Why are Class 700s considered unpopular?

[Horizon22]

The 700s really started off the "ironing board" seat trend, so I think there is a unfair association with being one of the first. It was also of the first of a new breed of metro / regional stock introduced around the UK which is seen as being more "dull" (the fact they've remained grey for a "temporary" GTR brand can't have helped!). In addition, some of the trips are actually of a more considerable length (Bedford to S. London or Brighton to N. London) and they are not as well suited to such services with a lack of amenities. At the time they were procured, USB and power sockets weren't quite the norm, however that is something evidently lacking now.

They also probably got caught up in the bad rep around the 2018 timetable fiasco with images of new trains not going anywhere...

That being said they are excellent at hoovering up a 12-car and serving a metro pouplation, have decent passenger info and some luggage space. They are functional for what they do and many passengers just want to get from A-B effectively. The downside - to some extent - is comfort.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jul 2025 ==

The worst trains are the Class 378s on the London Overground. Followed closely by the Class 345 on the Elizabeth Line.

Really? The 345 is incredibly good at moving people effectively for the 30-45 minute journeys (or less) which are the most common types for the route. A better comparison would be to LU stock.

Not sure what you're looking for out of a metro, high-intensity fleet but obviously its not going to be a Pendolino.

 

[Class15]

They are slow and uncomfortable (using longitude seating for what are relatively long distances) with a garish and utilitarian interior design. Albeit a tad more efficient than the Class 345 on the Elizabeth Line.

Slow? I think it’s the linespeed and frequent stops that cause the issues there, not the trains.

Relatively long distances is debatable, as virtually nobody uses the routes the whole way. Clapham to Stratford for example is quicker via Waterloo.

The 378s have completely overhauled the lines they work on, providing longer, air-conditioned trains.

 

[JonathanH]

That being said they are excellent at hoovering up a 12-car and serving a metro pouplation, have decent passenger info and some luggage space. They are functional for what they do and many passengers just want to get from A-B effectively. The downside - to some extent - is comfort.

Yes, and we have moved on from the idea that everyone should have a seat. The compromise of passengers standing for 20-30 minutes to commute to work is that they have more space to stand in and aren't crushed in a vestibule.

 

[Horizon22]

Slow? I think it’s the linespeed and frequent stops that cause the issues there, not the trains.

Indeed. You tried putting different stock on it and it would be even slower as the Electrostars and even more so Aventras pull away incredibly quickly.

I can see how the 378s might feel a bit dated and worn down these days now though.

 

[Class15]

Indeed. You tried putting different stock on it and it would be even slower as the Electrostars and even more so Aventras pull away incredibly quickly.

I agree largely, but in my experience the 710s lose time on the Mildmay line. Maybe the drivers aren’t as used to them or something like that.

I can see how the 378s might feel a bit dated and worn down these days now though.

Agreed, but the refurbished units look smarter.

 

[uglymonkey]

They were designed in an era, pre-covid where passenger numbers would continue to rise exponentially, therefore maximum space and as long a train as possible was designed, with maximum " crush" loading as possible. In addition to this the interior fit was ordered to be as cheap as possible by DoT . No frills, no tables narrow seats, no charging points all to save cost. Designed to carry as many people as possible into London.Austerity, utilitarian fit, as this is not the "add-on" to the main mission of carrying as many people as possible .

Now COVID happened,and you can actually see the inside of the trains, rather than a load of bodies and legs. However Baldock in the morning peak is the only station you can be guaranteed a seat, London bound. After that standing only until the train slowly empties out after Farringdon, until it arrives at London Bridge about 1/3rd full.

So a basic utility train designed for maximum occupancy and definitely not frills, and specified as cheap as possible. If you are un fortunate to get a carriage where the Aircon has failed it gets very hot and muggy quickly, which is strange as with the wide non existent vestibles between carriages you would think the air would circulate more along the train than it does.

I think they will be run into the ground before DoT sanctions any refurb, which by definition will not be an enhancement.

 

[Bald Rick]

The 700s really started off the "ironing board" seat trend

The 377/6s were first, @hwl might confirm!

 

[Retorus]

Rock hard ironing board seats and harsh led lighting which makes the interror pretty grim IMO.

This is enough to make them terrible for me. Horrible combination for long journeys.

 

[jon0844]

All of these are obstacles that increase the time that passengers take to alight, which is the most important factor in managing dwell times. I doubt that any of them will happen, apart from flip tables on the remaining class 700/1s that still don't have them.

That's why it wasn't done at the start but clearly during production someone realised it wasn't such a problem after all.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jul 2025 ==

The 377/6s were first, @hwl might confirm!

I recall similar use of the term for the 387s also.

 

[Russel]

The worst trains are the Class 378s on the London Overground.

Short distance, high capacity metro trains working short distance, high capacity metro services... what is wrong with them?

 

[driverd]

Can you point to anything in terms of statistics to back that up, or is it just an assumption/statement of opinion?

Sorry I missed this one.

In short, no statistics as I don't think any 700s have actually divided, so we're going to struggle in that regard.

However, in any major rail accident/incident, its well established that if a vehicle can't suitably contain its occupants, this is a frequent cause of fatal injury.

For example, if something akin to Stonehaven occurred to a busy 700, I'm not too sure open gangways are going to help too much in the passenger containment department, short of some new coupler system that essentially prevents the trian from dividing?

But to answer the question, its not based on anything written, more assumptions based on experience. If their rigid bar coupling could survive a 50ft or so fall and impact (ie: Stonehaven), I could be totally wrong (obviously we're talking about a once in the whole fleets life event, perhaps never, so whatever risk there may or may not be, undoubtedly its a very unlikely set of circumstances).

 

[tomoufc]

I can't say I'd ever noticed a smell from the toilets on a 365.

The 365s didn't have air con, hence the opening windows but given they were built in the mid-1990s they really did age well. I'd much prefer them over the 387s.

Another redeeming feature of the 700s is their length and the fact they can't be shortened! You can bet in they were 4-car units coupled together we'd have penny pinchers at the DfT demanding 4-car units for much of the day!

You’ve got to feel sorry for the DfT sometimes - can we give them some credit for not ordering shorter trains?

 

[Hadders]

You’ve got to feel sorry for the DfT sometimes - can we give them some credit for not ordering shorter trains?

Bear in mind that the 700s will be around for another 30-odd years and there's 30-years worth of passenger number increase to come from all the house building work that's happening along the Thameslink routes. That capacity, and more, will be needed.

I travelled on the 22:23 betweem Finsbury Park and Stevenage on Saturday. 12-car and I had to stand (to be fair I probably could've got a seat right at the back but by the time I'd fought my way through it was hardly worth it. I propped myself against a luggage rack...). I've seen quieter trains on my way into London in the rush morning rush.

 

[NSEWonderer]

Sorry I missed this one.

In short, no statistics as I don't think any 700s have actually divided, so we're going to struggle in that regard.

However, in any major rail accident/incident, its well established that if a vehicle can't suitably contain its occupants, this is a frequent cause of fatal injury.

For example, if something akin to Stonehaven occurred to a busy 700, I'm not too sure open gangways are going to help too much in the passenger containment department, short of some new coupler system that essentially prevents the trian from dividing?

But to answer the question, its not based on anything written, more assumptions based on experience. If their rigid bar coupling could survive a 50ft or so fall and impact (ie: Stonehaven), I could be totally wrong (obviously we're talking about a once in the whole fleets life event, perhaps never, so whatever risk there may or may not be, undoubtedly its a very unlikely set of circumstances).

Trains with open gangways wouldn't be allowed out in service if they hadn't already been tested for the possibility of ejecting people out of the open gangway during relative crash testing. 700s like 701s and 345s etc all have solid bar coupling in-between each carriage(minus with the 701 which its 5th and 6th coach have actual Delner couplers) the chance of a crash being strong enough to ejecting passengers out of that area and overcome the solid bar coupling would be quite rare. The forces to do such a thing and exact scenario would mean a lot more damage to the train than just that gangway area.

 

[frankmoh]

Trains with open gangways wouldn't be allowed out in service if they hadn't already been tested for the possibility of ejecting people out of the open gangway during relative crash testing. 700s like 701s and 345s etc all have solid bar coupling in-between each carriage(minus with the 701 which its 5th and 6th coach have actual Delner couplers) the chance of a crash being strong enough to ejecting passengers out of that area and overcome the solid bar coupling would be quite rare. The forces to do such a thing and exact scenario would mean a lot more damage to the train than just that gangway area.

Is it safer for standing passengers to be flung down the length of a train (into a metal bar) or to be flung a lesser distance into a gangway door?

I mean a crash where the train stays mostly intact, since I don't think the carriages would separate so easily.

 

[NSEWonderer]

Is it safer for standing passengers to be flung down the length of a train (into a metal bar) or to be flung a lesser distance into a gangway door?

I mean a crash where the train stays mostly intact, since I don't think the carriages would separate so easily.

Why would they be flung the length of the train into a metal bar? Definitely they'd not go flying from their seats through a gangway to do so? And if we're assuming they're standing for some reason near the gangway then its highly likely with the train in question that its quite packed and thus there would be other people about which would(yes) end up cushioning extreme forces.

Regardless if the force acting on someone near a gangway with doors is the same as with somone standing near a open gangway, then arguably the most dangerous postion is the person near the closed gangway door as they'd have been accelerated suddenly then quickly decelerated by the gangway door which is arguably more dangerous due to blunt force trauma.

Alas in short as we're diverging. They're not any less safer than non open gangway trains.

 

[jon0844]

You’ve got to feel sorry for the DfT sometimes - can we give them some credit for not ordering shorter trains?

I guess they could reduce 12 cars to 8 car if they wanted. For sure, it doesn't look like they're intending to extend more 8s to 12s and they only had about ten years to order more trains or extensions - so that must be pretty close to up now.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jul 2025 ==

Alas in short as we're diverging. They're not any less safer than non open gangway trains.

..and it was mentioned elsewhere about the fire risk. The class 700s have a comprehensive fire suppression system (not entirely sure how it works TBH) as well as the ability to divide the train into three sections using emergency shutters/screens.

 

[stadler]

The 700s really started off the "ironing board" seat trend, so I think there is a unfair association with being one of the first. It was also of the first of a new breed of metro / regional stock introduced around the UK which is seen as being more "dull" (the fact they've remained grey for a "temporary" GTR brand can't have helped!). In addition, some of the trips are actually of a more considerable length (Bedford to S. London or Brighton to N. London) and they are not as well suited to such services with a lack of amenities. At the time they were procured, USB and power sockets weren't quite the norm, however that is something evidently lacking now.

They also probably got caught up in the bad rep around the 2018 timetable fiasco with images of new trains not going anywhere...

That being said they are excellent at hoovering up a 12-car and serving a metro pouplation, have decent passenger info and some luggage space. They are functional for what they do and many passengers just want to get from A-B effectively. The downside - to some extent - is comfort.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jul 2025 ==



Really? The 345 is incredibly good at moving people effectively for the 30-45 minute journeys (or less) which are the most common types for the route. A better comparison would be to LU stock.

Not sure what you're looking for out of a metro, high-intensity fleet but obviously its not going to be a Pendolino.

I find the 345s much worse. I love the 700s but have never been a fan of the 345s. They have a much darker ambiance inside and are not as pleasant to travel on. I find the seats on the 345s to be even more uncomfortable than the ironing boards.

Another issue with the 345s is that those proper facing seats leave quite a narrow aisle. They have made the seats wider and included armrests. It is noticeable how much narrower the aisle is on the 345s compared to the 700s. This causes a bit of congestion onboard busy trains. This is not really suitable for a metro train. The 700s are perfect because they have entirely facing seats (no longitudinal seats) but also maintain extremely wide aisles for easy passenger flow.

Sure the 345s do the job decently but i do think 700s would have worked much better on Elizabeth Line services. It is a shame Siemens never won the order.

 

[driverd]

Trains with open gangways wouldn't be allowed out in service if they hadn't already been tested for the possibility of ejecting people out of the open gangway during relative crash testing. 700s like 701s and 345s etc all have solid bar coupling in-between each carriage(minus with the 701 which its 5th and 6th coach have actual Delner couplers) the chance of a crash being strong enough to ejecting passengers out of that area and overcome the solid bar coupling would be quite rare. The forces to do such a thing and exact scenario would mean a lot more damage to the train than just that gangway area.

So, in other words, you agree entirely with my point.

An equivalent unit with bar couplers and vehicle end doors (333, 80x, continue ad-infinitum) is less likely to eject passengers than a 700.

I've already acknowledged how ludicrously rare such a situation would actually be, no need to repeat that point.

 

[hwl]

The 377/6s were first, @hwl might confirm!

Yep I did the April fools shirt ironing photo on a 377/6 before the first 700 had even been completed.

I'm actually quite an ironing board fan proved there is a spacer between them and a proper seat base and support, a tray table is a good bonus.

 

[43066]

So, in other words, you agree entirely with my point.

An equivalent unit with bar couplers and vehicle end doors (333, 80x, continue ad-infinitum) is less likely to eject passengers than a 700.

I've already acknowledged how ludicrously rare such a situation would actually be, no need to repeat that point.

I’m just not sure that’s true - it’s a theoretical scenario which as you acknowledged is so rare they it’s unlikely to make a meaningful difference to risk.

 

[frankmoh]

Why would they be flung the length of the train into a metal bar? Definitely they'd not go flying from their seats through a gangway to do so? And if we're assuming they're standing for some reason near the gangway then its highly likely with the train in question that its quite packed and thus there would be other people about which would(yes) end up cushioning extreme forces.

Regardless if the force acting on someone near a gangway with doors is the same as with somone standing near a open gangway, then arguably the most dangerous postion is the person near the closed gangway door as they'd have been accelerated suddenly then quickly decelerated by the gangway door which is arguably more dangerous due to blunt force trauma.

Alas in short as we're diverging. They're not any less safer than non open gangway trains.

Metal pole (bar) on the Cass 700.

Assuming a low number of people standing up whilst also being in the middle of the train, it could be a possibility if the speed of a crash is fast.

 

[NSEWonderer]

So, in other words, you agree entirely with my point.

An equivalent unit with bar couplers and vehicle end doors (333, 80x, continue ad-infinitum) is less likely to eject passengers than a 700.

I've already acknowledged how ludicrously rare such a situation would actually be, no need to repeat that point.

If you read correctly you'd find I don't agree with the "less likely part" in the context it was being used in which was somewhat questioning the safety of open gangway trains and their crash worthy capability.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Jul 2025 ==

Metal pole (bar) on the Cass 700.

Assuming a low number of people standing up whilst also being in the middle of the train, it could be a possibility if the speed of a crash is fast.

The distance to essentially be propelled that far towards the metal pole from the gangway would mean an extreme force and thats assuming the force in doing so is directly heading forwards or backwards in the direction of the pole. More likely to end up at a seat than that pole. As the type of crash that would lead to that is more likely a divergence of some sort from the direction of travel.

 

[uglymonkey]

It could be designed to "shear" at above normal "g's", like motorway signs?

 

[Bikeman78]

I can't say I'd ever noticed a smell from the toilets on a 365.

The 365s didn't have air con, hence the opening windows but given they were built in the mid-1990s they really did age well. I'd much prefer them over the 387s.

Another redeeming feature of the 700s is their length and the fact they can't be shortened! You can bet in they were 4-car units coupled together we'd have penny pinchers at the DfT demanding 4-car units for much of the day!

Definitely one of the biggest benefits. During disruption, you could almost guarantee that the first train after a gap in the service would be a single class 319. I can recall standing at places like East Croydon watching the scrum.

 

[Kite159]

As for the Great Northern side, didn't the 700s mainly replace the 317/321s as well as the 365s (which themselves got replaced from Cambridge Express services by the 387s).

 

[bramling]

As for the Great Northern side, didn't the 700s mainly replace the 317/321s as well as the 365s (which themselves got replaced from Cambridge Express services by the 387s).

Yes and no.

Pre-2017, the GN weekday allocation was something like 37/40 365, 12/13 321, 10/12 317.

365s worked everything north of Cambridge, and the entire off-peak Peterborough and Cambridge semi-fast service.

Off-peak, the only 317/321 services were some of the Cambridge/Peterborough stopping services. This varied by timetable but generally something like about 70% were worked by the older trains, though in some timetables it had been less than this.

At peak times there was more of a mixture, with 317s and 321s being booked on faster services.

In the final iteration after the 387s arrived but before the 700s, 387s essentially took over from 365s on the Kings Lynn and Ely services, with a mixture of 365 and 387 covering everything else.

So whether you went from 317, 321 or 365 to 700 or 387 depends on what time and place you travelled.

If you travelled off-peak from Hitchin, Huntington, Royston or Letchworth to London, and like most people prefer to use the fastest services, for example, you will have essentially gone from 365 in 2017 (with 317/321 being an odd novelty during disruption or substitution) to 700 today.

If you travel from Knebworth or Hatfield to London off-peak you will have gone from 317, 321 or 365 to 700 (and more recently 387).

If you travel at peak times then it’s a much more mixed picture, depending on your station, and which individual services you used pre-2017.

 

[Deepgreen]

For my penny's worth, they are trying to fulfil two different roles - high-density metro and mid-distance commuter. The current first class location mess is an irritant (and my experience is that almost no-one cares whether first class is in use where they are sitting or not). They work well as shorter-distance trains. One thing about them that irritates me significantly is their pathetic destination indicators - I cannot understand how these fulfil RVAR requirements when they simply cannot be read in daylight! I have excellent sight, but it annoys me on behalf of those who do not, and the railway seems to just bumble on with poor stuff like this.

One thing that I would be fascinated to witness (just as a demonstration of acceleration performance) would be their full power output potential being used, which I believe has never been activated owing to power supply constraints.

 

[jon0844]

The external LED displays are indeed absolutely terrible in daylight. I am very hopeful these will be replaced when they get a refresh.

 

[croydontangle]

700s are fine. Not the best, but certainly not the worst. Standard is woeful with no tables or plugs. I find the seats mostly passable apart from the thinness. Bright lighting is unpleasant to say the least (as a LD myself, blinding the punters is usually a no-go!)

First is better with plugs and better seats so I mainly sit there. I never use train WiFi (my mobile data is usually fine) so won’t comment on that. Longest 700 trip I’ve done is probably East Croydon-Stevenage and it wasn’t remarkably bad. The Azuma I had to endure the same day however…