Class 345 progress

[samuelmorris]

6 longitudinal seats = approx 8 transverse seats. Or am I wrong?

Seating layout is here, and as far as I know is still accurate - https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requ...ach/3/Q234 BMB R1 XMO CR001 50011 Rev 3.0.pdf

I can't easily offer the dimensions of the individual seats here, but it's:

Driving cars (1&7 or 1&9): 46 all longitudinal (2 pairs of 10, 2 pairs of 3)
Motor cars (2/3/5/6 or 2/3/4/6/7/8): 16 transverse in 2+2, 36 longitudinal in six pairs of 3 (30 fixed, 6 tip-up)
Centre trailer (4 or 5): 50 all longitudinal (one pair of 2 fixed, one pair of 3 fixed, two pairs of 7 fixed, two pairs of 3 tip-up or wheelchair spaces).

Total seats per train: 350 in 7-car, 454 in 9-car [64 transverse in 7-car, 96 transverse in 9-car, rest are longitudinal]

 

[Domh245]

6 longitudinal seats = approx 8 transverse seats. Or am I wrong?

I make it 8 to 8. If you look at the plans from this FOI request you can see that between each set of doors you get 10 longitudinal seats in the DMSs (and TSW) - meaning that each bay of 4 transverse seats takes the same wall space as 4 longitudinal seats, but a whole lot less standing space

 

[Uzair]

A friend of mine took these of the interior of 345007.

Not sure about the colour scheme myself.

The floor isn't how passenger trains will actually look, right?

 

[phoenixcronin]

The floor isn't how passenger trains will actually look, right?

Yes, it is

 

[Techniquest]

Just looked at that interior, oh my that looks awful...

 

[spark001uk]

Glorified 378.

 

[phoenixcronin]

Glorified 378.

Uglier IMHO. The 378 front design is really nice, whereas this looks like a squashed fish

 

[phoenixcronin]

Overall it feels to me like the 345 has been designed by an overpaid designer desperate to build up their portfolio, with no respect for existing TFL standards. From the external livery, which is a departure from TFL norms, to the gloomy interior

 

[samuelmorris]

My turn to be the awkward one here then I suppose. I actually really like the interior - the darker shades have a bit of that '80s futurism' look, and it's a welcome change from the bright clinical appearance that other similar stock has had up until now - I don't think an interior as eye-catching as this would really work on long distance stock, it does nonetheless suit a metro service, even if it's not at all what I expected the units to be like - really it's all down to the dark grey interior panels and seatbacks. If they were the yellowed white colour of the S stock and everything else was the same it'd look much brighter and attract less controversy. As it stands though, it looks quite good in my humble opinion.
The exterior I agree is a bit odd looking, mainly due to the uncovered section at the front. Apart from that the profile of the train looks quite sleek, again far beyond what I'd expect of a metro train. The exterior livery doesn't particularly appeal to me, but it does at least establish a distinctive identity for the route, which I imagine was the #1 priority when they designed it.
I've yet to see how well the PIS has been configured (because it's terrible on the 378s), whether the door sounders are any good (they're also terrible on the 378s), but everything else I've seen so far looks like they've done a grand job - it's a good balance between fitting a vast number of people per train and having some proper seats for those with longer journey times and they're clearly very quiet units compared to their predecessors. I'm very much looking forward to using them on a regular basis.

 

[phoenixcronin]

I agree 100% with the point on the PIS. The PIS on the 378s is truly awful. The displays all scroll at different speeds, meaning they never match the audio, and loads of displays are broken/blank. The voice is also very boring and monotone, and loads of unnecessary announcements.

Hopefully the 345s are better in this regard

 

[samuelmorris]

It needn't be that way - in my experience the system has always been working when I've been on a 378, the speakers are loud enough and clear enough and I don't often see defective displays, not more often than on any other unit anyway, but the announcement spam, particularly repeating the announcement about short platforms twice often means you don't get an audible indication of the train's calling pattern until after departing the next station. Properly programmed, that PIS would be just fine - here's hoping the 345s have had a bit more thought.

 

[phoenixcronin]

I've noticed more defective speakers on 378s than most other units. Sometimes this means that at short platforms you hear the "this is coach number x of x" announcement from the adjacent car, which is clearly not good.

 

[capital12]

Overall it feels to me like the 345 has been designed by an overpaid designer desperate to build up their portfolio, with no respect for existing TFL standards. From the external livery, which is a departure from TFL norms, to the gloomy interior

On the BBC programme this week it showed some bloke from TfL who's in charge of the design deciding on the spec of the interior etc - so if you're correct it's TfL having no respect TfL norms!!

 

[AM9]

... but everything else I've seen so far looks like they've done a grand job - it's a good balance between fitting a vast number of people per train and having some proper seats for those with longer journey times and they're clearly very quiet units compared to their predecessors. I'm very much looking forward to using them on a regular basis.

Comparing them with the class 700s, their capacity is not that great:
class 345 7.24 passengers per metre train length (9-car)
class 700 7.29 passengers per metre train length (12-car)
bear in mind that the 700s have all transverse seating (total 666), and they have one accessible and two standard toilets as well as lower density first class and large luggage racks. So much for the capacity benefits of fewer longer vehicles.

 

[D365]

Comparing them with the class 700s, their capacity is not that great:
class 345 7.24 passengers per metre train length (9-car)
class 700 7.29 passengers per metre train length (12-car)
bear in mind that the 700s have all transverse seating (total 666), and they have one accessible and two standard toilets as well as lower density first class and large luggage racks. So much for the capacity benefits of fewer longer vehicles.

Is that seated capacity, or does it include standing as well?

 

[Domh245]

Is that seated capacity, or does it include standing as well?

Looking at the FOI pdf above, the claimed capacities are 454 seated, 1046 standing, which corresponds with the 7.something passengers/m of train, depending on if you are measuring over cab ends or couplers.

That said, I expect the 345s should be able to accomodate higher loadings of passenger than the typical .25m^2 per person more easily than the 700s with the presences of overhead grab rails (which I expect will get strap hangers in due course, as happened with the S stock). Also, I think that the point of the fewer, longer cars was to maximise the amount of doors that could be fitted to the unit - 10x20m with 2 doors per side gives 20 doors, vs 9x23m with 3 doors per side gives 27 doors - something that is fairly important for a high capacity railway.

 

[jon0844]

Just looked at that interior, oh my that looks awful...

Those seats must be nod to old Atari gamers, right?

(Yars Revenge)

 

[Goldfish62]

On the BBC programme this week it showed some bloke from TfL who's in charge of the design deciding on the spec of the interior etc - so if you're correct it's TfL having no respect TfL norms!!

That was TfL's Head of Design. And yes, the interior including colours was 100% down to TfL. It's not dissimilar to the awful gloomy Jubilee line stock refurbishment.

 

[jon0844]

Everything about these trains, inside and out, will make them look old from day one. I wouldn't be surprised if some were to think they were old trains given a refurbishment, not brand new and supposedly state of the art, trains.

 

[samuelmorris]

The 454+1046 figure is to give the exact estimate of 1500, all very convenient. I fully expect that the capacity of these units in practice will be slightly higher per metre than the 700s and besides, look at the controversy it has caused to fit that many passengers in a 700 with transverse seating.

Looking at one of the photos from this thread it looks like strap hangers have already been fitted.

Also, despite what I said earlier, I do agree about the 96TS refurbishment. Pretty dingy isn't it? I smirked to myself when I noticed they'd even taken the time to paint the little levers that open the ventilators grey as well!

 

[AM9]

... look at the controversy it has caused to fit that many passengers in a 700 with transverse seating. ...

That's not half as much as the controversy there would be if after having spent £1.5bn on new trains, that a few years into their life, passengers were being left behing on platforms. The 700s, like the 345s are both mass people movers that need to operate well when fully loaded in peak hours and carry some seated passengers into outer suburban areas off-peak. I was surprised that the 345's total capacity was stated to be lower given their lontitudonal seating, - maybe they have made an allowance for the feet of passengers sitting in those seats. The stated maximum load figures for all train types can be exceeded, but there should be a certification process to underwrite that stated figure.
The possibility of three door sets per longer car gives better ingress/egress rates providing the width of those doors is adequate. The 700 doors are very wide and always able to allow two-abreast boarding/alighting. Are the 345 doors that wide and do they have as large standback areas as many modern types of MUs twin doors don't really enable two adults to comfortably walk through them at the same time?

 

[kevjs]

Well, the handrails will have to be sufficiently high enough to so as not to be in the way of tall people. Looking around my office, 6'9" is the tallest bloke and 6'3" is the tallest woman - although when she's got her heels on she's closer to 6'7".

It's important to design around real people - there are fewer and fewer people who are short as a consequence of women rejecting short men as sub-prime partners.

Too right - I've headbutted myself on the handrails of the tube trains from St Pancras to Moorgate (Northern Line?) a few times - always forget how low they are when I visit the capital! "Only" 1.94m tall too.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Just looked at that interior, oh my that looks awful...

I respect your opinion-- but I don't know how you can say that when you think of the TFL Rail 315s (horrible trains)

 

[spark001uk]

I see tfl has made it public on today's news then, saying they're still testing the units and they'll enter service "later this month". Guess that'll be the 30th then!

 

[samuelmorris]

That's not half as much as the controversy there would be if after having spent £1.5bn on new trains, that a few years into their life, passengers were being left behing on platforms. The 700s, like the 345s are both mass people movers that need to operate well when fully loaded in peak hours and carry some seated passengers into outer suburban areas off-peak. I was surprised that the 345's total capacity was stated to be lower given their lontitudonal seating, - maybe they have made an allowance for the feet of passengers sitting in those seats. The stated maximum load figures for all train types can be exceeded, but there should be a certification process to underwrite that stated figure.
The possibility of three door sets per longer car gives better ingress/egress rates providing the width of those doors is adequate. The 700 doors are very wide and always able to allow two-abreast boarding/alighting. Are the 345 doors that wide and do they have as large standback areas as many modern types of MUs twin doors don't really enable two adults to comfortably walk through them at the same time?

I don't for a minute disagree that a lot of compromises had to be made for the 700s, I'm far less against them than a lot of people are, though I still don't think they got the seat pitch quite right.

I respect your opinion-- but I don't know how you can say that when you think of the TFL Rail 315s (horrible trains)

going to have to disagree with this one too I'm afraid, for what they are the 315s have lasted very well, they're just simply not big enough for the role they fulfill any more. The TfL refresh has made them very acceptable to travel on, they just suffer from the lack of A/C from any pre-privatisation stock.

 

[martinsh]

345001 at Arriva traincare in Crewe today

 

[fgwrich]

That was TfL's Head of Design. And yes, the interior including colours was 100% down to TfL. It's not dissimilar to the awful gloomy Jubilee line stock refurbishment.

Completely agree, I really am disappointed with the colour choice. IIRC I recall someone in TFL stating that they feel that too many modern trains feel like a white fridge inside, so that's why they chose the darker coloured interior panels. As I've said before, That may be fine for a train spending half it's time in the outside but I really do feel that it'll look darker and dingy when in service and running through the Crossrail Tunnels. Lighting doesn't look too bad, but aside from the seats (which if the same seats as the 378s are to go by I'm not looking forward to using) combined with the dull coloured interior panels, I'm looking less forward to using these already. Still, knowing the quality of Bombardier's panels, the darker colour will hide any marks and stains quicker!

That's not saying they wont be a step up from the 315s, but certainly will be a step down in the Thames Valley and HEX-C ends.

 

[700007]

Hey, the 315s are very nice trains, haha! In the dark (like at London Liverpool Street), the bright blue neon headlights make it come across as a more safe, brighter and welcoming train. A lot of the staff waiting for a 345 test run a few weeks back actually mistook it for one of the new trains from a distance.

Eventually the 345 turned up (345005) with quite dim and plain coloured headlights and a dark interior that doesn't show off the train too well. Aesthetically I'm not that impressed so far and would rather a 315. Let's hope a ride on these 'later this month' will try score it a better mark!

 

[matthewmacleod]

100% baffled by the dislike of these interiors. They're fine.

Although to be fair, almost anything will be an improvement at this stage. the 315s are dangerously overfull.

 

[jon0844]

Yes of course they're fine, but I don't like the look of them inside or out. That's a personal opinion and however functional they are, I can't see myself changing that view.