers will just board, travel and alight, and if they do give any consideration of the worse-case scenario, they will just accept the very small risk as part of life's myriad experiences.
Meanwhile, some nay-sayers here will continue posting point-scoring factoids about imagined future risks and 'operational meltdowns' to assuage their sense of loss at the reduced number of seats, the lack of table, the lack of power outlets and of course the lack of alignment of some seats with windows.

 

[deltic08]

The bottom line is that there is no such thing as risk-free travel. In the grand scheme of things, rail travel trumps most others as a part of normal human travel experiences. As has been covered in this thread several times (and the original thread for class 700s) the class 700s as a key part of the Thameslink Programme have been specified, designed and are being deployed as a solution for the predicted levels of passenger traffic over the next 30+ years. Within the bounds of acceptable capital expenditure, the infrastructure will be resilient and streamlined commensurate with the demands of other routes and services. The trains will represent a major increase in capacity, and by the open design of the trains, every assitance is provided to ensure that space is effectively used.
Despite some posters here envisaging their personal comforts that they currently enjoy disappearing or being changed, the probability is that compared to what would happen if conventional outer suburban stock that they espouse, was deployed, the maximised capacity of the class 700 style of train will be the only game in town to deal future high passenger densities.
The alternative to this would be that passengers, given the severe overloading that conventional stock would soon suffer would:

take to the roads, increasing road traffic levels, along with pollution and inevitably, traffic injuries and deaths
or
be unable to travel to their current jobs and maybe not be able to find suitable employment, (some may see this as a price to pay in reducing the London-centric nature of the UK economy but that is the subject of another discussion)​

Debating the finer points of 'what-if this collision' or 'that derailment' occurred is largely irrelevant. The design has been tested and approved and deliveries of series production equipment are now running on their intended tracks. When the full service starts, passengers will just board, travel and alight, and if they do give any consideration of the worse-case scenario, they will just accept the very small risk as part of life's myriad experiences.
Meanwhile, some nay-sayers here will continue posting point-scoring factoids about imagined future risks and 'operational meltdowns' to assuage their sense of loss at the reduced number of seats, the lack of table, the lack of power outlets and of course the lack of alignment of some seats with windows.

I much prefer travelling by train than any other mode including car but Government and TOCs are making it harder and harder for me personally as most of my journeys are last minute impulse journeys. Turn-up-and-go fares are now unaffordable apart from Day Returns.

Club 55 and the like are brilliant where the offer is current as the return journey can be up to a month later but everyone I have used so far have been out and back the same day. Thirsk-Leeds-Manchester-Carlisle and return for £17 standard or £31 First including food and drink with a railcard.

 

[bramling]

The bottom line is that there is no such thing as risk-free travel. In the grand scheme of things, rail travel trumps most others as a part of normal human travel experiences. As has been covered in this thread several times (and the original thread for class 700s) the class 700s as a key part of the Thameslink Programme have been specified, designed and are being deployed as a solution for the predicted levels of passenger traffic over the next 30+ years. Within the bounds of acceptable capital expenditure, the infrastructure will be resilient and streamlined commensurate with the demands of other routes and services. The trains will represent a major increase in capacity, and by the open design of the trains, every assitance is provided to ensure that space is effectively used.
Despite some posters here envisaging their personal comforts that they currently enjoy disappearing or being changed, the probability is that compared to what would happen if conventional outer suburban stock that they espouse, was deployed, the maximised capacity of the class 700 style of train will be the only game in town to deal future high passenger densities.
The alternative to this would be that passengers, given the severe overloading that conventional stock would soon suffer would:

take to the roads, increasing road traffic levels, along with pollution and inevitably, traffic injuries and deaths
or
be unable to travel to their current jobs and maybe not be able to find suitable employment, (some may see this as a price to pay in reducing the London-centric nature of the UK economy but that is the subject of another discussion)​

Debating the finer points of 'what-if this collision' or 'that derailment' occurred is largely irrelevant. The design has been tested and approved and deliveries of series production equipment are now running on their intended tracks. When the full service starts, passengers will just board, travel and alight, and if they do give any consideration of the worse-case scenario, they will just accept the very small risk as part of life's myriad experiences.
Meanwhile, some nay-sayers here will continue posting point-scoring factoids about imagined future risks and 'operational meltdowns' to assuage their sense of loss at the reduced number of seats, the lack of table, the lack of power outlets and of course the lack of alignment of some seats with windows.

What passengers want is their train to arrive on time, each time they travel, and to complete the journey as per the timetable. What they won't want is unpredictable waits at places like St Pancras because the train has been delayed on route from somewhere like Brighton, nor running on signal checks because the delayed train has caught up with something else - or conversely is delaying another service behind so causing delays elsewhere. My experience of Z years using Thameslink was this was the regular experience. Some works at London Bridge and Blackfriars isn't going to go far to resolving this. Adding over 50 miles (plus branches) of congested and generally unreliable railway to a section of congested but generally reliable railway (GN) is a proven road to problems, as today's Thameslink service shows.

As it happens I spent some time at King's Cross yesterday during the evening peak. Virtually every evening peak down service left with at least some spare seats, some trains left with only a few people in those cars furthest from the barriers, and the main trainshed could be seen with some 8-car trains, as well as some 5-car (Hull Trains). There is plenty of scope for today's service to be retained and extended to 12-car as far as possible - should any further growth provision be required then Thameslink could quite happily be superimposed on top of that should no other better solution be available.

Meanwhile the Moorgate service continues to see crush loading with not much relief in prospect - a bit of extra space on the new trains in place of unused middle cabs, otherwise the only 'improvement' here will be standing space in place of seating.

 

[The Box Photter]

The bottom line is that there is no such thing as risk-free travel. In the grand scheme of things, rail travel trumps most others as a part of normal human travel experiences. As has been covered in this thread several times (and the original thread for class 700s) the class 700s as a key part of the Thameslink Programme have been specified, designed and are being deployed as a solution for the predicted levels of passenger traffic over the next 30+ years. Within the bounds of acceptable capital expenditure, the infrastructure will be resilient and streamlined commensurate with the demands of other routes and services. The trains will represent a major increase in capacity, and by the open design of the trains, every assitance is provided to ensure that space is effectively used.
Despite some posters here envisaging their personal comforts that they currently enjoy disappearing or being changed, the probability is that compared to what would happen if conventional outer suburban stock that they espouse, was deployed, the maximised capacity of the class 700 style of train will be the only game in town to deal future high passenger densities.
The alternative to this would be that passengers, given the severe overloading that conventional stock would soon suffer would:

take to the roads, increasing road traffic levels, along with pollution and inevitably, traffic injuries and deaths
or
be unable to travel to their current jobs and maybe not be able to find suitable employment, (some may see this as a price to pay in reducing the London-centric nature of the UK economy but that is the subject of another discussion)​

Debating the finer points of 'what-if this collision' or 'that derailment' occurred is largely irrelevant. The design has been tested and approved and deliveries of series production equipment are now running on their intended tracks. When the full service starts, passengers will just board, travel and alight, and if they do give any consideration of the worse-case scenario, they will just accept the very small risk as part of life's myriad experiences.
Meanwhile, some nay-sayers here will continue posting point-scoring factoids about imagined future risks and 'operational meltdowns' to assuage their sense of loss at the reduced number of seats, the lack of table, the lack of power outlets and of course the lack of alignment of some seats with windows.

Are you suggesting that the only valid opinions in this forum thread are those that agree with yours?

I though the whole point of a thread discussion is to allow a reasoned debate between people who might have differing views. You seek at all points to deflect criticism of the Class 700 and the Thameslink project by declaring those criticisms as unreal, unimportant and unreasonable.

My view, which is as valid as yours, is that the needs of those passengers who will be using the trains for the longest journeys, have no alternative means of travel and who pay the highest in fares are being sacrificed on the altar of operational convenience and to pander to the perceived needs of those people who use the trains for the shortest time, pay the lowest fares and have viable alternative methods of reaching their destinations.

 

[bramling]

Are you suggesting that the only valid opinions in this forum thread are those that agree with yours?

I though the whole point of a thread discussion is to allow a reasoned debate between people who might have differing views. You seek at all points to deflect criticism of the Class 700 and the Thameslink project by declaring those criticisms as unreal, unimportant and unreasonable.

My view, which is as valid as yours, is that the needs of those passengers who will be using the trains for the longest journeys, have no alternative means of travel and who pay the highest in fares are being sacrificed on the altar of operational convenience and to pander to the perceived needs of those people who use the trains for the shortest time, pay the lowest fares and have viable alternative methods of reaching their destinations.

It's quite apparent that any criticism of the Thameslink Programme in general seems to be skewed into one or both of "You don't like the new trains" or "Thameslink is needed as a means of providing for growth"

Although the new trains are pretty undesirable, they're just one unpleasant element of the wider issue.

All I've heard in response to numerous very real and valid questions to how the proposed timetable will work in reality is basically "It will work". Today's Thameslink is unreliable, and all I see is the Thameslink Programme spreading this further, more and wider. No amount of timetable modelling resolves the issue about what will happen if two trains with different stopping patterns are trying to share the same track, Thameslink by its very nature greatly increases the likelihood of this scenario happening, more regularly than today.

For all the talk about providing extra capacity, Thameslink Programme will still have 8-car trains running around in the peaks, not a good use of valuable paths, whilst the mainstay of the GN inner-suburban service will still be 6-car.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

It's quite apparent that any criticism of the Thameslink Programme in general seems to be skewed into one or both of "You don't like the new trains" or "Thameslink is needed as a means of providing for growth"

Although the new trains are pretty undesirable, they're just one unpleasant element of the wider issue.

All I've heard in response to numerous very real and valid questions to how the proposed timetable will work in reality is basically "It will work". Today's Thameslink is unreliable, and all I see is the Thameslink Programme spreading this further, more and wider. No amount of timetable modelling resolves the issue about what will happen if two trains with different stopping patterns are trying to share the same track, Thameslink by its very nature greatly increases the likelihood of this scenario happening, more regularly than today.

For all the talk about providing extra capacity, Thameslink Programme will still have 8-car trains running around in the peaks, not a good use of valuable paths, whilst the mainstay of the GN inner-suburban service will still be 6-car.

I have to disagree with almost all of that.

The trains are good, they could maybe do with some better seats, but that's personal preference and one which I've no problem with.

ThamesLink today is unreliable because it's in the middle of an expensive upgrade, and when that construction work switches to full operational mode, an enormous number of man hours can be re-devoted to fettling with point motors, ensuring signalling systems are running reliably, minimising the causes of tiny delays.

There are electrification upgrades on the way too, which will further enhance reliability and resilience, as you may be aware of the L2E4 and NR's ongoing headspan elimination efforts.

Timetable modelling is exactly what's done to figure out what to do when two trains arrive at the same time - if you have a lateness window beyond which a train is cancelled and put back into the system at an optimum time, the timetable modelling isn't unduly complex for a decent computer cluster, it's possible to decide today and to keep updating that data in future, what train to take priority and what stops or services to alter to return to right time running.

We are some years beyond traffic controllers sitting in front of a bank of telephones, writing times up/down in chalk on a blackboard. Things are advanced out there and can cope with an intensive railway of this nature. What passengers will see as enormous disruption is what we know to be the best case scenario, 9 times out of 10.

Train length is unavoidable, but running 2 8 car services in quick succession is a better use of paths than running 1 12 car service with SDO and wasting another two paths (so using 3 paths in total) because of enormous dwell times at each station. If the money was there, more stations could be made 12 car compatible, but it's difficult in central London, not just because it's expensive, but without destroying an operational railway entirely, it's sometimes impossible.

I also worry people get too hung up about train length and fail to really look at total capacity. 25 x 6 car units coming in to replace 44 x 3 car units - more stock with more capacity which is more reliable and has better availability, what more do people want from a TOC ?

Anyway, enough of why I think you're wrong, how would YOU run ThamesLink ?

 

[jon0844]

Personally, as someone who sees issues when things go wrong that will mess up far more people than currently, I'd have built four low level platforms at St Pancras. You might even have considered a big rebuild at Farringdon to make the platform wider the whole length. Huge cost, load of logistical issues and so on for sure - but that's still what I'd have done.

I can say that as I'm not in a position to do it! Nevertheless, St Pancras is going to be a nightmare at times and I suspect human factors will play a big role in causing further knock-on effects.

I know this thread is about the rolling stock, but I do think some of the issues relevant to the train design are because of the infrastructure.

If the core didn't present such a chance of near disaster, I'm sure the configuration of the trains could have been a bit different. However, they're fine for what exists.

 

[bramling]

I have to disagree with almost all of that.

The trains are good, they could maybe do with some better seats, but that's personal preference and one which I've no problem with.

ThamesLink today is unreliable because it's in the middle of an expensive upgrade, and when that construction work switches to full operational mode, an enormous number of man hours can be re-devoted to fettling with point motors, ensuring signalling systems are running reliably, minimising the causes of tiny delays.

There are electrification upgrades on the way too, which will further enhance reliability and resilience, as you may be aware of the L2E4 and NR's ongoing headspan elimination efforts.

Timetable modelling is exactly what's done to figure out what to do when two trains arrive at the same time - if you have a lateness window beyond which a train is cancelled and put back into the system at an optimum time, the timetable modelling isn't unduly complex for a decent computer cluster, it's possible to decide today and to keep updating that data in future, what train to take priority and what stops or services to alter to return to right time running.

We are some years beyond traffic controllers sitting in front of a bank of telephones, writing times up/down in chalk on a blackboard. Things are advanced out there and can cope with an intensive railway of this nature. What passengers will see as enormous disruption is what we know to be the best case scenario, 9 times out of 10.

Train length is unavoidable, but running 2 8 car services in quick succession is a better use of paths than running 1 12 car service with SDO and wasting another two paths (so using 3 paths in total) because of enormous dwell times at each station. If the money was there, more stations could be made 12 car compatible, but it's difficult in central London, not just because it's expensive, but without destroying an operational railway entirely, it's sometimes impossible.

I also worry people get too hung up about train length and fail to really look at total capacity. 25 x 6 car units coming in to replace 44 x 3 car units - more stock with more capacity which is more reliable and has better availability, what more do people want from a TOC ?

Anyway, enough of why I think you're wrong, how would YOU run ThamesLink ?

Ok, first priority is to get Thameslink off the Cambridge branch. The double-track railway is vulnerable to severe delay is things go off book, and Cambridge already has a link to the city in the form of Liverpool Street.

So replace 2tph Cam to Horsham with 2tph Cam to KX, made up of either 365 or 377. One would call at all stations north of Stevenage, the other at Hitchin Letchworth Baldock and Royston. There is no need for 6tph on the Cambridge branch, and although the small stations would now get an hourly service (as today) this would be compensated by having fast trains to London for the first time. Also the whole service could be made 12-car, rather than having half the service made up of wasteful 8-cars. The platform extensions I believe are happening anyway, extra length to 12-cars should not be an issue.

Keep Thameslink to Peterborough, and run the peak extras from Thameslink too. This avoids having the awkward split as currently proposed.

Run the Tattenham Corner service as planned, but terminate at Letchworth, providing a good connection with at least some of the other services if possible. A central turnback siding could easily be provided at Letchworth at minimum cost, or even better remodel the platforms to provide a central turnback platform (I think this is feasible here but not totally sure). Ideally look to running these as 12-cars to maximise value through the Welwyn bottleneck, so perhaps these would be best going to Horsham. Platform extensions required at Knebworth, Welwyn N, Welwyn GC, Hatfield and Potters Bar. Of those I think only Welwyn GC is awkward.

The rest of the Thameslink service should be all-stations to Welwyn Garden City, minimising the risk of imported delays spreading, as it would be a simple case of meshing in with any remaining all-stations Moorgate trains.

Divert as many Welwyn to Moorgate trains to Hertford to provide extra capacity on this busy route.

In the peaks run extra services as required, with a mix between KX and Thameslink services- avoiding Thameslink beyond Letchworth.

I'd also stop the fast Cambridge/KL trains one each at Royston and Letchworth off-peak.

The above would cure many of the reliability worries, and reduce the amount of inappropriate class 700 use.