Which trains were best suited for the Thameslink route?

[AventraFlex]

Hi all,

I'm a frequent traveller on Thameslink, and I've travelled on all train types that were used on the line. Now with the routes expanding and Class 700s finally used across the entire network, I couldn't help but wonder if they're truly the best types of trains suited for the route.

In terms of 'suitability' I'm mostly referring to the passenger comfort and interior of the trains. While I like the Class 700, as I'm sure you all know its interior is rather unloved. Of the Class 319, the Class 377s, the Class 387 (now used on GN) and the Class 700, which of the four do you all think were best suited for Thameslink? Or (judging by their interior designs) would've the proposed Thameslink Aventras or X'Trapolis UK been more suitable?

Also why weren't the Class 365s ever considered to be used on Thameslink in the past? Aren't they dual-voltage units?

The bottom (which I assume were also posted on the Class 700 thread), are an article on Railfuture and a recent BBC News report (about a month old now) regarding the state of the Class 700's 'ironing board' seats.

railfuture link:
https://www.railfuture.org.uk/article1616-Standing-room-only

BBC news report:

 

[Agent_Squash]

Seats were as specified by FCC and the DfT. Any new trains would have got them - Siemens wanted to fit Grammer seating.

 

[Failed Unit]

My view, the only thing wrong with the 700 is the seats. Easy to resolve, but they are a good train for the route. Just a shame they about the interior.

 

[RichJF]

I used to commute Redhill - City Thameslink/London Bridge for near on 5 years during the London Bridge works so have used all the rolling stock.

Class 319s were good at their job on the original TL routes; quick voltage change, 100mph units, comfy (if a bit low seats). By the time they were withdrawn they were dated and probably weren't best suited to 2010 passenger flows/numbers and had no aircon.

I personally liked the 387s, almost as comfy as a 377 but with lots of standing room for busy periods. Lots of pleasant evening journeys on a quiet 387 from City Thameslink to Redhill. The downside is the voltage change took forever.

As far as I know, the 365's were designed with dual voltage so they could be moved around within the South East, regardless of the electrification method. I don't know if they had the capability to change while en route...someone please correct if I'm mistaken.

 

[AM9]

Apart from fitting slightly softer seats that might not give as good posture for many users, only the class700s have sufficient capacity to cope with the passenger demands in the peak. Three-quarters of the total Thameslink Programme was spent on maximising the core capacity (by increasing the peak throughput of trains). If the stock used on those services didn't provide sufficient capacity, the whole project will have failed to deliver on its prime objective.

 

[hooverboy]

the 377'3/387's were ok,but not really designed for handling 2 large airports + eurostar en route.seats were ok-not spectacular,but serious lack of luggage space.
Ambiance in the carriage was ok.
Timekeeping,punctuality,reliability was average.
The good bit was not going end to end on the line and getting backache.

the 700's are good at what the 377's were average/lacking at,but crap at the bits they were good at.

ie quick of the blocks,punctual and (seemingly) reliable,plenty of room in luggage areas and also overhead racking(377's here really were terrible)
bad bits- sparce inside and very poorly designed seats...ok for a quick 20-30 minute commute but any more than that is quite a painful experience.

 

[class387]

I personally loved the 387s on Thameslink, with their 2+2 seating throughout and were in my opinion the best trains Thameslink have had.

The 319/2s were always a treat when they turned up, possibly better than 387s, but we're rare and outnumbered by the other, less comfortable subclasses.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To Thameslink as a whole? The Class 700 without a doubt, even in its present form.

The thing more in question is whether it makes sense to have something that is a hybrid of an InterCity route and an S-Bahn. You could argue that Thameslink should only really operate Luton to Gatwick plus the south London loop, if that, and everything else go into the termini, a bit more like Crossrail to which it is very similar in concept.

Since the WLL got busy when Westfield opened the Southern services on that route are a similarly uncomfortable hybrid.

 

[jopsuk]

I'd absolutely advocate the idea of a Luton/Stevenage (both ways) to Gatwick/Sutton Loop/Sevenoaks Thameslink, but there becomes a thorny issue of where you then put the extra terminating services (especially midland main line Bedford commuter services.

 

[muddythefish]

Pre-refurbishment 365s with original seat configuration and carpets throughout win hands down. One of the best units to have worked on the railway

 

[class387]

Pre-refurbishment 365s with original seat configuration and carpets throughout win hands down. One of the best units to have worked on the railway

They never actually worked through the Thameslink core though...

 

[700007]

I hope you lot here are saying nice things about me and my 114 siblings!

 

[JonathanH]

I'd absolutely advocate the idea of a Luton/Stevenage (both ways) to Gatwick/Sutton Loop/Sevenoaks Thameslink, but there becomes a thorny issue of where you then put the extra terminating services (especially midland main line Bedford commuter services.

Would the Luton to Gatwick trains you envisage run as stopping services or fasts. If stopping services, then that isn't really what people going from central London to those destinations want and if fasts that is a shocking waste of paths that could be used for longer distance trains to places just beyond Luton and Gatwick (ie Bedford and Brighton).

If you put it that way it is obvious why Thameslink goes to the places it does. Why shouldn't Bedford and Brighton have services to the centre of London if the infrastructure allows it.

700s are pretty effective commuter trains.

 

[Steve Harris]

Also why weren't the Class 365s ever considered to be used on Thameslink in the past? Aren't they dual-voltage units?

As far as i am aware, the 365's were originally built for use on Thameslink services. (Remember Thameslink 2000?)

However, it took so damm long to add capacity to the Thameslink route and to add in the link to the Great Northern route that the 365 units which were being used on Southeastern got replaced and they were then transferred to GN and the 3rd rail shoe gear was removed along with other components which now means its a big job (and cost) to reinstate there DC capability.

 

[Steve Harris]

They never actually worked through the Thameslink core though...

No.

But they were built for the expansion of the Thameslink route including going through "the core".

Which is now happining. Just 18 yrs late to the party though !!

And the 365's being binned for a supposedly superior unit.

Time will tell !!

 

[Bald Rick]

No.

But they were built for the expansion of the Thameslink route including going through "the core".

Which is now happining. Just 18 yrs late to the party though !!

And the 365's being binned for a supposedly superior unit.

Time will tell !!

The 365s were built for the GN and SE routes, with an eye to future use on Thameslink Express services; this is when Thameslink 2000 was going to be 18tph (and a very different project). They were not built specifically for Thameslink.

 

[Bald Rick]

To answer the exam question - 700s by a long way.

I was thinking about this as I walked to the station in the rain. With the 319s you could guarantee that my normal train would be at least 2 minutes late into St Albans every morning because it couldn’t meet dwell times further up the line. It got to the point that I was turning up after booked departure time, and I think I only missed it once in years. If I got a seat it was uncomfortable, so generally preferred to stand. They were worse in the rain, poor in autumn, uncomfortable in Summer (no air con), and in snow they basically gave up and didn’t / couldn’t run a service. Reliability was average, and sat down it was normally a bad one.

With the 377s / 387s it was better. The dwell times were still poor but the better acceleration largely compensated. Seats more comfortable. Crowding worse though as fewer sets than the 319s (per 4 car unit) and a more claustrophobic interior. I know people who who would deliberately avoid them.

The 700s are fantastic. Lots more space, more comfortable than the 319s and 387s (in the latter case, it’s the same seats but more space generally), and in terms of reliability now much better than what they replaced (after a difficult first 9 months or so). Rain, snow, leaves, heat - nothing seems to bother them. My morning train is now always early into St Albans.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Before the 700s...the 319/4's during the late 1990s/early 2000's after which they began to look tired and run down. In latter years, but prior to 700s settling down, I would curse through not being able to board at Herne Hill due to sheer overcrowding and less volume.

No boarding problems since 700s have become more regular/reliable and they win hands down.

 

[muddythefish]

To answer the exam question - 700s by a long way.

The 700s are fantastic. Lots more space, more comfortable than the 319s and 387s (in the latter case, it’s the same seats but more space generally), and in terms of reliability now much better than what they replaced (after a difficult first 9 months or so). Rain, snow, leaves, heat - nothing seems to bother them. My morning train is now always early into St Albans.

Are they "fantastic", really ? Quicker acceleration and more powerful yes, but the seats are straight out of Chinese hard class and lethal for anyone with back problems. An hour's run to Bedford and my back has seized up totally. The ambience inside is like a Travelodge, functional and corporate yet lacking style or character. They're designed purely to cram as many passengers in as possible without any regards to comfort. Better than the cursed 319s, but certainly not fantastic

 

[Bald Rick]

Are they "fantastic", really ? Quicker acceleration and more powerful yes, but the seats are straight out of Chinese hard class and lethal for anyone with back problems. An hour's run to Bedford and my back has seized up totally. The ambience inside is like a Travelodge, functional and corporate yet lacking style or character. They're designed purely to cram as many passengers in as possible without any regards to comfort. Better than the cursed 319s, but certainly not fantastic

In my opinion, yes. Quicker, better interior ambience, more reliable, more comfortable.

And when I get a seat, it helps my back problem. Indeed I am far more comfortable on the (fairly regular) trip I do from St Albans to Brighton and back then I ever was on a 319 and it’s no worse than a 377.

And I’d much rather a travelodge than the Blackpool guest house that was the 319s.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Are they "fantastic", really ? Quicker acceleration and more powerful yes, but the seats are straight out of Chinese hard class and lethal for anyone with back problems. An hour's run to Bedford and my back has seized up totally. The ambience inside is like a Travelodge, functional and corporate yet lacking style or character. They're designed purely to cram as many passengers in as possible without any regards to comfort. Better than the cursed 319s, but certainly not fantastic

Were any EPB/Hap seats saved prior to scrapping? Perhaps Siemens can retrofit these at first classified overhauls

 

[dorsetdesiro]

The 700s would be OK if those awful ironing boards were replaced with Grammer seating, tables fitted and the cold prison-like lighting removed in favour for comfortable low-glare intercity style lighting.

The interior is too spartan, tad excessive for travel from the Sussex coast to Cambridgeshire. Yes, it's meant to be a commuter train but SWR's 458s are much nicer to look at and have better seating.

Whenever I travel on Thameslink I may as well wear an orange boiler suit with my arms & legs in chains and being closely watched by mean looking prison officers in place of train guards...

 

[507021]

Personally, I'd say the 700s. The only thing I don't like about them is the seating.

 

[AM9]

... In latter years, but prior to 700s settling down, I would curse through not being able to board at Herne Hill due to sheer overcrowding and less volume. ...

Less volume, in a 700?

lethal for anyone with back problems.

Maybe for you but many (including me) have back problems where a soggy seat is a disaster. Many spinal experts recommend firm seats that promote a good posture for most patients. Another advantage is that a firm seat doesn't sag so much with wear meaning that the designed posture is maintained for more of the time between refurbishments.

 

[AM9]

The 700s would be OK if those awful ironing boards were replaced with Grammer seating, tables fitted and remove the cold prison-like lighting in favour for comfortable low-glare intercity style lighting...

So forget their ability to carry the high volumes required with short dwell times then. It's a train, not a hotel room.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Less volume, in a 700?

Prior to the 700s....less volume in a 319, i.e. less space in comparison to a 700

 

[physics34]

700s with better seating......

another vote!

 

[Hadders]

The 700s are a good train but let down by the bargain basement interior.

Although I'm no fan of the ironing board seats the ones on the 387s are bareable, the ones on the 700s are not. They key difference is how close the seats are to the side wall of the train. Sort this out and I'd be happy.

 

[muddythefish]

Less volume, in a 700?



Maybe for you but many (including me) have back problems where a soggy seat is a disaster. Many spinal experts recommend firm seats that promote a good posture for most patients. Another advantage is that a firm seat doesn't sag so much with wear meaning that the designed posture is maintained for more of the time between refurbishments.

Why bother with seats and not just instal a wooden plank ? That's much harder and will never need "refurbishment".

There are many people who find the seats very uncomfortable. It's a common complaint by passengers on the route.

 

[muddythefish]

So forget their ability to carry the high volumes required with short dwell times then. It's a train, not a hotel room.

And it's not supposed to be a glorified cattle truck either