Class 387

[southern442]

To be fair, one counter-point to my argument is that the 700s will (probably) have First Class, with fairly generous 2+2 seating and tables, which is undoubtedly a luxury for pure Metro flows where space is at a premium.

I know the Brighton mainline isn't exactly very long but how can you call Thameslink a metro service?

 

[Class377/5]

Will point out the Central Line from West Ruslip to Epping is two hours long. Not that much shorter than Bedford to Brighton. And the Central Line and Thameslink have very similar flows with half length flows and more local ones two.

There some significant differences of course with express services on Thameslink.

 

[southern442]

There some significant differences of course with express services on Thameslink.

That was my point.

 

[physics34]

its seems we have a few on here that always have their "business case/financial" hat on all the time, and me and some others have their "passenger and rail enthusiast" hat on...

Of course the business case argument regarding the seating will always win, its just a shame that "adequate" is good enough for some people (a british thing i think - happy with mediocrity ), when people are paying so much money and that so much money is being spent on the project, we end up with "just about adequate" seating with no armrest or tables...which in his modern day would seem a necessity..... to a passenger or rail enthusiast.

 

[The Box Photter]

Perhaps a study has been carried out to determine how many additional standing passengers can be squeezed into each Class 700 if the gap between seats and seat back table are omitted.

Thameslink isn't a metro service as it offers 1st class accommodation for the chosen few (probably MPs and procurement officials from DfT), so the rest of us in cattle class should be afforded seating quality at least equivalent to that already provided.

There have been sufficient photographs of the mock-up that was at Excel last year for it to be obvious that the projected width of the gangways is excessive.

Here's a photo :

Very few people will be able to stand in the middle of that gangway and have long enough arms to reach the handgrips on the back of the seats. There are no ceiling grabrails or straps.

Seating of the standard shown below (minus the tables) should be provided in standard. Airline-style would be quite acceptable so long as there are seat back tables.

The mock-up showed massive luggage areas, but situated so far away from the seating that passengers will be reluctant to use them:

I realise that the exhibition train was designed to give an idea of the formats that could be provided, but the gap between the standard of accommodation in the 1st class section and that in the standard section was remarked upon by most visitors. Their comments were met with uncomfortable grins and attempts to change the subject by the corporate suits. Let's face it, the trains might be longer and more efficient, but from a passenger's perspective, they're as welcoming as a cubicle in an STD Clinic.

 

[Class377/5]

Perhaps a study has been carried out to determine how many additional standing passengers can be squeezed into each Class 700 if the gap between seats and seat back table are omitted.

Thameslink isn't a metro service as it offers 1st class accommodation for the chosen few (probably MPs and procurement officials from DfT), so the rest of us in cattle class should be afforded seating quality at least equivalent to that already provided.

There have been sufficient photographs of the mock-up that was at Excel last year for it to be obvious that the projected width of the gangways is excessive.

This is where it becomes clear your either confused on layout or misleading people to try and prove a false point. Let me enlighten you where you are wrong.

Here's a photo :

This area is like this as its the disabled boarding area and why its the only place on the train to have 2+1 seating. The spacious gangway is to allow wheelchairs though. This happens in just a quarter of one carriage of every unit.

The reason for this is the wheelchair area is just in sight on the left of the photo (tip up seats area) and the disabled loo is in view. The reason for this is to keep the disabled facilities in the middle of the train (which is the gangway between coaches 4/5 or 6/7) so is balanced position.

The class 700 carry wheelchair ramps with each unit which are kept in a cupboard next to the disabled loo.

Very few people will be able to stand in the middle of that gangway and have long enough arms to reach the handgrips on the back of the seats. There are no ceiling grabrails or straps.

Your not suppose to stand in the middle of it. Its an actual design choice.

Seating of the standard shown below (minus the tables) should be provided in standard. Airline-style would be quite acceptable so long as there are seat back tables.

EDITED: Re-reading this it makes more sense. However the seat back table point was dealt with in the Class 700 thread as not a choice as it extended dwell times in the models that the DfT required all bidders to do.

The mock-up showed massive luggage areas, but situated so far away from the seating that passengers will be reluctant to use them:

Funny when I daily use Thameslink services this isn't the case. In fact passengers regularly leave luggage around the doors then take seats near them. Of course not everyone will do this but that why the stand back area are there for. To allow people to stand close if they want.

I realise that the exhibition train was designed to give an idea of the formats that could be provided, but the gap between the standard of accommodation in the 1st class section and that in the standard section was remarked upon by most visitors. Their comments were met with uncomfortable grins and attempts to change the subject by the corporate suits. Let's face it, the trains might be longer and more efficient, but from a passenger's perspective, they're as welcoming as a cubicle in an STD Clinic.

It seems you've confused the mock up and its layout completely. Did you check out the layout of the units provided at the event plus its printing in Modern Railways recently?

Your comments at the end of your paragraph see to forget the upgraded situation for those with reduced mobility or those in wheelchairs.

The mock up did feel cold, but didn't you bother to notice why this way? The lack of any posters, signs (other than a few basic warning stickers) helped create the feeling of more sterile environment that the production trains will.

It seems too many haven't bother to check facts (like the poster I've replied too above) and are making far too many assumptions based on opinions that reality doesn't share. Its all good and well stating what you believe but you need to remember that its just your view unless you can give examples (as I have above).

That said once again we are drifting far off the topic and this belongs in the Class 700 that exists for this reason. But then again many of these points have been tackled there and some people seem unwilling to drop in.

 

[jon0844]

At ExCeL, there was a board that showed the planned internal layout of the 8 and 12 car stock. Easily missed as it was at the far end of the stage, but the mock up did try and show a range of configurations in a fraction of the space.

But while I really want seat back tables, I actually think that for all the criticism put on the DfT, it actually does make some sense and perhaps the advice was actually from a railway man with some actual knowledge on the subject.

I want a table so I can put a coffee cup and perhaps stand up my phone to watch a film, which is indeed what I do on long journeys. I might also plug my laptop into the power socket and get comfortable. But on an Intercity train, the stations are far apart with plenty of warning. If the person next to me in the window seat wants to alight, I have plenty of time to get things moved to let them off.

In the core, the stops are incredibly close together so if people do get settled for their journey from Bedford to Brighton, they really could cause problems.

Perhaps a compromise is to only have seat back tables on the window seats?

 

[physics34]

Seating of the standard shown below (minus the tables) should be provided in standard. Airline-style would be quite acceptable so long as there are seat back tables.

Spot on.

 

[samj]

When will an extra 5th and 6th diagram be added?

 

[tsr]

Spot on.

But if you visited the mock-up (hang on, did you? Can't remember!) and sat on those particular seats, you would have realised that they are the hardest and least comfortable seating in all of humanity - worse than I have ever experienced on any mainline train anywhere else, ever, and certainly not worthy of First Class. You'd be better off with more spacing on the Standard Class seats and added facilities for those, per the 387s, perhaps.

The seat-back tables I can agree are a cause for concern with dwell times, but cup holders would not be. I've mentioned those numerous times and they seem to be disregarded, which is strange as they are used on the Chiltern stock on the outer reaches of the Met line with very good effects.

 

[physics34]

But if you visited the mock-up (hang on, did you? Can't remember!) and sat on those particular seats, you would have realised that they are the hardest and least comfortable seating in all of humanity - worse than I have ever experienced on any mainline train anywhere else, ever, and certainly not worthy of First Class. You'd be better off with more spacing on the Standard Class seats and added facilities for those, per the 387s, perhaps.

The seat-back tables I can agree are a cause for concern with dwell times, but cup holders would not be. I've mentioned those numerous times and they seem to be disregarded, which is strange as they are used on the Chiltern stock on the outer reaches of the Met line with very good effects.

no i didnt see the mock up. They actually 'look' comfortable! If they are not then that isnt good.

 

[Class377/5]

When will an extra 5th and 6th diagram be added?

Been 8 diagrams operating since last week.

The 5th & 6th diagrams have been operating since before Chirstmas.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But if you visited the mock-up (hang on, did you? Can't remember!) and sat on those particular seats, you would have realised that they are the hardest and least comfortable seating in all of humanity - worse than I have ever experienced on any mainline train anywhere else, ever, and certainly not worthy of First Class. You'd be better off with more spacing on the Standard Class seats and added facilities for those, per the 387s, perhaps.

The seat-back tables I can agree are a cause for concern with dwell times, but cup holders would not be. I've mentioned those numerous times and they seem to be disregarded, which is strange as they are used on the Chiltern stock on the outer reaches of the Met line with very good effects.

The 377/6 are the hardest seats as they don't have padding.

How long on the mock up did you actually spend sitting on the seats?

 

[samj]

I meant 9th/10th diagram! Apologies for the confusion.

 

[Blamethrower]

Class 377/5, you certainly seem to be facetiously playing devils advocate at every point.

Your rationale for massive gangways is "well we've got to get disabled people on, didn't you see that? (idiot) " yet the point is that 99.9% of the time there will be NO WHEELCHAIR and therefore people will be standing in that area. If there are no grab rails then what do you want the people in the middle do? Just grab on to other people?

Yes this thread is about 387's but we are comparing them to 377s and 700s and at the moment, I can't see any improvement from 387 - 700, if anything it's a retrograde step.

I guarantee that commuters will be crying out for the return of 377s/387s once the 700s come online as once again, the comfort of the passenger has been completely neglected.

Yet that's fine with you because big business has a right to buy what they want and we just have to put up with it. (not what you said but that is the impression I get from all of your posts - you're in the know and what everyone else thinks about these trains is moot)

 

[jon0844]

A nice open space is great for buggies and bikes so I don't see a major problem. Maybe a ceiling mounted grab rail is a good idea, but on a 8 or 12 car train where it's going to be very easy to walk down (thus encouraging people to spread out) then people aren't going to have to try and stand in this area a lot of the time. Regular commuters will soon figure out where to go.

So many people are upset about losing storage areas on modern trains, yet a train comes along that has an open space that can be used for just about anything (thus not only wheelchairs) should be welcomed.

 

[Class377/5]

Class 377/5, you certainly seem to be facetiously playing devils advocate at every point.

I'm trying to explain why decisions have been made the way they are. I can stop and not add any further comment, especially as it seems most of this debate is being done by people who don't actually have the facts to hand but either guess or make stuff up. I appreciate that not everyone will have a good understanding of these units but that doesn't justify some comments made on here.

Your rationale for massive gangways is "well we've got to get disabled people on, didn't you see that? (idiot) " yet the point is that 99.9% of the time there will be NO WHEELCHAIR and therefore people will be standing in that area. If there are no grab rails then what do you want the people in the middle do? Just grab on to other people?

Yes there will be wheelchairs there. That is a designated wheelchair area that wheelchairs require access too to get to the toilet hence the design . Wheelchairs will only be placed in the center of the Class 700s, of which this gangway is the center of.

People are not to stand there hence the lack of ability to grab on. The loading figures for the units take this in account.

I fail to understand why you are so anti wheelchair when they are regularly used on Thameslink. Whatever your personal feeling, there is a requirement (and demand from groups who gave input into the design of the new Thameslink stock) for this.

Oh I never used the term idiot, placing it in my words and trying to manipulate my words into fitting your argument is rather childish.

Yes this thread is about 387's but we are comparing them to 377s and 700s and at the moment, I can't see any improvement from 387 - 700, if anything it's a retrograde step.

Then start a new thread.

I guarantee that commuters will be crying out for the return of 377s/387s once the 700s come online as once again, the comfort of the passenger has been completely neglected.

I disagree agree, especially the completely neglected part. But again guess work is being taken as fact then its not surprising.

Yet that's fine with you because big business has a right to buy what they want and we just have to put up with it. (not what you said but that is the impression I get from all of your posts - you're in the know and what everyone else thinks about these trains is moot)

Making assumptions about my personal feelings is rather foolish as I've never given my opinion, just facts about the situation and how it actually is and why the many suggestions on here can't work in the way they want.

As for big business, you do realise that it was the Government that selected these trains and detailed the spec, not any business'. Perhaps try adjusting your position using facts not guess work and reply?

Or even better start a new thread where you can act childishly and derail it to your hearts content.

 

[jon0844]

People are not to stand there hence the lack of ability to grab on. The loading figures for the units take this in account.

That's a very good point. I failed to realise this in what I wrote just before.

But we're both in agreement that some wide open sections on this train (and any train) is generally a good thing.

Having just last weekend been on a 317/6 (AGA) where a cycling club boarded such that there were 2-3 bikes in almost every vestibule (from what I could see from how they ran down the platform) I can see the benefits in open spaces. Sure, no train can take 15 or 20 bikes or everyone coming with a buggy - but at least there's a chance to carry some without impacting on the room/comfort of other passengers.

 

[Class377/5]

That's a very good point. I failed to realise this in what I wrote just before.

But we're both in agreement that some wide open sections on this train (and any train) is generally a good thing.

Having just last weekend been on a 317/6 (AGA) where a cycling club boarded such that there were 2-3 bikes in almost every vestibule (from what I could see from how they ran down the platform) I can see the benefits in open spaces. Sure, no train can take 15 or 20 bikes or everyone coming with a buggy - but at least there's a chance to carry some without impacting on the room/comfort of other passengers.

Its clear that there is a lot of misunderstanding on the 700s that people have filled the gaps in with opinions.

I don't quite get the attitude that spacious trains are a bad thing and that disabled faithless aren't worth providing. But hey I'm just looking from the point of fact based in reality of seeing the situation on the ground.

 

[swt_passenger]

One of the recently introduced stocks on LU fell foul of the regulations by having grab rails mounted above the wheelchair space. TfL had to get a dispensation to allow rails to be fitted there so that people could stand in the area in the absence of a wheelchair.

Siemens may simply have followed the rules they were given, so shouldn't necessarily be the subject of criticism, that should go to DfT.

 

[LBSCR Times]

As we are going off-topic, then it would probably have better to have waited until a full-length 700 was available before showing it to the public, rather than a handful of cars.

 

[physics34]

Its clear that there is a lot of misunderstanding on the 700s that people have filled the gaps in with opinions.

I don't quite get the attitude that spacious trains are a bad thing and that disabled faithless aren't worth providing. But hey I'm just looking from the point of fact based in reality of seeing the situation on the ground.

It's just that the comfort of the seated 'able' passenger (of which there are many hundreds-) seems to have been forgotten in favour of space for standing room and 'great ' wheelchair facilities..of which there is normally 1 or maybe 2 at best.

Ironically the cushioning in a wheelchair is probably more comfortable that 387/700 seating!

 

[Stompehh]

It's just that the comfort of the seated 'able' passenger (of which there are many hundreds-) seems to have been forgotten in favour of space for standing room and 'great ' wheelchair facilities..of which there is normally 1 or maybe 2 at best.

There are only two (three on 12-car) wheelchair spaces on the 700.

The point Class377/5 is trying to make is that the seating layout shown (with the 1+2 and wide gangway) is ONLY in that one area, in the centre of the train. All the other carriages will be normal 2+2 seating and smaller non-accessible toilets, as shown in this image.

The mockup was intended to show all the different areas on the train, hence it only had a small section of the normal 2+2 as it's all the same. Some posters in this thread are trying to make it sound like the whole train will be the 1+3 with super wide gangway.

 

[Class377/5]

There are only two (three on 12-car) wheelchair spaces on the 700.

The point Class377/5 is trying to make is that the seating layout shown (with the 1+2 and wide gangway) is ONLY in that one area, in the centre of the train. All the other carriages will be normal 2+2 seating and smaller non-accessible toilets, as shown in this image.

The mockup was intended to show all the different areas on the train, hence it only had a small section of the normal 2+2 as it's all the same. Some posters in this thread are trying to make it sound like the whole train will be the 1+3 with super wide gangway.

Finally someone does understand. I can't believe the inability of many to understand one single area per train isn't a whole train. We are talking about a wide gangway in 25% of a single carriage.

 

[cjmillsnun]

It's just that the comfort of the seated 'able' passenger (of which there are many hundreds-) seems to have been forgotten in favour of space for standing room and 'great ' wheelchair facilities..of which there is normally 1 or maybe 2 at best.

Ironically the cushioning in a wheelchair is probably more comfortable that 387/700 seating!

So what are they to do? It's not about comfort, it's about accessibility. Something most other classes of train (not just BR built stock but many modern classes) do not do well with.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

So what are they to do? It's not about comfort, it's about accessibility. Something most other classes of train (not just BR built stock but many modern classes) do not do well with.

Yes, I think its just about providing a train that gets passengers from A to B and that is accessible to all.

I think we just have to accept this day and age that we can't have everything and that there just won't be a "perfect" train to suit everyone

I would prefer a train (any train) to just turn up on time and get me to where I want to go

I'll get me coat...

 

[fusionblue]

I need to look at it from a different angle - while the 700s may have spots for wheelchairs, several stations along the catford loop at least (Peckham Rye to Bellingham, definitely Shortlands and St. Mary Cray) is completely inaccessible to wheelchair users to get to the platforms, never mind on the train itself.

While im not saying build a batch of 700s specific to the line it runs on, it does make particular features less important according to the line they run on. 12 coach 700s around the loop and to sevenoaks would have made the most sense (as realistically its for 2tph metro use) but for reasons said and unsaid (Tulse Hill for the loop, no reason specified for sevenoaks) that won't happen.

About the 387's... i'd love to even try them but the chance of me using them on a regular basis (not hop a stop or two in the core) is, as i understand it, zero.

 

[swt_passenger]

There are only two (three on 12-car) wheelchair spaces on the 700.

The point Class377/5 is trying to make is that the seating layout shown (with the 1+2 and wide gangway) is ONLY in that one area, in the centre of the train. All the other carriages will be normal 2+2 seating and smaller non-accessible toilets, as shown in...

... I stayed out of this debate (almost) because I made exactly the same point about the same photos in one of the other threads a couple of weeks back.

You could go on almost any 'modern' train and find a similarly large space next to the universal toilet, because thats what RVAR requires. How long before this discussion comes round gain, I give it about three weeks at the most.

 

[The Box Photter]

I'm sorry I attempted to put my opinion. Obviously 10+ years as a commuter on Thameslink/FCC/Thameslink doesn't qualify me to have one.

Wheelchair accessibility is important, but how will the wheelchairs be secured in the "designated area" and how will the need to deploy ramps to accommodate their entry and egress impact on the 30 second dwell time in the Core? Baby-buggy access isn't important and there's no statutory requirement to provide areas where children can be left in their buggies. Children should be taken out of their buggy and it should be folded and stowed in the designated luggage areas. This will free up more valuable and highly comfortable standing room.

Currently all bicycles being taken through the core during peak hours must be folded. From a personal point of view I don't want to sit on a seat that's had a bicycle tyre rubbing against it for the duration of a journey from Bedford to London thanks.

If the train is going to be held to allow non-ambulant passengers to use it, then there's no need to have ambulant passengers sitting on pieces of fuzzy-felt covered plastic squashed up against each other.

How many stations on the Thameslink route are fully wheelchair-accessible? I think a passenger in a wheelchair might find it difficult to use either of the southbound platforms and the slow line northbound at Flitwick as there's no lift.

 

[hassaanhc]

... I stayed out of this debate (almost) because I made exactly the same point about the same photos in one of the other threads a couple of weeks back.

You could go on almost any 'modern' train and find a similarly large space next to the universal toilet, because thats what RVAR requires. How long before this discussion comes round gain, I give it about three weeks at the most.

Or the "Ironing board" seats :roll:. Just because the top bit of the backrest looks like one. Or the (quite hysterical now) "no padding" comments. Those seats clearly have more padding than the 3+2 on the 375/377 types, and both have a huge way to go to beat these seats on buses

 

[LBSCR Times]

How many stations on the Thameslink route are fully wheelchair-accessible? I think a passenger in a wheelchair might find it difficult to use either of the southbound platforms and the slow line northbound at Flitwick as there's no lift.

Brighton
Hassocks
Burgess Hill
Haywards Heath
Balcombe
Three Bridges
Gatwick Airport
East Croydon
London Bridge
Blackfriars........