Still wouldnt class some routes on the line as 'outer suburban'...it is closer to Inter-city than outer suburban in my opinion, especially as Littlehampton to London is a fairly long journey....
The type of route used to determine the appropriate rolling stock in terms of passenger amenity is based on the
average journey time of passengers, i.e. that which the majority normally take. Therefore, the
average passenger journey on Thameslink would probably be between 30 and 45 minutes. Yes of course you can go between Bedford and Brighton, (or soon to be Kings Lynn and Brighton) but a very small proportion of all passengers do pay for such a journey. As far as Govia's Electrostar fleet is concerned, you could travel from Victoria to Southampton, but I guess that the number of passengers making that journey per train would be very small. There is probably only one service that has a significant proportion of passengers that go end-to-end and that is non-stop VIC/LBG to BTN, and maybe there would be a case for slightly better amenities on that service, but I can already hear the wailing of regulars when for perfectly normal logistics reasons, whatever subclass of Electrostar it is cannot be deployed on any given day.
In the past, CIGs were used on journeys such as Littlehampton and Brighton to London Bridge......one can only guess this was the case because you would expect better comfort than an Outer Suburban service... otherwise VEPS would be adequate.
To go from a CIG to a 377 and then to a 700 to me seems a continuous step down.
Whether a CIG, (ignoring the BIG buffet service) is better than a 377 is a matter of opinion. CIG=draughty, noisy, no A/C, slower acceleration, no armrests between passengers, old BR-style toilets and not to mention less safe with slam doors.
As far as the 700s go, they are specifically designed for the Thameslink core intensive service - which didn't exist much in the 'good old days', however, 700s should be compared with VEPs. VEPs= even more draughty and noisy than CIGs, no A/C, lower top speed and probably slower acceleration, old BR_style toilets and slam doors and
2+3 seating with no armrests between passengers
SO much money is being spent on the line that it seems that squeeze everyone in as tight as possible and provide them with the cheapest possible type of seating seems a poor decision for the passengers.
In the view of many, (including those who make the decisions as well as those who typically still travel in pacers) the spending has to stop somewhere. The passengers in the old 'southern area' are to a degree captive. Those on this forum based in the north should also take that on board, it's not all luxury down here.
The 8 car metro sets will be fine comfort wise as will East Grinstead and Horsham services 12 car services, but maybe the ones on longer journey should have better seating.
You mean the ones that you use!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
But they were private and run as commercial operations to extract the maximum revenue for shareholders from 1830 to 1947 and the Southern Railway provided seats like this then on the Brighton Line (and pullmans as well)
http://www.bluebell-railway.co.uk/bluebell/cw_news/cwn-pic/2526/2526_int_29aug09_4305vs.jpg .Even inner suburban trains had seats like this
(nb note the clever headrest design to stop the narrow corridor problem that you get in 377 2+3 seating):
https://www.flickr.com/photos/seadipper/16748868/
I think the problem is a lack of competition and pax being taken for granted, which wasn't the case sixty years ago when coach and bus services in south London and home counties were faster and more reliable on uncongested roads.
Take First Great Western from Oxford, they have much more comfortable seats in the refurbished Class 166 networkers, they also have trolley refreshment services, journey is similar distance to Brighton line. Difference? M40/A40/A40(M) goes right into London so coaches such as the "Oxford Tube" are viable competition and if FGW provided 387 type seats many people would get the "Oxford Tube" instead.
However, despite the M23 and M1 expiring miles out of central London, I think GTR/southerns seat policies are very short sighted, because the only way GTR can realistically increase profits is to attract more discretionary offpeak traffic and 387/700 seats will see many offpeak people driving instead wherever feasible.
Basically, I agree with most of what you say.
See my other posts re Running a TOC (or group of TOCs) is a commercial mechanism to extract the maximum amount of cash. Govia must be quite confident that no significant loss of patronage will arise if they just run the minimum contractual services and amenity levels for their captive clients. Traffic will increase in line with regional trends, so they have probably taken that into consideration.
Also, they obviously don't have much to worry about if passengers leave GTR trains for Southern!
. The fact is that 2+2 seating is perfectly fine, because although there are less seats, it means that those that have to stand can do so in 'comfort'. The problem is that the seating is intercity style not because of how many seats per side, it's because there are armrests and full tables and power points etc. The 700's don't have these, meaning the standard of seating is not being met on the Brighton line, and that is why people are complaining (apologies if you were agreeing with me and I was just being Captain State The Obvious). 