But it won't please those using EWR services who 'need' to get to London 2.5 minutes quicker.
Agreed. The first class areas on 800's are a little claustrophobic to me so not expecting a better quality of first on the 810. I find standard OK on 800's but this may change now with what Pacerman99 has revealed. Hopefully it's just speculation at this stage.Do they? They appear to have normal First Class spacing to me, and on the 1 side it is quite poor as they have been unable to resist the temptation to squash in an extra row.
That doesn't bode well at all, particularly as the FISA LEAN is a much thicker-backed seat than the Fainsa Sophia (the use of which is why the legroom on other 80x is so good).
I'm getting the feeling I won't like these
Less splitting/combining?
I believe the spacing in first will be more similar to one of the GA FLIRTs. I've done some back-of-fag packet calculations and the first class pitch in these can't be more than about 900mm to accomodate kitchen, wheelchair spaces in the driving car as well as the quoted amount of standard seats in the composite coach. That certainly isn't bad, but not as good as the 1m or so allocated per first class seat in the 800s. The drawings for the 745s seem to show the standard seat pitch for them in the unidirectional seats is less than 800mm, so the pitch shouldn't be worse than a flirt.Do they? They appear to have normal First Class spacing to me, and on the 1 side it is quite poor as they have been unable to resist the temptation to squash in an extra row.
That doesn't bode well at all, particularly as the FISA LEAN is a much thicker-backed seat than the Fainsa Sophia (the use of which is why the legroom on other 80x is so good).
I'm getting the feeling I won't like these
Apart from the Corby electric services (the plan was for those to have their own dedicated platform, no doubt with lots of Luton Airport Branding/Sinage) all the stock on the other three platforms will be identical so easier to swap around on the fly as required unlike the mix of HSTs of 2 different lengths and meridians of 3? different lengths.
All 810 units will be 5-car but the 10-car units may stay coupled together all day, as the journey times out to Nottingham/Sheffield suggest the same diagrams working towards London in the morning peak could be working out again in the evening.
Assuming they make it to St. Pancras in the first place!
They have to make it work from May to make room for the extra Corby service, so I would expect the Nottingham fast to get a shorter turnaround and/or interwork with something else (has the new timetable been published yet?). I assume Corbies will pretty much have a dedicated platform.
Corby services (except the extensions via Melton) have been showing as booked P1 all day since they first appeared in RTT. But here’s the arrivals, departures looks the same:
www.realtimetrains.co.uk
The Nottingham fasts now interwork with the other diagrams, which is the only realistic way to shorten the turnround times. It also means they need fewer sets.
That's probably the operators' view of the 10-platform HS2 idea at Euston, too...
Oh I see, in times of disruption or late running there will be the ability to simply swap sets' diagrams rather than having to stick with a specific booked length/type of train as before.
So perhaps better to say no need to split/combine coupled with a reduction in the turnaround time reducing platform occupations which then allows more scope for trains to run into St Pancras without being held on approach awaiting a platform
Yes the Nottingham Fast will be non stop from Leicester but I think it is more about creating a fast and a semi fast service out of the stops that are left. Personally I think it will be better as the departures from Parkway and London are now more spread out rather than being a few mins apart.
The Corby 360's will have platform 1 and the 222's and 180's have 2 to 4. Most turnarounds look to be around 30-40 mins with some sharing platforms when they don't divide or join.
Nice! I'm gonna guess it'll be another year before the units have been produced fully? Or will it be faster now design stage is done?
Since the issue (appears to be) with the choice of steel used in the body shells, and no doubt the steel to be used will have been finalised long ago, any succceptibility to stress corrosion fractures on these units is effectively set in stone already. Or set in metal, if you will.
Choice of Aluminium surely?
However, as suggested, it ought to be a lot easier to modify the bare bodyshell before fitting out than to modify the trains that are already assembled. Bodyshells not yet produced should be able to have their design changed to incorporate some strengthening in this area.
Cool! Hopefully we'll see one rolling around soon enough, although I don't have the patience to stand around and wait to see it, rather just take a ride on one, but I'll probably have to wait a while for that!
