Why are Class 700s considered unpopular?

[AM9]

There isnt an absence of full and standing trains operated by 700s by any measure. What is absent now is those trains leaving people behind in the peaks because people can’t board, which was a daily occurence with the 319s / 377s on the MML / BML / Sutton loop even when a few of them went to 12 car.


tr

I find the 700s good. (regular user of first and standard class).

To be fair there seems to be little distinction between actual first and declassified first in terms of use by non-first class ticket holders!

Given that this thread has gone the usual way of class 700 critiques on RUK, it is also polarised between those who are fortunate enough to normally get a seat, and those for whom being able board their desired train would sometimes be a bonus. The former has little concern for their train's absolute capacity as long as they get their seat, against the latter who depend on mass people movers to get to their destination.
The simple fact is that the MML arm of TL north services are at the practical limit of their capacity having used all the options, (12-car trains, maximum standing room, short dwells with fast moving wide sliding doors, rapid acceleration to dodge into and out of high speed IC traffic). Maybe the GN side demands will excercise these measures in due course when more conventional outer suburban configuration trains are insufficient, making them only suitable for the long fast runs to Cambridge or even Ely in the peaks. The class 379s will reach their end of life well before the 700s anyway.

 

[bramling]

Given that this thread has gone the usual way of class 700 critiques on RUK, it is also polarised between those who are fortunate enough to normally get a seat, and those for whom being able board their desired train would sometimes be a bonus. The former has little concern for their train's absolute capacity as long as they get their seat, against the latter who depend on mass people movers to get to their destination.
The simple fact is that the MML arm of TL north services are at the practical limit of their capacity having used all the options, (12-car trains, maximum standing room, short dwells with fast moving wide sliding doors, rapid acceleration to dodge into and out of high speed IC traffic). Maybe the GN side demands will excercise these measures in due course when more conventional outer suburban configuration trains are insufficient, making them only suitable for the long fast runs to Cambridge or even Ely in the peaks. The class 379s will reach their end of life well before the 700s anyway.

The Midland side is absolutely not at capacity. There are still 8-car trains to Corby which serve a number of stations on the TL route, and most of EMR’s services are only 5-car. Luton to Rainham could also run 12 cars fairly easily.

 

[AirRail]

I really like them. Even just for their pure efficiency of doing their intended job of transporting masses very well!

They're still pretty modern and when clean they have a decent bright onboard atmostohere. Their air conditioning is usually very good, the information displays show everything you should need and their layout fits the varying capacity demands throughout the day. For example, even in busier periods you're still very much likely going to be able to find a seat somewhere with their easy walk through design. Then, in the absolute peak periods, they can clean up platforms with plenty of standing space and their wide entry/exit areas.

The only downsides to me was the half hearted attempt at fitting tables to some units, pulling the plug (i know they ran out of funds allegedly) and their lack of wifi. I also find that cleaning standards have considerably dropped of late. But that's more of a GTR issue, rather thsn the trains themselves. One that seems to be worsening again across the wider railway too.

 

[AM9]

The Midland side is absolutely not at capacity. There are still 8-car trains to Corby which serve a number of stations on the TL route, and most of EMR’s services are only 5-car. Luton to Rainham could also run 12 cars fairly easily. I don't think much of the SE stations

As I posted in my thread #271:

"the MML arm of TL north services are at the practical limit of their capacity having used all the options, (12-car trains, maximum standing room, short dwells with fast moving wide sliding doors, rapid acceleration to dodge into and out of high speed IC traffic)."​

The capacity issue is with journeys that are only served by Thameslink, and especially south of St Albans City where the DfT has recently declared that the two 'busiest' in England are TL services Bedford as follows:
07:30 to Brighton (9R07) which has 84% over seating capacity from St Albans City to St Pancras
07:15 to Three Bridges (9T81) which has 84% over seating capacity from St Albans City to St Pancras
This was mentioned earlier in this thread.
As far as the Rainham trains are concerned, I doubt that some of the SE infrastructure including platforms and signal locations are compatible with 12x20m consists, the maximum used by SE themselves is 10x20m, - not an option for TL. The loading of 4 & 5-car DEMUs on the MML IC services is not relevant and outside the scope of this thread.

 

[bramling]

As I posted in my thread #271:

"the MML arm of TL north services are at the practical limit of their capacity having used all the options, (12-car trains, maximum standing room, short dwells with fast moving wide sliding doors, rapid acceleration to dodge into and out of high speed IC traffic)."​

The capacity issue is with journeys that are only served by Thameslink, and especially south of St Albans City where the DfT has recently declared that the two 'busiest' in England are TL services Bedford as follows:
07:30 to Brighton (9R07) which has 84% over seating capacity from St Albans City to St Pancras
07:15 to Three Bridges (9T81) which has 84% over seating capacity from St Albans City to St Pancras
This was mentioned earlier in this thread.
As far as the Rainham trains are concerned, I doubt that some of the SE infrastructure including platforms and signal locations are compatible with 12x20m consists, the maximum used by SE themselves is 10x20m, - not an option for TL. The loading of 4 & 5-car DEMUs on the MML IC services is not relevant and outside the scope of this thread.

I’m not clear on how much work would be required to run 12-cars to Rainham, however perhaps this should have been part of the Thameslink Programme, if capacity for one town (sorry, city) is so much of an issue that people in the entire TL area have to have their train design influenced by the needs of one station. SE do in fact run 12 cars on parts of the Rainham route. I guess stabling would be an issue for starters.

As regards the Corby services, 4 extra carriages of capacity at places like Bedford and Luton would ease the pressure on St Albans, and likewise if St Albans is so important, perhaps there could be fewer 5-car DEMU services as you put it, double them up as tens so they only use one path not two, and use the vacated path for extra TL services.

 

[yorksrob]

Personally I prefer the Connex-interior 375s. It’s rather ironic that one of the most hated TOCs of all time managed to specify one of the best train interiors ever seen. I don’t think going back through this forum one will find many criticisms of the early Electrostar interiors, which is quite something really.

Both 375 and 444 are probably the pick of the crop. Going from (for example) Ramsgate to Weymouth via Waterloo, one can travel in considerable comfort (by modern standards).

 

[AM9]

I’m not clear on how much work would be required to run 12-cars to Rainham, however perhaps this should have been part of the Thameslink Programme, if capacity for one town (sorry, city) is so much of an issue that people in the entire TL area have to have their train design influenced by the needs of one station. SE do in fact run 12 cars on parts of the Rainham route. I guess stabling would be an issue for starters.

As regards the Corby services, 4 extra carriages of capacity at places like Bedford and Luton would ease the pressure on St Albans, and likewise if St Albans is so important, perhaps there could be fewer 5-car DEMU services as you put it, double them up as tens so they only use one path not two, and use the vacated path for extra TL services.

I don't think that extending peak Rainhams would make any difference because the Sutton's fill up as they go to STP, so all in all, that would be an expensive minor upgrade for little or no benefit. At St Albans, the majority of passengers travel to the core so the fasts are the most efficient way move them. On the busiest of trains, the chances of a seat from SAC are slim but with the 700s standing for 20 minutes is not a problem for most.
If you think that taking paths from EMR is a solution, maybe suggest this on one of the threads about Leicester or Nottingham service for views on whether longer formations are a fair replacement.

 

[TRAX]

95 % of RailUK Forums’ server space being taken up by Class 700 seat and interior discussions will never not be funny to me.

 

[bramling]

I don't think that extending peak Rainhams would make any difference because the Sutton's fill up as they go to STP, so all in all, that would be an expensive minor upgrade for little or no benefit. At St Albans, the majority of passengers travel to the core so the fasts are the most efficient way move them.

So, in essence, "everyone throughout the whole Thameslink area has to have their rolling stock spec dictated by St Albans passengers preferring to use the fast services". The Rainham services are only four extra stops, so not a massive difference - and, unlike the Sutton services, they serve London Bridge.

If you think that taking paths from EMR is a solution, maybe suggest this on one of the threads about Leicester or Nottingham service for views on whether longer formations are a fair replacement.

I'm not necessarily proposing it, just making the point that the MML side simply isn't running at full capacity when we have
* 8-car trains running on a route which could have 12-cars (Rainham)
* 8-car trains running on a route which is already capable of 12-cars (Corby)
* some 8-car trains running on routes which are already capable of 12-cars (Bedford-Three Bridges/Brighton)
* 5-car trains running on routes which are already capable of 10-cars (EMR)
* Luton-Orpington stuck running 8-cars as well, though I suspect the work required to run 12-cars to Orpington would be disproportionate

Not that much of this is relevant to passengers using GN-side services, for whom St Albans is an irrelevance, except as an object of bemusement as to why people want to pay vastly inflated property prices to live somewhere that doesn't appear to be proportionately nice to live.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Rainham services are only four extra stops, so not a massive difference - and, unlike the Sutton services, they serve London Bridge.

5 extra stops and an extra 50% journey time.

 

[Russel]

95 % of RailUK Forums’ server space being taken up by Class 700 seat and interior discussions will never not be funny to me.

Can't be 95% because 35% is take up with Voyager hate posts!

 

[AM9]

So, in essence, "everyone throughout the whole Thameslink area has to have their rolling stock spec dictated by St Albans passengers preferring to use the fast services". The Rainham services are only four extra stops, so not a massive difference - and, unlike the Sutton servicNot that much of this is relevant to passengers using GN-side services, for whom St Albans is an irrelevance, except as an object of bemusement as to why people want to pay vastly inflated property prices to live somewhere that doesn't appear to be proportionately nice to live.

Most people who live in St Albans are quite happy with life in the city, despite it being one of the most expensive places to live outside central London. However, SAC is a major railhead as it's train service is generally frequent, reliable, fast and the trains are able to clear crowds when almost anything goes wrong. Cambridge is also a nice place to live but it doesn't have the same utility of train services - but one can avail themselves of 700s when services are disrupted.

 

[NSEWonderer]

Can't be 95% because 35% is take up with Voyager hate posts!

45% are IET hate posts

 

[Bald Rick]

Not that much of this is relevant to passengers using GN-side services, for whom St Albans is an irrelevance, except as an object of bemusement as to why people want to pay vastly inflated property prices to live somewhere that doesn't appear to be proportionately nice to live.

St Albans houseprices have barely moved in a year, and are broadly similar to Cambridge.

 

[London Trains]

The Midland side is absolutely not at capacity. There are still 8-car trains to Corby which serve a number of stations on the TL route, and most of EMR’s services are only 5-car. Luton to Rainham could also run 12 cars fairly easily.

Indeed, and there is no reason that any of the services should be running at anything less than max capacity even now - EMR should've ordered 9 coach trains (an opinion I got absolutely slated for on the forum), which ironically solves the whole issue about the 810s not being standard length, the Corby's should be 12 coach (and should use fully walkthrough units, the choice of 360s is poor in my opinion for this reason amongst others) and potentially have an additional stop at Leagrave to mop up even more of the demand if the pathing allows, and the Rainham service, it should certainly be 12 coach but really it should not exist in its current form south of the core (at the very least it should be the service through the Blackheath Tunnel, allowing a 6tph clockface timetable via Greenwich).

 

[Fincra5]

700s are a balance between an Urban and Suburban Train.

What they lack, in my opinion, are tray tables (on the early build units) and plugs at all seats. This was a DfT spec, without real future planning for a massive push on mobile ticketing, for example.

I'd argue a 345 has a more welcoming interior, but overall worse seat layout and no toilets.

The Seats could do with being a tad wider, like those on a 387. But then a 700 can really take a crush load.

From a drivers perspective, its one of the best cabs I've driven from! Good view, nice large desk where everything is laid out in a good, ergonomic design.

The PIS system is rubbish however!

 

[AM9]

Indeed, and there is no reason that any of the services should be running at anything less than max capacity even now - EMR should've ordered 9 coach trains (an opinion I got absolutely slated for on the forum), which ironically solves the whole issue about the 810s not being standard length, the Corby's should be 12 coach (and should use fully walkthrough units, the choice of 360s is poor in my opinion for this reason amongst others) and potentially have an additional stop at Leagrave to mop up even more of the demand if the pathing allows, and the Rainham service, it should certainly be 12 coach but really it should not exist in its current form south of the core (at the very least it should be the service through the Blackheath Tunnel, allowing a 6tph clockface timetable via Greenwich).

Of course, DfT would be only too willing to equip the TOC with so much class 810 kit and also the purchase of replacements for the 360s. I jest of course. This thread is about opinions of class 700s which were entirely determined in the Thameslink Programme.

 

[London Trains]

Deleted

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

700s are a balance between an Urban and Suburban Train.

What they lack, in my opinion, are tray tables (on the early build units) and plugs at all seats. This was a DfT spec, without real future planning for a massive push on mobile ticketing, for example.

I'd argue a 345 has a more welcoming interior, but overall worse seat layout and no toilets.

The Seats could do with being a tad wider, like those on a 387. But then a 700 can really take a crush load.

From a drivers perspective, its one of the best cabs I've driven from! Good view, nice large desk where everything is laid out in a good, ergonomic design.

The PIS system is rubbish however!

Yes, adding seat back tables to all trains, and maybe some of those half size tables you see on 701s for the bays, while adding charging points and also changing the light to a warmer, less clinical brightness, would do so much to improve the atmosphere for those travelling longer distances, without stopping them being the people eaters they are in the core.

 

[AM9]

Yes, adding seat back tables to all trains, and maybe some of those half size tables you see on 707s for the bays, while adding charging points and also changing the light to a warmer, less clinical brightness, would do so much to improve the atmosphere for those travelling longer distances, without stopping them being the people eaters they are in the core.

Those changes might well be done eventually - as part of a mid-life refit in 8-12 year's time. I can't see trains that are fully committed to key services undergoing any programme of cosmetic changes. There's not even a commercial benefit in such disruption.

 

[yorksrob]

Those changes might well be done eventually - as part of a mid-life refit in 8-12 year's time. I can't see trains that are fully committed to key services undergoing any programme of cosmetic changes. There's not even a commercial benefit in such disruption.

If they can't even manage to take one out at a time for cosmetic improvements, then they clearly haven't ordered enough trains to provide a resilient service in the first place.

 

[AM9]

If they can't even manage to take one out at a time for cosmetic improvements, then they clearly haven't ordered enough trains to provide a resilient service in the first place.

There's truth in that, the original mix was 55 x 700/0 and 60 x 700/1, but complaints from a south London MP about Sutton sedrvices terminating at Blackfriars gave the DfT an opportunity to reduce costs by altering the balance of types to 60 x 700/0 and 55 x 700/1. Other than that, the cosmetic benefits were insignificant compared to the disruption of wiring modifications just to charge phones with insufficient battery capacity/ or insufficient attention by their owners to keep them charged.

 

[yorksrob]

There's truth in that, the original mix was 55 x 700/0 and 60 x 700/1, but complaints from a south London MP about Sutton sedrvices terminating at Blackfriars gave the DfT an opportunity to reduce costs by altering the balance of types to 60 x 700/0 and 55 x 700/1. Other than that, the cosmetic benefits were insignificant compared to the disruption of wiring modifications just to charge phones with insufficient battery capacity/ or insufficient attention by their owners to keep them charged.

I'm sure if Northern can put charging points in various sprinters, someone can do it on a 700.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

What’s the deal with the clinical lighting anyway? It’s the same on the IET stock. Is it all DfT spec?

 

[hwl]

What’s the deal with the clinical lighting anyway? It’s the same on the IET stock. Is it all DfT spec?

Reduces public safety issues and makes about half the adult population (that is not generally represented on railforums) more likely to use trains.

 

[zwk500]

Reduces public safety issues and makes about half the adult population (that is not generally represented on railforums) more likely to use trains.

It's perfectly possible to have a the lighting a shade warmer without impacting safety and maintaining or even improving attractiveness. Class 345 lighting doesn't feel as harsh as Thameslink does, although that might be because the interiors are also quite different.

 

[hwl]

I’m not clear on how much work would be required to run 12-cars to Rainham, however perhaps this should have been part of the Thameslink Programme, if capacity for one town (sorry, city) is so much of an issue that people in the entire TL area have to have their train design influenced by the needs of one station. SE do in fact run 12 cars on parts of the Rainham route. I guess stabling would be an issue for starters.

As regards the Corby services, 4 extra carriages of capacity at places like Bedford and Luton would ease the pressure on St Albans, and likewise if St Albans is so important, perhaps there could be fewer 5-car DEMU services as you put it, double them up as tens so they only use one path not two, and use the vacated path for extra TL services.

Rainham was a late addition to the Thameslink service plan when they couldn't squeeze in everything they wanted via Croydon (I forget whether it was Caterham or Tattenham Corner than could only take 8 car that got pulled - hence it then became a question of where to run 8 car train to not via Croydon and GTR came up with Rainham as the biggest revenue grabbing option).

The only real issue with Rainham being 12 cars is the shortage of 12 car units and the worse than expected unit reliability resulting in lower unit availability.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Reduces public safety issues and makes about half the adult population (that is not generally represented on railforums) more likely to use trains.

It can be bright without being clinical. See again the 730/0.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Reduces public safety issues and makes about half the adult population (that is not generally represented on railforums) more likely to use trains.

What kind of public safety issues?

 

[Bletchleyite]

What kind of public safety issues?

It's more perception, dingy and dark gives an unsafe feel. I find this of the older London Overground units particularly given the rough areas they work in. However you can do bright without doing clinical.