Why are the Class 700s so terrible?

[radamfi]

Also, why are rail passengers increasing so much? Why did they shoot up after privatisation? You see people complaining about privatised railways and saying they are too expensive to use, yet the numbers are going up.

There has been significant growth in city centre employment and leisure activity in the last 20 years, especially London. Up to the 80s, cities were declining with people moving to suburban areas. Young people are not as interested in driving as previous generations.

 

[bILLOO]

The cabs look really comfy, which is all that matters to me...

 

[Minstral25]

Because in order that the core and it's feeder lines can carry the current required peak load and have any chance of carrying the projected increase in traffic, a train with ver specific characteristics is essential. these include:
1) uniform high performance with nimble acceleration in order to use tight paths between inter-city and other fast outer suburban services
2) ability to run 2.5 minute headways in the core with 40 second dwells
3) adequate seated capacity for quite intensive loading between the peaks
4) enough total capacity including standing to cope safely with peak crush-loads
5) compliant with all accessibility requirements even with standing passengers
6) low track loading to reduce core infrastructure maintenance
7) high energy efficiency
8) high reliability/availability (see Bald Rick's post #18

None of the above was achievable with the 319s and there weren't enough of them to provide a full service anyway.

There are some very good reasons and I'd agree with most except 3 & 4.

The wide doors and extra space at the lobby are very good but there is no need to have such narrow seats through the cabin.

The seats are hard - well that is not preferable but acceptable.

The seat pitch when aligned with the narrowness is quite frankly stupid. Personally I can't fit my knees in the seat pitch so effectively the only seats that I can fit in are the non-airline ones. There are so few of them and they are always taken it means standing for 40 minutes even on a half empty train. These trains are discriminatory against tall and large people by the size of seating.

Also the wide aisle gives little to hold onto - whilst in the core at low speeds that won't be a problem, but when bouncing around crossing Stoats Nest at 75-90 mph people are going to be thrown around with nothing to hold onto. That gives me concern about suitability.

On top of that we used to have 12 coach 377's with 754 seats to London Bridge but now we only get 666 and no extra services.

I do think they are good trains let down by poor seating on a route that average journeys are around 40-60 minutes. They are not mostly metro trains as many keep saying they running on routes that are for outer suburban/regional trains.

Then again my view has always been that Thameslink should be the inner London services and main line trains to Brighton/Peterborough should start at the terminals.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I thought the 700s on Thameslink have normal seats

They do

Are they fitting longitudinal ones?

Not as far as I know.

____________________________________________________________________________

Why are the Class 700s so terrible?

They're not.

 

[AM9]

There are some very good reasons and I'd agree with most except 3 & 4.

The wide doors and extra space at the lobby are very good but there is no need to have such narrow seats through the cabin.

The seats are the same width as those fitted in Electrostar 3+2 layouts

The seat pitch when aligned with the narrowness is quite frankly stupid. Personally I can't fit my knees in the seat pitch so effectively the only seats that I can fit in are the non-airline ones. There are so few of them and they are always taken it means standing for 40 minutes even on a half empty train. These trains are discriminatory against tall and large people by the size of seating.

As with any public transport vehicle, seat pitch is a compromise between the number of seats that can be accommodated and some individual's personal preference. The guideline on Thameslink trains appears to have been that overall capacity is the first priority as the routes on which they run preclude additional paths for trains with more generous seating space.

Also the wide aisle gives little to hold onto - whilst in the core at low speeds that won't be a problem, but when bouncing around crossing Stoats Nest at 75-90 mph people are going to be thrown around with nothing to hold onto. That gives me concern about suitability.

Thameslink North has it's share of track with poor riding characteristics that gave the Electrostars and 319s problems at 100mph. The class 700s ride these spots far better than both their predecessors. I've been on fully loaded trains and passengers seem to manage OK with the vertical rails and the dual handled seat back grabs. There are no fewer hold points than their predecessors, - it's just that there is more room to stand between them. Bear in mind that the times when there are the most standing passengers are generally when most of those passengers are well experienced travellers who seem to cope well with such movement there is.

On top of that we used to have 12 coach 377's with 754 seats to London Bridge but now we only get 666 and no extra services.

Throughout the period of 754 seat Electrostars on all sections of the Thameslink network, there were constant complaints (here and among commuter groups) about 3+2 seating and the very poor conditions for those who had to stand. Indeed, frequently the centre seats were left unoccupied. Although the seating on the interim class 387 received praise from some (mainly those who normally boarded before all the seats were taken), those trains offered no more seats than the class 700s and they still struggled with not many more standees than a 3+2 seating train could accommodate.

I do think they are good trains let down by poor seating on a route that average journeys are around 40-60 minutes. They are not mostly metro trains as many keep saying they running on routes that are for outer suburban/regional trains.

The average journey time on Thameslink trains is 25 minutes, a figure that might reduce slightly when the full service is introduced. As I intimated above, there are compromises with all public transport which is required to provide service to all travellers.

Then again my view has always been that Thameslink should be the inner London services and main line trains to Brighton/Peterborough should start at the terminals.

There isn't the capacity for turning round an additional 16 trains per hour across the three terminals south of London or the two north of London. In addition, since 1989, there is a considerable demand for direct travel to the stations in the City of London from outer suburban residential areas without the inefficient changing to tube services.

 

[dk1]

The cabs look really comfy, which is all that matters to me...

That's what I'm hearing about the Stadler units for GA. Some complementary remarks about the buffet area but lots of negative about much of the interior layout. My seat at the front however has apparently got the wow factor so I'm going to be fine & dandy

 

[A0]

Having used a couple of 700s between Farringdon and Bedford - I think they ride pretty well and the general passenger environment is pretty good, much nicer than the 319s.

I find the seats too narrow and butted up too close to the walls - which really limits shoulder room. They feel worse than the 387s or the 350s on the Euston line in that respect. But either way, they're miles better than the 319s and the extra standing room makes them feel far less crowded than the 319s did.

 

[ComUtoR]

The cabs look really comfy, which is all that matters to me...

Failure rate
Driver interface
Ability to rectify faults
Braking capability
Low adhesion performance
Winter performance
Location of MCB/Isolation cocks
Location of emergency equipment
Location of toilets
Equipment quality
Schedule clip
...

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Failure rate
Driver interface
Ability to rectify faults
Braking capability
Low adhesion performance
Winter performance
Location of MCB/Isolation cocks
Location of emergency equipment
Location of toilets
Equipment quality
Schedule clip
...

Are drivers allowed to do any fault finding at all or do they have to always contact the fitters, even if they're sure they know what has gone wrong/failed?

 

[nlogax]

From the passenger perspective, I don't understand the anti-700 sentiment. They're comfortable enough for up to an hour of cross-London hop, they're functional, they're quiet and they do the job with the minimum of fuss. Plus they make 319s feel like narrow-doored, lurching antiques.

Of course that's only half the point. It's enlightening to hear the opinion of drivers - sounds like a very different and unsatisfactory deal when up front in the cabs.

 

[radamfi]

Given such a large standing area, these trains seem ideal for using a portable chair or stool. Has anyone got any suggestions of suitable portable chairs that could be carried or wheeled around?

 

[MCR247]

anybody with an ounce of a bad back will struggle with the seats with its poor cushioning.



They are also too close together and too close to the wall

Why is it that as soon as there is a seat that is disliked by the forum everyone suddenly ‘cares’ about people with back problems and proceeds to state that they’ll be bad for those people as if it somehow gives their rubbish opinion more clout?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Some people with back problems prefer a supportive, rigid seat, in any case.

 

[hwl]

Some people with back problems prefer a supportive, rigid seat, in any case.

Indeed I do. The modern more upright firmer seats are far better.

 

[ooo]

The wide aisle makes it very easy to walk down the train meaning it is possible to easily pull a suitcase without any worry of hitting the seats. It also means you can easily walk past people standing if there isn't too many

 

[RichJF]

It's all relative in the great scheme of things.

For me: Massive improvement over 319s (cramped & no aircon/effective heating), downgrade on 377's (less comfy seats and I prefer the corridor coaches to walkthrough).

 

[Kite159]

It's all relative in the great scheme of things.

For me: Massive improvement over 319s (cramped & no aircon/effective heating), downgrade on 377's (less comfy seats and I prefer the corridor coaches to walkthrough).

Depends which coach on the 377. Downgrade on the 2+2 end coaches with tables, improvement on the 3+2 middle coaches.

 

[mmh]

The only good part about the seats is that they are taller so it could be better for short journeys but for long journeys they are terrible. I also don't understand why there are less seats. The trains are 12 cars long and tph is being increased so what's the point of less seats? I think that the faster Bedford trains should have more and more comfortable seats installed at least. I think I'm one of few people who prefer the old 319s. Just couple 3 together and the problem is sorted. And why are seats getting harder and harder with newer trains? What's so hard and expensive about installing soft seats? Peasants in 3rd class a century ago had more comfortable seats. Next they'll be making them plain plastic like a lot of metro systems around the world.

I'm not a fan of the 700's seats (they're uncomfortably close to the train wall and some have awful legroom - but then so did many 319 seats), but the class 319 hadn't been a suitable train for the route for years. The very narrow door vestibules and lack of space often made them a nightmare between Gatwick and London.

I remember reading someone claim years ago that you couldn't couple 3 together because the middle unit would have no emergency exit at the end, and that was required in the Snow Hill tunnel. That must have been incorrect or the requirement dropped though, given the class 700 doesn't have end doors.

 

[physics34]

It's all relative in the great scheme of things.

For me: Massive improvement over 319s (cramped & no aircon/effective heating), downgrade on 377's (less comfy seats and I prefer the corridor coaches to walkthrough).

they are perfect for Sutton/Sevenoaks/Rainham to Luton (would still hope for Softer seats and more room), but WHOLLY inadequate for Brighton/Littlehampton/East Grinstead/Maidstone
to Bedford/Peterborough/Cambridge, simple.

 

[bramling]

they are perfect for Sutton/Sevenoaks/Rainham to Luton (would still hope for Softer seats and more room), but WHOLLY inadequate for Brighton/Littlehampton/East Grinstead/Maidstone
to Bedford/Peterborough/Cambridge, simple.

This is a lot of the issue. As a train the 700 is fit for purpose as a metro train - although there are a lot of things which could have been better.

The bigger issue is that Thameslink is spreading to routes which are not suitable for it as a concept, and for which a compromise train isn't acceptable. Watch the timetable fall apart in certain areas for proof of this.

At least the likes of Bedford and Brighton have alternatives.

 

[AM9]

Why is it that as soon as there is a seat that is disliked by the forum everyone suddenly ‘cares’ about people with back problems and proceeds to state that they’ll be bad for those people as if it somehow gives their rubbish opinion more clout?

I didn't know that 'the forum' had a view on seats. That sounds like the people wanting to leave the EU despite it being just over a quarter of the electorate who felt strongly enough to use their vote.

 

[AM9]

... At least the likes of Bedford and Brighton have alternatives.

and Cambridge.

 

[physics34]

Why is it that as soon as there is a seat that is disliked by the forum everyone suddenly ‘cares’ about people with back problems and proceeds to state that they’ll be bad for those people as if it somehow gives their rubbish opinion more clout?

looool, because i have a bad back and these seats irritate it. Hope that helps.

 

[Wolfie]

anybody with an ounce of a bad back will struggle with the seats with its poor cushioning.

They are also too close together and too close to the wall

As someone who has had spinal surgery I must say that I prefer the firm seats on the 700s to the god-awful seats fitted to the 319s (I also use an orthopaedic mattress).

Some people with back problems prefer a supportive, rigid seat, in any case.

Indeed I do. The modern more upright firmer seats are far better.

That'll be me too..

looool, because i have a bad back and these seats irritate it. Hope that helps.

So do I, complete with a special seat at work too, and I far prefer these seats to the 80's monstrosities which preceded them... bottom line is don't assume that your PERSONAL preferences are GENERAL....

Im awaiting surgery on my back and the harder, higher seats are a godsend compared to the soft ones. Of all the trains I've been on the Chiltern mark 3s and their ilk are horrific and I can't get down that low to even get in them without causing severe pain whereas a 700 seat is easy to.get in and out of and sit on. Granted you do have to pick your seat on a 700 some have got some pretty poor legroom

I'm ahead of you on the surgery but otherwise agree!

 

[MCR247]

looool, because i have a bad back and these seats irritate it. Hope that helps.

Interestingly enough your previous post didn't say that. I also have a bad back and these seats a perfect for me with both the angle and the firmness. I, however, won't claim to speak on behalf of 'everyone with an an ounce of bad back' just because the seats aren't to my liking. Surely a post saying what I have quoted from you above holds much more worth than what you originally said?

 

[Minstral25]

The seats are the same width as those fitted in Electrostar 3+2 layouts .

Most 377's have driving vehicles with 2+2 and decent seats with plenty of room to stand in the peak between the tables. A very sensible seating solution for larger people and you will note that most passengers make a positive move to these areas so it is clear that is what passengers want - 2+2 with decent seats not 3+2 with a seat lopped off

As with any public transport vehicle, seat pitch is a compromise between the number of seats that can be accommodated and some individual's personal preference. The guideline on Thameslink trains appears to have been that overall capacity is the first priority as the routes on which they run preclude additional paths for trains with more generous seating space..

It is, but why make a third of the public extremely uncomfortable as the seats are too small. The minimum pitch should be designed for someone who is at the top end of size not the average person in the middle. That makes these trains unsuitable for at least a third of the population and thus fail as a public transport vehicle

Thameslink North has it's share of track with poor riding characteristics that gave the Electrostars and 319s problems at 100mph. The class 700s ride these spots far better than both their predecessors. I've been on fully loaded trains and passengers seem to manage OK with the vertical rails and the dual handled seat back grabs. There are no fewer hold points than their predecessors, - it's just that there is more room to stand between them. Bear in mind that the times when there are the most standing passengers are generally when most of those passengers are well experienced travellers who seem to cope well with such movement there is..

I am sure a more modern stock will ride better - but having been across Stoats Nest many times at speed, even the best riding stock has sharp lateral forces and there is little to hold onto within the 700 cabin. They will be packed at the peak and I am concerned.

Throughout the period of 754 seat Electrostars on all sections of the Thameslink network, there were constant complaints (here and among commuter groups) about 3+2 seating and the very poor conditions for those who had to stand. Indeed, frequently the centre seats were left unoccupied. Although the seating on the interim class 387 received praise from some (mainly those who normally boarded before all the seats were taken), those trains offered no more seats than the class 700s and they still struggled with not many more standees than a 3+2 seating train could accommodate..

There have been no complaints about the 377's South of the river other than narrowness of corridor in the 3+2 area.

In the 3+2 carriages (half a 377 set) standing is an issue as the seats are too close because of the 5 seat across nature. However, in the 2+2 areas where the seats are wider and comfortable standing is actually very easy.

The good thing about 377's is that there are capacity coaches to take load when needed and reasonable seating in other carriages for off peak services. That is called balance.

The 700 seats are inadequate in so many ways by comparison being unusable even when empty. I would suggest keep the wide door areas with extra standing but then have 377 driving car style seats in-between rather than the dolls house seats provided.

Just because a seat is 2+2 doesn't make it what the passenger wants. It seems to be a common argument that the 2+2 is the 700's is what passengers want rather than 3+2 - the issue with 3+2 is narrowness of the seats not the one seat in the middle - people want seats that are wide enough like in the driving trailers if the 377's or throughout the 387's.

I do appreciate the fall out is less seats but I wonder if that is a fair compromise as the peaks are ridiculously busy and more will have to stand but the rest of the day these 12 car units are going to mostly empty and the better seating would be appreciated.

The average journey time on Thameslink trains is 25 minutes, a figure that might reduce slightly when the full service is introduced. As I intimated above, there are compromises with all public transport which is required to provide service to all travellers..

It may be an average journey time but Brighton or Redhill to City Thameslink is much longer and for the bulk of current passengers this is the type of journey undertaken.

The 25 minute assume a lot of passengers using the trains as short hops in the core. Ignore those passengers and the average naturally is much longer. The existing services being replaced from London Bridge do not have these passengers and the average is then around 45-55 minutes, so it is an incorrect comparison of current services to new services.

There isn't the capacity for turning round an additional 16 trains per hour across the three terminals south of London or the two north of London. In addition, since 1989, there is a considerable demand for direct travel to the stations in the City of London from outer suburban residential areas without the inefficient changing to tube services.

My point was that instead of turning round Caterham, Sutton, West Croydon, & Beckenham inner suburban trains at London Bridge make them Thameslink trains (to which the stock is suited to because of the core). Then have Sussex and Surrey trains start from London Bridge instead, meaning they can be more appropriate stock for the services they run.

 

[NSE]

I seem to agree with most on these. I use them regularly around the Sutton loop and I agree they're perfect for Metro routes. The extra standing room is needed, enthusiasts moan, but with more passengers turning up it is certainly needed. My only complaint (again, similar to most) is that the interior is quite clinical and bright, I would certainly be happy for it to be 'softened a bit'. I also think the seats are too close to the window, when I sit there (my first choice is always the window) I find myself a little cramped against it compared to some other stock, however I workout and have larger than average shoulders; it would be impossible for trains to be designed to cater for every body type, so I don't see this as a fault of the train (same with seats, some people like rigid, some like soft, you're never going to please).

But I do agree that they aren't overly suitable for long routes. The lack of tables on them is a pain for instance and the harsh interior, I don't find myself able to 'settle in and relax' for the journey like I can on a 365 (when going Wimbledon to Herne Hill or through the core I'm happy to stand or perch on an aisle seat) I use both St. Neots and Cambridge stations and prefer St. Neots as its quieter and easier to get too, but once the 700's are providing the off peak services, I will be using the Cambridge route more so I can get on the 387's and avoid the longer distances on the 700's. I feel this is the issue with Thameslink, like others, I agree its suited for metro operation and services like Peterborough and Cambridge can stay in a London Terminus.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't know how to define it. Like non metro trains, non light rail. I also don't know why class 319s have been taken out of service so early. They are only 30 years old and have at least 10 years more of life.

Because the 700s have improved wider doors which reduces dwell time. That’s the only way you can shove 24 trains an hour through the core.

 

[Joe Paxton]

...
But I do agree that they aren't overly suitable for long routes. The lack of tables on them is a pain for instance and the harsh interior, I don't find myself able to 'settle in and relax' for the journey like I can on a 365 ...

Your comments mirror my thoughts (and earlier post in this thread), the interior could and should have a more welcoming feel.

Also, whilst full tables would take up too much space and impede circulation, seat-back flip tables should have featured - enough space for a small laptop, book or coffee etc.

The space to actually move around in a busy train - move down into a carriage and then later be able to get off without needing to be a contortionist and/or barging others - is a great improvement over the 319s.

 

[NSE]

Your comments mirror my thoughts (and earlier post in this thread), the interior could and should have a more welcoming feel.

Also, whilst full tables would take up too much space and impede circulation, seat-back flip tables should have featured - enough space for a small laptop, book or coffee etc.

The space to actually move around in a busy train - move down into a carriage and then later be able to get off without needing to be a contortionist and/or barging others - is a great improvement over the 319s.

Yeah definitely. When using them at peak I have never had an issue getting off no matter how busy it is, and thats a great feature. I totally get that they need one type of train down the core, I just think they should have done a split similar to the 450/444 (although in this case they would both have the same number of carriages and body shells) and have some like they are and some more set up for longer distances. Tho I guess everyone would moan its too difficult to get them on set diagrams and what happens if they get switched blah blah.