Why are Class 700s considered unpopular?

[hwl]

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.

"Shade" of the lighting comes into safety perception though if you look at the research. How the interior responds (e.g. TfL 345s where TfL did tonnes of work on this) to the light helps mitigate this.
There are loads of poor quality (cheap) phosphor choices out there and LED can enable far less harsh daylight/cool shades if done properly. I suspect most people issue is with some of the cheap phosphor choices to save 5p on fluorescent tube.

Another key element of lighting design is ideally to have the light reflect off / refract through surfaces before getting to the user to make the polarisation more uniform and less random which makes the light appear far less harsh. (Again done well by TfL on the 345s)

In terms of lumen efficiency cool / daylight shade white can have about 7-8% higher apparent lumens/watt in terms of what the eye can perceive.

Hence the optimised lower carbon choice is slightly dimmer cool/daylight shades.

 

[185143]

I will always wait longer for a 387 than get a 700, because of the ironing board seats, and also, the 700s non-disabled toilet has a sliding door which slides in the same direction as the direction of travel, which slides one way when the train accelerates, and the other when the train brakes, so it constantly slams open and shut noisily. All other trains I have travelled on have a hinged door for the non-disabled toilet, probably to prevent this from happening. I prefer the Class 379 over the 387 over the 365 over the 700.

I'm pretty certain all Desiros with standard toilets have a door similar to a 700. And yes, it is an issue on all of them, except 444s where the toilets are largely located in closed vestibule.

 

[AM9]

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

I suspect that the hotel wiring on early '80s rolling stock is far simpler to attach low power devices than the complex monitored and managed system on an advanced product like the Siemens Desiro City. Think about cars, it was easy to lash up additional devices so long as the fuse ratings weren't exceeded. With a modern canbus vehicle adding devices that there was no built-in provision can be difficult, and that's assuming the manufacturer hasn't locked it out in the firmware. Then there's the safety issues of as hoc wiring, mmm not really worth risking that for trivia such as phone charging on a contemporary system where safety was a prime requirement.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jul 2025 ==

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.

Part of the issue here is that we are no longer in the age of light bulbs. The days of changing incandescent or fluorescent lamps with different colours temperature ones overnight at a stabling siding. Modern luninaires are designed for many years of use, - there's no wear-out and little failure likelihood to give colour change opportunities.

 

[zwk500]

"Shade" of the lighting comes into safety perception though if you look at the research. How the interior responds (e.g. TfL 345s where TfL did tonnes of work on this) to the light helps mitigate this.
There are loads of poor quality (cheap) phosphor choices out there and LED can enable far less harsh daylight/cool shades if done properly. I suspect most people issue is with some of the cheap phosphor choices to save 5p on fluorescent tube.

Another key element of lighting design is ideally to have the light reflect off / refract through surfaces before getting to the user to make the polarisation more uniform and less random which makes the light appear far less harsh. (Again done well by TfL on the 345s)

In terms of lumen efficiency cool / daylight shade white can have about 7-8% higher apparent lumens/watt in terms of what the eye can perceive.

Hence the optimised lower carbon choice is slightly dimmer cool/daylight shades.

Agree completely with your points about the lighting and interior being taken as a complete package.

 

[bramling]

I suspect that the hotel wiring on early '80s rolling stock is far simpler to attach low power devices than the complex monitored and managed system on an advanced product like the Siemens Desiro City. Think about cars, it was easy to lash up additional devices so long as the fuse ratings weren't exceeded. With a modern canbus vehicle adding devices that there was no built-in provision can be difficult, and that's assuming the manufacturer hasn't locked it out in the firmware. Then there's the safety issues of as hoc wiring, mmm not really worth risking that for trivia such as phone charging on a contemporary system where safety was a prime requirement.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jul 2025 ==


Part of the issue here is that we are no longer in the age of light bulbs. The days of changing incandescent or fluorescent lamps with different colours temperature ones overnight at a stabling siding. Modern luninaires are designed for many years of use, - there's no wear-out and little failure likelihood to give colour change opportunities.

The class 700 already has an alternative lighting mode (standby lighting), which indeed some drivers thoughtfully select on the TMS. So it could be altered very easily if desired.

 

[bspahh]

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.

When the Universal theme park opens (in 2031?), if the trains that stop at Wixams do not have somewhere to put a cup of coffee or charge a phone, it will be a gift to newspaper columnists who have 800 words to write on the trip.

 

[AM9]

The class 700 already has an alternative lighting mode (standby lighting), which indeed some drivers thoughtfully select on the TMS. So it could be altered very easily if desired.

If the hardware already has the means to change the lighting, why not campaign for that mode to be used.

 

[MCR247]

When the Universal theme park opens (in 2031?), if the trains that stop at Wixams do not have somewhere to put a cup of coffee or charge a phone, it will be a gift to newspaper columnists who have 800 words to write on the trip.

I think everyone would agree that 700s could do with seat back tables. I’m not sure far fetched hypotheticals that would occur halfway through the design life of the train make that point much stronger though

 

[Bald Rick]

When the Universal theme park opens (in 2031?), if the trains that stop at Wixams do not have somewhere to put a cup of coffee or charge a phone, it will be a gift to newspaper columnists who have 800 words to write on the trip.

By the time the park opens, newspaper columns will be written by AI, so I shouldnt worry.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jul 2025 ==

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

Oh it can be done, for a price. A very big price.

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

Genuinely, I don’t notice the lighting in trains. I doubt that most punters do either. It’s just not an issue. Or perhaps I’m just weird.

 

[Mikey C]

As many other have said...

The seating and general ambience isn't nice on longer distance services, it feels like a commuter train operating on outer suburban and medium distance routes. And I don't entirely buy the defence that they're great on such routes when things go wrong and there have been cancellations at hoovering up passengers, as on that basis why not give the IETs and 390s lots of standing space "just in case".

The seats themselves are very uncomfortable if you're sitting next to someone for any length of time, with the narrowness and heating duct. And yes they're ironing boards, fine for short distances, but hardly inviting for "voluntary" leisure travel. It feel compromised by the desire to maximise standing capacity though the core.

And a personal gripe, is that I don't like trains with sliding doors and pockets. Yes they're fast, but compromise the interior when compared to plug doors. Yes the doors on the earlier Desiro UK trains were way too slow, but surely Siemens could have engineered a faster plug door? After all the European Desiros have plug doors.

Not the fault of the 700s, but the imposition of 8 car 700s on the Rainham route isn't great either, for the tiny numbers who actually go through the core, when at rush hours it's a 10 car railway (with occasional 12 cars).

 

[AM9]

As many other have said...

The seating and general ambience isn't nice on longer distance services, it feels like a commuter train operating on outer suburban and medium distance routes. And I don't entirely buy the defence that they're great on such routes when things go wrong and there have been cancellations at hoovering up passengers, as on that basis why not give the IETs and 390s lots of standing space "just in case".

Because 80xs and 390s are long distance trains by design and intended use. The 700s are straight forward commuter trains with an outer suburban capability.

The seats themselves are very uncomfortable if you're sitting next to someone for any length of time, with the narrowness and heating duct. And yes they're ironing boards, fine for short distances, but hardly inviting for "voluntary" leisure travel. It feel compromised by the desire to maximise standing capacity though the core.

The need to cope with the demands of suburban to core demand is the princial requirement of the Thameslink Project. Given the structure of the victorian railway that it runs through and to/from it is inevitable that compromises are needed as there was no affordable alternative.

And a personal gripe, is that I don't like trains with sliding doors and pockets. Yes they're fast, but compromise the interior when compared to plug doors. Yes the doors on the earlier Desiro UK trains were way too slow, but surely Siemens could have engineered a faster plug door? After all the European Desiros have plug doors.

The sliding doors are nowhere as bad at sealing as many previous implementations and is a proven technology that enabled sufficiently fast operation to keep dwell times within the requirement. The impact minor intrusion into the interior of the car is minimal, especially as it aligns with the stand back areas. The most recent plug door design to be introduced in the UK was those on the 345s. They aren't anywhere as fast as the 700's sliding doors.

Not the fault of the 700s, but the imposition of 8 car 700s on the Rainham route isn't great either, for the tiny numbers who actually go through the core, when at rush hours it's a 10 car railway (with occasional 12 cars).

The 8-car TL trains stop at most of the stations on the Woolwich loop, many of which rely on the TL Rainhams for journeys into London Bridge and into the core. The peak loadings from Dartford eastwards on the slows decline as commuter traffic takes the faster trains through Lewisham longer 12-car trains. The 8-car 700s can still accommodate over 1000 passengers.

 

[Vexed]

And a personal gripe, is that I don't like trains with sliding doors and pockets. Yes they're fast, but compromise the interior when compared to plug doors. Yes the doors on the earlier Desiro UK trains were way too slow, but surely Siemens could have engineered a faster plug door? After all the European Desiros have plug doors.

The sliding doors are nowhere as bad at sealing as many previous implementations and is a proven technology that enabled sufficiently fast operation to keep dwell times within the requirement. The impact minor intrusion into the interior of the car is minimal, especially as it aligns with the stand back areas. The most recent plug door design to be introduced in the UK was those on the 345s. They aren't anywhere as fast as the 700's sliding doors.

Personally I love the speed of the doors. As AM9 said the intrusion into the interior isn't an issue and complements the standing areas/luggage racks well.

My only concern with them is the lack of visibility drivers have of the doors themselves - take a look at this from RAIB Report 03/2019 (page 21 in the PDF)


Image shows what drivers see from a body mounted camera on a class 700. The camera is very close to the bodywork.

Like the report says, a thin item like a dog lead can get trapped in the doors undetected. And because of the gap between the bodywork and the door itself the driver can't see anything is there. While the risk is very small as something that isn't sticking out beyond the bodywork obviously means it can't be a trap and drag, it still doesn't sit well with me considering today's safety culture. I'm sure the relevant people haven't raised an issue with it so I'm overreacting, but it's just something I've thought about before. And chances are something that small wouldn't be visible from the cameras anyway. So I'm definitely overreacting

 

[Mikey C]

The 8-car TL trains stop at most of the stations on the Woolwich loop, many of which rely on the TL Rainhams for journeys into London Bridge and into the core. The peak loadings from Dartford eastwards on the slows decline as commuter traffic takes the faster trains through Lewisham longer 12-car trains. The 8-car 700s can still accommodate over 1000 passengers.

These aren't additional trains. Going out to Rainham, they effectively replaced the semi fast Gillingham to Charing Cross service, and from Charlton onwards have replaced 2 of the previous Greenwich stoppers. Thus they are a drop in capacity over the 10/12 car trains during the rush hour that would otherwise have run.

The need to cope with the demands of suburban to core demand is the princial requirement of the Thameslink Project. Given the structure of the victorian railway that it runs through and to/from it is inevitable that compromises are needed as there was no affordable alternative.

What about the Great Northern services now also using these units? They have the compromised interior for going through the core, for a train which doesn't use it.

 

[RUK]

I wonder why they couldn’t have had externally-hung doors like all newer London Underground Stock since the 1986 Stock have had? That would have given them all 3 of the faster sliding design, less space taken up in the interior by the double walls of pockets, and visibility of their status from the outside. SIEMENS have implemented this design on the 2024 Stock. Metro-Cammell had the design on their KCR/MTR Stock from 1982 (introduced 1982, built from 1980, design from 1978). Can such externally-hung doors not cope with speeds above 75 m.p.h., which I believe is the fastest top speed that any rolling stock that I am aware of (the KCR/MTR trains) with these doors have?

 

[Hadders]

I've been travelling on some very late trains this week between London and Stevenage, all class 700 operated. I've paud particular attention to the lighting and I've not found it to be an issue.

My dislike of ironboard seats is well documented but the given where we are the only thing I'd change is to install seat back tables on all trains and try and get a little more leg room on the standard class seats. This could be achieved although you'd have to lose a row of seats per carriage.

 

[Metal_gee_man]

The journey times & distance they complete can mean they are very uncomfortable for longer journeys:

Kings Lynn to Kings Cross 1h52m
Peterborough to Horsham 2h40m
Cambridge to Brighton 2h26m
Bedford to East Grinstead 2h6m

The problems have been stated on here and they’re all valid, the benefits have all been mentioned here too… the issue is in my opinion we’re expected to be be happy with metro trains 100 miles away from the metro environment they were built for.

Making the rear 3 and front 3 carriages more comfortable by installing a longer distance seating would leave a train that covers both uses similar to the 377s on southern where there are 3+2 carriages and 2+2 carriages

 

[jon0844]

I've been travelling on some very late trains this week between London and Stevenage, all class 700 operated. I've paud particular attention to the lighting and I've not found it to be an issue.

The lighting isn't quite as cool as people probably think. They're in between cold and warm, so quite neutral and it's just the interior design that gives the hospital waiting room look.

 

[AM9]

These aren't additional trains. Going out to Rainham, they effectively replaced the semi fast Gillingham to Charing Cross service, and from Charlton onwards have replaced 2 of the previous Greenwich stoppers. Thus they are a drop in capacity over the 10/12 car trains during the rush hour that would otherwise have run.

What about the Great Northern services now also using these units? They have the compromised interior for going through the core, for a train which doesn't use it.

So what is the difference in capacity between a 10 or 12-car SE train and an 8-car 700? Then multiply this number by two to get the maximum difference between before the TL service began to the present day. Remember, there are only two TL Rainhams per hour so hardly much of a difference.
The GN service has a shortage of trains dedicated to it, (i.e. 387s), so some services are provided by 700s. The alternative to make some of the King Lynn trains just four car.
Currently there are some members foaming at the mouth with excitement that the 387s are needed for services on Southern routes, and are being replaced by class 379s, cleaned up after their long rest in stowage. The quantity available will still mean that GTR will ensure services can be run by using whatever is available, which may include 700s. I personally travelled from Kings Lynn to Cambridge and back this week and found the 387s gave a pretty ropey ride on that route, - typical violent lateral lurches over the poor track, not surprising really, even when brand new they made a poor job on the relatively good sections of the MML. Give me the 700s every time, pretty good on most tracks.

 

[bramling]

The GN service has a shortage of trains dedicated to it, (i.e. 387s), so some services are provided by 700s. The alternative to make some of the King Lynn trains just four car.

This isn’t really true. For the TL programme, GN had 29x387 and 19x365 (they actually had 21x 365 for reasons not fully clear). There were 8x 700/0 diagrams on GN side work.

Today the disposition has shifted, with GN at one point having 38x 387.

The 700/0 use is because it was originally planned to use 700s for the Cambridge stopping services, which isn’t now the case. Though we wait to see what will happen in December.

Recent timetables have reduced the amount of 700/0 work on GN, seemingly partly in order to provide some spare units to cover the fact that 700 availability has never been as high as originally envisaged. This slack has also been useful in covering for the 379 lateness.

Currently there are some members foaming at the mouth with excitement that the 387s are needed for services on Southern routes, and are being replaced by class 379s, cleaned up after their long rest in stowage.

The reason people are peeved is because the 379 change has introduced another layer of unreliability. Over recent weeks some designated 379 services have been cancelled day after day. And at the end of this GN users don’t really get much from this apart from the seats changing from green to grey and being a bit more comfortable for those who want that.

The quantity available will still mean that GTR will ensure services can be run by using whatever is available, which may include 700s. I personally travelled from Kings Lynn to Cambridge and back this week and found the 387s gave a pretty ropey ride on that route, - typical violent lateral lurches over the poor track

The 365s rode better. All Electrostars do the sideways lurching.

 

[AM9]

The journey times & distance they complete can mean they are very uncomfortable for longer journeys:

Kings Lynn to Kings Cross 1h52m
Peterborough to Horsham 2h40m
Cambridge to Brighton 2h26m
Bedford to East Grinstead 2h6m

The problems have been stated on here and they’re all valid, the benefits have all been mentioned here too… the issue is in my opinion we’re expected to be be happy with metro trains 100 miles away from the metro environment they were built for.

Making the rear 3 and front 3 carriages more comfortable by installing a longer distance seating would leave a train that covers both uses similar to the 377s on southern where there are 3+2 carriages and 2+2 carriages

The trains are designed for outer suburban use, typically the 50 miles from Bedford or Cambridge to STP, and Brighton to London Bridge. On those services, the average passenger journey is between 20 and 30 minutes duration. Very few journeys go from end to end so those times have little effect on the average journey times. I've commented on the 700s standing in to replace Electrostars on Ely and Cambridge runs tom London, but in some cases not using them might result in short form trains or even cancellations.
As for kitting the 700s with less space-efficient seating at the front and rear, not only would that reduce their overall capacity over the most crowded part of the services, (remember that TL runs the two busiest trains in England), but such a measure would mean that for the sections between the core and (say) 20 miles out, shorter distance commuters who greatly outnumber the longer distance travellers, would just take those better seats. These train are definitely 'metro' configurations, there are no transverse seats in the 700s, for that look at class 710 and 345.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jul 2025 ==

This isn’t really true. For the TL programme, GN had 29x387 and 19x365 (they actually had 21x 365 for reasons not fully clear). There were 8x 700/0 diagrams on GN side work.

Today the disposition has shifted, with GN at one point having 38x 387.

The 700/0 use is because it was originally planned to use 700s for the Cambridge stopping services, which isn’t now the case. Though we wait to see what will happen in December.

Recent timetables have reduced the amount of 700/0 work on GN, seemingly partly in order to provide some spare units to cover the fact that 700 availability has never been as high as originally envisaged. This slack has also been useful in covering for the 379 lateness.




The reason people are peeved is because the 379 change has introduced another layer of unreliability. Over recent weeks some designated 379 services have been cancelled day after day. And at the end of this GN users don’t really get much from this apart from the seats changing from green to grey and being a bit more comfortable for those who want that.



The 365s rode better. All Electrostars do the sideways lurching.

The 365s are no longer! I agree that the all Electrostars lurch laterally and as such would regard them as totally unsuitable for difficult track like that on the levels beyond Cambridge and certainly Ely. Yet another compromise, but on an underfunded railway, that's life.

 

[RUK]

The 365s rode better. All Electrostars do the sideways lurching.

How did that end up being the case, given that the Electrostar was presumably a development of the 365/Networker lineage, coming from what was BREL and then became ABB, then Adtranz, then Bombardier? Are the Clubman/Turbostars the same in terms of ride quality in comparison to the Class 166?

 

[Kite159]

The journey times & distance they complete can mean they are very uncomfortable for longer journeys:

Kings Lynn to Kings Cross 1h52m
Peterborough to Horsham 2h40m
Cambridge to Brighton 2h26m
Bedford to East Grinstead 2h6m

The problems have been stated on here and they’re all valid, the benefits have all been mentioned here too… the issue is in my opinion we’re expected to be be happy with metro trains 100 miles away from the metro environment they were built for.

Making the rear 3 and front 3 carriages more comfortable by installing a longer distance seating would leave a train that covers both uses similar to the 377s on southern where there are 3+2 carriages and 2+2 carriages

And how many people are going end to end on those services?

Especially the Peterborough to Horsham trains considering the Thameslink is the stopping service compared to the faster Southern trains

 

[jon0844]

And how many people are going end to end on those services?

Especially the Peterborough to Horsham trains considering the Thameslink is the stopping service compared to the faster Southern trains

The people who are going end to end (which will be relatively few, except perhaps weekends or school holidays for trains going to, say, Brighton) are almost certainly going to get a seat*. If you get to Brighton station early enough (many trains sit for some time before going back), you're getting a seat home too. Thus, I don't think it's a big deal for anyone who goes 'all the way'.

* For those boarding at stations between, say, Cambridge and St Pancras - you'll almost certainly get a seat as people get off in the core and new people get on.

 

[RacsoMoquette]

Personally I love the speed of the doors. As AM9 said the intrusion into the interior isn't an issue and complements the standing areas/luggage racks well.

My only concern with them is the lack of visibility drivers have of the doors themselves - take a look at this from RAIB Report 03/2019 (page 21 in the PDF)

View attachment 184820
Image shows what drivers see from a body mounted camera on a class 700. The camera is very close to the bodywork.

Like the report says, a thin item like a dog lead can get trapped in the doors undetected. And because of the gap between the bodywork and the door itself the driver can't see anything is there. While the risk is very small as something that isn't sticking out beyond the bodywork obviously means it can't be a trap and drag, it still doesn't sit well with me considering today's safety culture. I'm sure the relevant people haven't raised an issue with it so I'm overreacting, but it's just something I've thought about before. And chances are something that small wouldn't be visible from the cameras anyway. So I'm definitely overreacting

The doors on the Desiro City family are great at soaking large quantities of humans very quickley. Contemporary models like the Stadler Class 777s have very narrow doors compared to the latter. With only one narrow door per carriage on the DMs. How does this fare with station dwell times and overcrowding?

 

[Magdalia]

The journey times & distance they complete can mean they are very uncomfortable for longer journeys:

Kings Lynn to Kings Cross 1h52m
Peterborough to Horsham 2h40m
Cambridge to Brighton 2h26m
Bedford to East Grinstead 2h6m

Here is the answer I gave to a similar point last weekend:

That doesn't matter very much, because, although Thameslink has some long routes, it does not have many long journeys. Nearly all of the journeys are short, for which the class 700 is a very suitable train.

I have looked up the one way flows data for Brighton and Gatwick, specifically for long journeys via Thameslink. These are the biggest numbers:

Gatwick-Cambridge 35k
Gatwick-St Albans 33k
Brighton-Cambridge 27k
Gatwick-Luton Airport 25k
Gatwick-Bedford 24k
Brighton-St Albans 21k

These are a drop in the bucket compared to the much higher numbers of journeys to/from the core stations.

Peterborough-Horsham is 894 and Bedford-East Grinstead is 183, that's not 894k and 183k, that's 894 and 183. Through journeys Peterborough-Horsham are less than 3 per day and through journeys Bedford-East Grinstead are less than 1 per day.

Kings Lynn-Kings Cross has 1 weekday train class 700 formed. It is the 0812 from Kings Lynn which is one of the busiest trains for commuting to Cambridge, and with fewer commuters to London, because it doesn't get to Kings Cross until after 1000. I have seen this train at Cambridge a few times: more people get off at Cambridge than get on.

we’re expected to be be happy with metro trains 100 miles away from the metro environment they were built for.

This is an absurd exaggeration. Peterborough is the only Thameslink station more than 60 miles from the Thameslink core. The biggest flow between Peterborough and beyond the core is to/from Gatwick Airport at 11k.

 

[PGAT]

The people who are going end to end (which will be relatively few, except perhaps weekends or school holidays for trains going to, say, Brighton) are almost certainly going to get a seat*. If you get to Brighton station early enough (many trains sit for some time before going back), you're getting a seat home too. Thus, I don't think it's a big deal for anyone who goes 'all the way'.

* For those boarding at stations between, say, Cambridge and St Pancras - you'll almost certainly get a seat as people get off in the core and new people get on.

Getting a seat is the bare minimum in terms of comfort provision for a long distance journey. While nobody is travelling from Peterborough to Horsham, there is some demand for longer journeys such as say Gatwick to Bedford, and when you add up all these permutations you get a moderate amount of passengers who are travelling a long way, for whom the level of comfort provided is massively inadequate

 

[jon0844]

I fly from Gatwick quite a bit and have often travelled direct from WGC in the morning. I've never had any issues, besides usually being tired from getting very little sleep.

I would say that around 10-20% of the occupants (many rail staff) seem able to sleep on the seats, so they can't be that bad!

 

[Bald Rick]

The journey times & distance they complete can mean they are very uncomfortable for longer journeys:

Kings Lynn to Kings Cross 1h52m
Peterborough to Horsham 2h40m
Cambridge to Brighton 2h26m
Bedford to East Grinstead 2h6m

I‘d rather do any of those compared to 1h30 from West Ruilip to Epping, or 4h from Swansea to Shrewsbury via Llandridod on a Sprinter.

 

[Robski]

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.

9T81 is booked to run with just 8 coaches, not 12 as you imply. If it ran with 12 coaches, the percentage of passengers over seating capacity drops to just 19%.

 

[AM9]

9T81 is booked to run with just 8 coaches, not 12 as you imply. If it ran with 12 coaches, the percentage of passengers over seating capacity drops to just 19%.

Not necessarily, - if it ran with 12 cars there would be some passengers rearranging which trains they preferred spreading the load into the extra capacity. However, had some South London MP not interfered with the service planning, there would be 20 more cars in the whole TL 700 fleet. The commuting patterns from St Albans and similar railheads is fairly stable with most passengers who don't get seats used to a 20 minutes stand with a reasonable floorspace. Such is the reality of the MML side of Thameslink peak operation.