Why are Class 700s considered unpopular?

[RUK]

However, had some South London MP not interfered with the service planning, there would be 20 more cars in the whole TL 700 fleet.

So there are 5 fewer 12-car units than originally planned, and there would have been 60 12-car units and 55 8-car units instead of the other way around? What happened to cause that?

It will be interesting to see what Siemens latest suburban offering is like, the Desiro Verve. It may be a decent train for Scotrail suburban routes, aswell as Southeasterns Networker replacement! It will be interesting to see how the build and reliability compares to its contemporaries such as the Aventras and METROs. From concept images, the Verve looks akin to a Class 380, maybe some resemblance is taken from the first gen Desiros. Also considering battery technology is increasing, the battery Desiro Verve may become a popular choice for operators. I wonder how the interior compares to a outer-suburban/commuter style akin to TL 700s?

I wish SIEMENS had stuck with their original concept design for their third-generation Desiro U.K. EMUs - their rounded, egg-shaped cab looks more aesthetically pleasing and friendly than the Mireo and non-gangway Desiro Verve U.K.’s angular front, which looks angry and snake-like:

Source:

https://cdn.prgloo.com/media/download/0f15b52cdd7540f4a2256e87ee8df484

 

[PGAT]

So there are 5 fewer 12-car units than originally planned, and there would have been 60 12-car units and 55 8-car units instead of the other way around? What happened to cause that?

I recall the Sutton loop trains would’ve terminated at Blackfriars instead of St Albans hence the MPs getting involved but I’m not sure what 12-car route would’ve gone there instead

 

[rmHawk765]

I will always wait longer for a 387 than get a 700, because of the ironing board seats

The 387 seats aren't any better.

 

[JonathanH]

I recall the Sutton loop trains would’ve terminated at Blackfriars instead of St Albans hence the MPs getting involved but I’m not sure what 12-car route would’ve gone there instead

No, I don"t think it was ever determined - see https://www.londonreconnections.com/2013/thameslink-losing-the-plot-whilst-looping-the-loop/

In May 2012 the DfT published their consultation document on the Thameslink franchise. The relevant paragraph and questions are as follows:

7.21 Many stakeholders are aware that Network Rail has recommended, in both the South London and London and South East Route Utilisation Strategies, that Wimbledon loop services should start and terminate at Blackfriars. Network Rail wishes to see trains presented to the Thameslink core punctually, and it sees the crossing moves that the Wimbledon loop trains have to make south of Blackfriars as potential conflicts with other trains, and thus a threat to punctuality. At peak times, from December 2018, it will be possible for up to 16 trains per hour to approach Blackfriars from the south route via Elephant & Castle, but for no more than eight of these to proceed through the Thameslink core. The other eight must terminate in the new platforms on the west side of Blackfriars station. All these trains will approach Blackfriars either from the Denmark Hill direction (including Catford loop trains) or from Herne Hill (including Wimbledon loop trains). The question to be decided is which six or eight trains (depending on whether 16 or 18 approach from London Bridge) go through the Thameslink core and which terminate. Trains that use these routes today come from Sutton, Wimbledon, Ashford (via Maidstone East), Rochester, Sevenoaks, Orpington, Beckenham Junction and Kent House. We are seeking respondents’ views on which of these service groups should run through the Thameslink core and which should terminate at Blackfriars.

There is a bit more chat here from 2011, which I won't quote, as it is somewhat speculative - https://www.londonreconnections.com/2011/the-rus-thameslink-technicals-and-hypotheticals/

There is another very valid reason why one cannot find out how Thameslink will look when completed – nobody really knows.

Unlike Crossrail, where the final routes needed to be well defined before proceeding, Thameslink plans merely showed “indicative services” that were sufficient to justify the core scheme. If a subsequent proposal could be shown to be better then there was no reason why a change could not be made during the lifetime of the project.

The relevance to this thread is that the specification of the rolling stock was essentially finalised before the final destinations of the trains south of the river was known. Of course, Brighton, Bedford, Cambridge and Peterborough were, but it was also known that throughput in the central core stations needed to be quick.

 

[AM9]

As I recall it, to meet the (MP's) insistence for all Sutton loop trains to serve all the core stations so we had (some of) his constituents didn't have to change trains, another five 8-car trains would be needed. The DfT were so very obliging to reduce the rolling stock bill by changing five of the 12-car orders for 8-car. Stoppers north of lThe core needed to be 8-car as the platforms at many of the metro stations were unable to accommodate 12-cars

 

[jammmmmsssssss]

The 387 seats aren't any better.

I actually think they're worse

 

[RUK]

I guess that’s why there’s a shortage of 12-car trains now.

 

[Mikey C]

The 387 seats aren't any better.

They're much better spaced from the wall, have armrests and more legroom.

 

[bramling]

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

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.

I’ve often wondered if the use of a 700 on this service is deliberate because it is a busy service into Cambridge, or merely a coincidence.

The whole debate about suitability for particular lengths of journey I find a bit of a distraction. Something like Hitchin to London is roughly half an hour, or 45-50 mins on a stopping train. On occasions you might be on the train for a lot longer if the journey is disrupted. Just because the journey is only a certain length doesn’t mean that comfort is unimportant.

Worth remembering that Cambridge-Maidstone seems to be in a sufficiently deep sleep that it might as well be regarded as dead. For passengers on these services having an interior designed for the Thameslink core is entirely irrelevant as the services are unlikely ever to go down there (thankfully). It will be interesting to see what happens in December, as to whether these services revert to 700s, become fully 387/379, or remain a mix as they are in the current timetable.

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

They're much better spaced from the wall, have armrests and more legroom.

They don’t have that issue with the duct for a start. Even in first, this is quite intrusive on the 700s.

 

[danielnez1]

From my perspective the initial negativity of the 700s was the political factor that the order did not go to Bombardier. For me personally, the interior is very bleak, even by Desiro standards.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

So there are 5 fewer 12-car units than originally planned, and there would have been 60 12-car units and 55 8-car units instead of the other way around? What happened to cause that?


I wish SIEMENS had stuck with their original concept design for their third-generation Desiro U.K. EMUs - their rounded, egg-shaped cab looks more aesthetically pleasing and friendly than the Mireo and non-gangway Desiro Verve U.K.’s angular front, which looks angry and snake-like:
View attachment 184883
Source:

https://cdn.prgloo.com/media/download/0f15b52cdd7540f4a2256e87ee8df484

Ah that image takes me back! To be honest I didn’t like that design either. I remember Alstom’s Xtrapolis design which looked okay, if not a bit too “Intercity”-like. To be honest I would have been satisfied with 377/9s, but if we had to have something different, perhaps something like a 12 car class 376 (with carpet, toilets and air conditioning) would have been more palatable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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?

Very badly. Might as well be end doored 24m vehicles given how badly. Disgorging at Liverpool Central takes several minutes, whereas a 700 is far quicker.

One of the many design failures of the 777. As a metro unit the 700 is MUCH better in near enough every way - only level boarding is where the 777 wins.

 

[43066]

Very badly. Might as well be end doored 24m vehicles given how badly. Disgorging at Liverpool Central takes several minutes, whereas a 700 is far quicker.

One of the many design failures of the 777. As a metro unit the 700 is MUCH better in near enough every way - only level boarding is where the 777 wins.

Which rather begs the question of why on earth the 777s were designed like that in the first place. Presumably this was another case of poor specification by the DfT.

 

[JonathanH]

if we had to have something different, perhaps something like a 12 car class 376 (with carpet, toilets and air conditioning) would have been more palatable

Are 376s with air conditioning better than a 700? Not in my view. A 376 has a way more claustrophobic interior.

 

[43066]

Are 376s with air conditioning better than a 700? Not in my view. A 376 has a way more claustrophobic interior.

Agreed. And of course the 376s are never going to be fitted with a/c, so it’s a moot point.

 

[DJ_K666]

If you put decent seats in them, not the hard, uncomfortable ironing boards they currently have, and sorted out the channel by the wall then they'd be a lot more comfortable to travel in. That's my main complaint. If ai had to travel to Bedford in one I'd be sending GTR my chiropractor's bill

 

[dub]

I don't think they're unpopular on my line. The trains have been very successful at reducing the number of passengers left on platforms in the peaks but on the Sutton loop on some weekdays it's now getting close to that again. There needs to be an increase in frequency on those services they are full by Tulse Hill and crush loaded at Herne Hill.

Despite the original plans for these services to terminate at Blackfriars they are the most heavily loaded trains through the core during the peak hours. People love to focus on this MP getting in the way of the railway doing what it wanted but those services are a huge success and I can't see the huge volume of people using them changing platforms on that tiny southern side staircase at Blackfriars.

And you'd need the same number of 8 carriage services to call at the inner MML stations regardless.

 

[Hadders]

I don't think they're unpopular on my line. The trains have been very successful at reducing the number of passengers left on platforms in the peaks but on the Sutton loop on some weekdays it's now getting close to that again. There needs to be an increase in frequency on those services they are full by Tulse Hill and crush loaded at Herne Hill.

Despite the original plans for these services to terminate at Blackfriars they are the most heavily loaded trains through the core during the peak hours. People love to focus on this MP getting in the way of the railway doing what it wanted but those services are a huge success and I can't see the huge volume of people using them changing platforms on that tiny southern side staircase at Blackfriars.

And you'd need the same number of 8 carriage services to call at the inner MML stations regardless.

But there would have been more 12-car trains through the core, increasing overall capacity, had the MP not have got his way.

 

[PGAT]

But there would have been more 12-car trains through the core, increasing overall capacity, had the MP not have got his way.

Where would the 12-car trains have gone, if not Sutton?

 

[JonathanH]

There needs to be an increase in frequency on those services they are full by Tulse Hill and crush loaded at Herne Hill.

Crush loading at the last significant stop before London in the peaks sounds about right, although doesn't give room for further growth. Is there really such demand at Herne Hill that it goes from 'full' to 'crush loaded'?

What role do the Beckenham Junction to Blackfriars Southeastern services play in dealing with the demand from Herne Hill? They seem to be right up behind the 'via Mitcham Junction' train and therefore 12 minutes ahead of the 'via Tooting' train.

Contrast to the 0731 from East Croydon to Cambridge on which I was able to have a seat on Thursday morning. I think only three of the 12 coaches were showing the yellow standing room only measure, although I accept it is summer holiday time.

Where would the 12-car trains have gone, if not Sutton?

That is what I tried to answer in post 334 with reference to a London Reconnections item from 2011. It was speculation then and would be speculation now. Caterham and Tattenham Corner both have a 8-car limitation.

 

[dub]

Crush loading at the last significant stop before London in the peaks sounds about right, although doesn't give room for further growth. Is there really such demand at Herne Hill that it goes from 'full' to 'crush loaded'?

It basically goes from you can step on the train with some shuffling at Tulse Hill to you need to actively push your way on at Herne Hill and Loughborough Junction with the train driver using the automated move right down inside the carriages announcement

What role do the Beckenham Junction to Blackfriars Southeastern services play in dealing with the demand from Herne Hill? They seem to be right up behind the 'via Mitcham Junction' train and therefore 12 minutes ahead of the 'via Tooting' train.

People are standing by the doors but there are still seats available if you don't mind sitting next to someone. On the thameslink most people are getting off at City Thameslink and Farringdon from my experience.

 

[Hadders]

Where would the 12-car trains have gone, if not Sutton?

I don't know without checking but they would have been deployed onto routes that had (or could be extended to) 12-car platforms.

 

[RUK]

Very badly. Might as well be end doored 24m vehicles given how badly. Disgorging at Liverpool Central takes several minutes, whereas a 700 is far quicker.

One of the many design failures of the 777. As a metro unit the 700 is MUCH better in near enough every way - only level boarding is where the 777 wins.

This must be a problem with the specification, because most other Stadler METRO units have more sets of doors per side - the BVG Class IK, MARTA CQ400, and Lisbon Metro ML 20 and ML 24 have 3 sets of double doors per side of car, the Glasgow Subway G3 have 2 sets of double doors per side of car, and the Minsk Metro M110/M111 have 4 sets of double doors per side of car. The MARTA CQ400 looks to have a similar front end to the Class 777, with the asymmetric front, but more tilted and curved.

 

[Magdalia]

I don't think they're unpopular on my line. The trains have been very successful at reducing the number of passengers left on platforms in the peaks but on the Sutton loop on some weekdays it's now getting close to that again. There needs to be an increase in frequency on those services they are full by Tulse Hill and crush loaded at Herne Hill.

Despite the original plans for these services to terminate at Blackfriars they are the most heavily loaded trains through the core during the peak hours. People love to focus on this MP getting in the way of the railway doing what it wanted but those services are a huge success and I can't see the huge volume of people using them changing platforms on that tiny southern side staircase at Blackfriars.

And you'd need the same number of 8 carriage services to call at the inner MML stations regardless.

Crush loading at the last significant stop before London in the peaks sounds about right, although doesn't give room for further growth. Is there really such demand at Herne Hill that it goes from 'full' to 'crush loaded'?

It basically goes from you can step on the train with some shuffling at Tulse Hill to you need to actively push your way on at Herne Hill and Loughborough Junction with the train driver using the automated move right down inside the carriages announcement


People are standing by the doors but there are still seats available if you don't mind sitting next to someone. On the thameslink most people are getting off at City Thameslink and Farringdon from my experience.

The passenger flows data support this.

From south of the river to the core stations Gatwick, East Croydon and Brighton are the biggest, but after that the next biggest are Herne Hill, Tulse Hill and Streatham.

 

[sh24]

Herne Hill is a very popular suburb, and one that relies on heavy rail for connectivity. I lived there 30 years ago and it was busy then..now as the stats show it is a major traffic generator.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This must be a problem with the specification, because most other Stadler METRO units have more sets of doors per side - the BVG Class IK, MARTA CQ400, and Lisbon Metro ML 20 and ML 24 have 3 sets of double doors per side of car, the Glasgow Subway G3 have 2 sets of double doors per side of car, and the Minsk Metro M110/M111 have 4 sets of double doors per side of car. The MARTA CQ400 looks to have a similar front end to the Class 777, with the asymmetric front, but more tilted and curved.

The single door was done so that an 8 car train, which is slightly longer than a 6 car 507/508 formation, would have all the passenger doors on the platform without extending any platforms. However this poor design feature was done for no good reason in the end, as platforms have been extended anyway, I think because of a desire to have the rear cab on the platform. At the few remaining platforms that are too short, ASDO would have done (and the units do have it for the likes of Green Lane).

It was one of the many poorly thought through design elements in the 777. It might have worked were it a very wide door like the 700s (or Aventras) but it's a fairly narrow door and as a result unloading takes ages.

 

[Mikey C]

I don't think they're unpopular on my line. The trains have been very successful at reducing the number of passengers left on platforms in the peaks but on the Sutton loop on some weekdays it's now getting close to that again. There needs to be an increase in frequency on those services they are full by Tulse Hill and crush loaded at Herne Hill.

Despite the original plans for these services to terminate at Blackfriars they are the most heavily loaded trains through the core during the peak hours. People love to focus on this MP getting in the way of the railway doing what it wanted but those services are a huge success and I can't see the huge volume of people using them changing platforms on that tiny southern side staircase at Blackfriars.

And you'd need the same number of 8 carriage services to call at the inner MML stations regardless.

The Sutton Loop is the sort of inner London route where trains like the 700s are perfectly suited . It's the longer distance routes where they are less popular

 

[bramling]

I guess that’s why there’s a shortage of 12-car trains now.

I think the shortage of 12 cars is more to do with the poorer than expected availability. Covid has hidden this a bit.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Jul 2025 ==

I actually think they're worse

At least in a 387 it is possible to sit in the seat as designed, which whilst not exactly comfortable does encourage a good posture - those who do a lot of gym work will notice this, but it does mean having to sit up very tall, which isn’t what one always wants to do having had a day at work and perhaps wanting to chill out a bit on the train.

However on a 700, it is much more awkward to sit properly because the seat is too close to the side of the train, and in particular because of the ducting in the foot space. So in a 700 you end up with either the legs or, worse, the whole body, as a funny angle, which is most uncomfortable. First isn’t so bad because of the extra spacing, though the ducting is still a bit intrusive.

 

[RUK]

I think the shortage of 12 cars is more to do with the poorer than expected availability. Covid has hidden this a bit.

I always heard of SIEMENS trains being very reliable, but I actually feel like I hear less about Bombardier’s EMUs having reliability issues (once they’re run in, to be comparable to the part of the lifespan that the Class 700s are at now). Is there any chance that the extra 20 vehicles could be ordered to make them up? The Desiro Verve U.K. gang-way version looks just like the Desiro City, so it might be possible.

 

[AM9]

The Sutton Loop is the sort of inner London route where trains like the 700s are perfectly suited . It's the longer distance routes where they are less popular

I would imagine that load-journey time profiles (if such a things exist) are quite similar for both the metro and the main railheads of the outer suburban services up to about 45 mins from the core, i.e.

for Sutton loop - St Albans trains:​

St Albans to core 40 mins, core to Sutton 45mins (clockwise 'O' service)​

St Albans to core 40 mins, core to Sutton 57mins (clockwise 'V' service)​

for Bedford - BML trains, (railheads out to Luton and Gatwick Airport/Three Bridges)​

Luton to core 42 mins, core to GTW/TBD 45 mins ('T'service)​

Luton to core 41 mins, core to GTW/TBD 55 mins ('T'service)​

The loads north of Luton and south of Three Bridges I believe generally fall within the trains' seating capacity and represent a minority of the total loads.