New Thameslinky Trains - Tables ?

[yorksrob]

It didn’t. It was wider feedback.

My mistake, but the researchers should have done their researcch beforehand.

Though personally, if it‘s a choice between the cost of retrofitting tables, and something other somewhere else - I’d probably pick the something else.

Depends what else though.

I'd say that seat back tables are a better use of taxpayers funds for example, than swapping EMR HST's for ex East Coast ones for a year.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2021 ==

One of the issues was ordering the fleet before the final service pattern was settled - the interloper of the Rainham service only came late in the day (for example).

That's not really an excuse though. Long distance services were always going to be included in the service pattern.

 

[Bald Rick]

You’ll have to remind me exactly what changed?...

Well there’s a book in that, and one that I’m not going to write! As @Ianno87 mentions the Rainhams were part of it and IIRC stopping patterns south of Croydon have a lot to do with it too - ie more stops means longer journey times means more units.

 

[bramling]

My mistake, but the researchers should have done their researcch beforehand.



Depends what else though.

I'd say that seat back tables are a better use of taxpayers funds for example, than swapping EMR HST's for ex East Coast ones for a year.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2021 ==



That's not really an excuse though. Long distance services were always going to be included in the service pattern.

I think the issue of 8-cars is more to do with numbers of each type. However as the 8-cars generally do the more metro work there would certainly have been some scope for differences in spec between the two (which to be fair there are some very slight differences in the interior layout).

There’s also some oddities though - like for example the 700/0s having identical first class provision to the 700/1s. I suspect it is this which largely has resulted in the permanent declassifying, so some people may see this as a good thing!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2021 ==

Well there’s a book in that, and one that I’m not going to write! As @Ianno87 mentions the Rainhams were part of it and IIRC stopping patterns south of Croydon have a lot to do with it too - ie more stops means longer journey times means more units.

I’m guessing it wasn’t really Rainham as that largely affects 700/0s, unless we’re saying that redistributing 700/0s to Rainham meant 700/1s had to be used elsewhere (can’t think where though - East Grinstead and Littlehampton were presumably always going to be 12-car, and same for GN side, which doesn’t leave anything besides Bedford-Brighton/Gatwick?).

Point taken about stopping patterns, this probably is the answer.

I’ve also heard it said that reliability hasn’t climbed as fast as envisaged, which would naturally affect the 700/1s more as there is less slack in that part of the fleet?

 

[yorksrob]

I think the issue of 8-cars is more to do with numbers of each type. However as the 8-cars generally do the more metro work there would certainly have been some scope for differences in spec between the two (which to be fair there are some slight very differences in the interior layout).

There’s also some oddities though - like for example the 700/0s having identical first class provision to the 700/1s. I suspect it is this which largely has resulted in the permanent declassifying, so some people may see this as a good thing!

Ah I see. It was an 8 carriage unit I was on which didn't have the tables.

Nevertheless, on a service like Thameslink you're always going to end up with a mixing of routes.

Another aspect to consider, wouldn't having the same interior spec mean a more unified fleet - which we're told is generally a good thing ?

 

[Ianno87]

That's not really an excuse though. Long distance services were always going to be included in the service pattern.

But not necessary the same mix of 8-car and 12-car service groups.

 

[yorksrob]

But not necessary the same mix of 8-car and 12-car service groups.

8 car services were never going to be restricted to shorter routes though.

Out of interest, do all the 12 carriage units have tables etc ?

 

[387star]

I seem to remember they’re under the seats. Not particularly obvious, but people seem to find them.

The 700s wouldn’t be nearly so objectionable if the whole train had been done out like in first, though I still find the decor exceptionally spartan.

Having said that, when on standby lighting (which a handful of drivers seem to take it on their own initiative to select) the ambience does change for the better a bit IMO.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2021 ==



You’ll have to remind me exactly what changed?...

I always selected standby although when the lights were out at Salfords full lighting came in handy !

 

[bramling]

8 car services were never going to be restricted to shorter routes though.

Out of interest, do all the 12 carriage units have tables etc ?

No it’s only the later units. I think that’s the same for the 700/0s too, though someone will have to confirm that.

 

[387star]

8 car services were never going to be restricted to shorter routes though.

Out of interest, do all the 12 carriage units have tables etc ?

Almost all 12 cars have tables but very few 8 cars do. I believe only the first 23 12 cars do not have tables

 

[yorksrob]

No it’s only the later units. I think that’s the same for the 700/0s too, though someone will have to confirm that.

Ah cheers.

 

[bramling]

But not necessary the same mix of 8-car and 12-car service groups.

So which longer-distance services were planned to be an 8-car service group? I still can’t think of any.

Whilst Rainham to Luton may be longer distance, I’d still put this as a metro route.

 

[387star]

So which longer-distance services were planned to be an 8-car service group? I still can’t think of any.

Whilst Rainham to Luton may be longer distance, I’d still put this as a metro route.

Maidstone to Cambridge

 

[yorksrob]

To be honest, I don't think what lines were supposed to have 8 and 12 carriages would have much bearing on the spec if none of them were planned to have tables anyway !

 

[bramling]

To be honest, I don't think what lines were supposed to have 8 and 12 carriages would have much bearing on the spec if none of them were planned to have tables anyway !

I think you’re right. The main rationale was the 2.5 minute / 24tph headway in the core, at which point length or origin/destination was deemed not to matter.

Ironically we’re probably not going to see 24tph, and it’s a matter of conjecture whether we’ll ever again see the crush loading levels which the trains were designed for.

The 700/1s in particular should certainly have had a 365-style layout with wider seat spacing and half tables.

 

[Ianno87]

8 car services were never going to be restricted to shorter routes though.

Out of interest, do all the 12 carriage units have tables etc ?

This was more to do with the point about the 12-car fleet being more stretched than the 8-car fleet to be able to take units out for retrofitting.

So which longer-distance services were planned to be an 8-car service group? I still can’t think of any.

Whilst Rainham to Luton may be longer distance, I’d still put this as a metro route.

All the infrastructure on Rainham-Luton is fit for 12-car operation (with SDO at some short platforms), so (IIRC) would likely be 12-car if there were sufficient stock.

 

[bramling]

This was more to do with the point about the 12-car fleet being more stretched than the 8-car fleet to be able to take units out for retrofitting.



All the infrastructure on Rainham-Luton is fit for 12-car operation (with SDO at some short platforms), so (IIRC) would likely be 12-car if there were sufficient stock.

That’s what I was thinking (indeed 8-car on Rainham/Luton seems quite an omission to me).

However I’m more thinking of the opposite - we can all think of plenty of examples where 8-cars are operating on 12-car capable routes, either the whole service in the case of Rainham, or certain diagrams in the case of Bedford/Brighton. But I can’t think of any of the current 12-car routes which were planned for 8-car.

As an aside, whilst Rainham to Luton is clearly 12-car capable, I suspect there might not be sufficient stabling for that whole service to go 12-car if units were to be lengthened? The stabling situation on the Midland side is already messy with 8-cars having to find their way up to Bedford and 12-cars down to Cricklewood.

 

[Mikey C]

That’s what I was thinking (indeed 8-car on Rainham/Luton seems quite an omission to me).

However I’m more thinking of the opposite - we can all think of plenty of examples where 8-cars are operating on 12-car capable routes, either the whole service in the case of Rainham, or certain diagrams in the case of Bedford/Brighton. But I can’t think of any of the current 12-car routes which were planned for 8-car.

As an aside, whilst Rainham to Luton is clearly 12-car capable, I suspect there might not be sufficient stabling for that whole service to go 12-car if units were to be lengthened? The stabling situation on the Midland side is already messy with 8-cars having to find their way up to Bedford and 12-cars down to Cricklewood.

The Rainham service operates the stoppers on the MML where some of the stations can only take 8 cars

 

[Ianno87]

The Rainham service operates the stoppers on the MML where some of the stations can only take 8 cars

They can take 12 with SDO.

 

[Failed Unit]

No it’s only the later units. I think that’s the same for the 700/0s too, though someone will have to confirm that.

I think 700048 upwards has tables. But some the 8s do.

 

[AM9]

In that case, why did it take an MP intervention to get seat tables added.



And the public use the trains.

What fraction of the UK population use trains regularly, specifically 'need' seat tables/power/wi-fi on their journeys and whose patronage would be influenced by the presence of those on outer suburban trains.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2021 ==

No it’s only the later units. I think that’s the same for the 700/0s too, though someone will have to confirm that.

I think it was after about 700130 had been delivered. Then new trains started appearing with seat back tables, both on 700/1s and /2s, (which would have been at a slightly higher serial number by then). Suggestions that the fleet could be split by sub-class in terms of minor issues like seat back tables are ignoring that many of the journeys in diagrams with the longest runs, e.g. Peterborough to Horsham and Bedford/Cambridge to Brighton are covered by diagrams that can have 8 or 12 car trains, - the diagrams being used to move stock around the network and equalise mileage for maintenance purposes. So in practice, the trains are all deployed with potentially similar journeys, the only exception being the metro services like those on the Sutton loop and MML stoppers where short platforms preclude the use of 12-car sets.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2021 ==

It is someone’s mess-up though, and one would expect to see an element of accountability for it.

To be fair, I’d tend to agree that wi-fi is increasingly superfluous. I’m less sure about charging points though, these are one area where a new train should be expected to have an edge on something from the 1990s.

Presumably something attracts people to declassified first on a 700. Assuming it’s not an attraction to antimacassars, it can only be either the presence of tables or the plug sockets.

You will no doubt be pleased to know that my trip up to STP and back from ZFD were both made in standard class. No problems there. Of course when the new footbridge is completed at St Albans, the pattern of the rear cars use in down services will probably change.

 

[387star]

I think 700048 upwards has tables. But some the 8s do.

No it's 700023 upwards

 

[bramling]

What fraction of the UK population use trains regularly, specifically 'need' seat tables/power/wi-fi on their journeys and whose patronage would be influenced by the presence of those on outer suburban trains.

That fraction could become quite significant. Personally I do find power can be quite useful, though you'll no doubt make the point that I should be organised enough to have charged my phone beforehand! I can live without it though.

In fact to be honest I'm not overly fussed about tables, I'm quite happy to use the adjacent seat - but I don't travel at busy times, when this is no doubt more of a salient issue. I can understand why some like them though, and the half tables on the 365s were certainly useful to have.

I think it was after about 700130 had been delivered. Then new trains started appearing with seat back tables, both on 700/1s and /2s, (which would have been at a slightly higher serial number by then). Suggestions that the fleet could be split by sub-class in terms of minor issues like seat back tables are ignoring that many of the journeys in diagrams with the longest runs, e.g. Peterborough to Horsham and Bedford/Cambridge to Brighton are covered by diagrams that can have 8 or 12 car trains, - the diagrams being used to move stock around the network and equalise mileage for maintenance purposes. So in practice, the trains are all deployed with potentially similar journeys, the only exception being the metro services like those on the Sutton loop and MML stoppers where short platforms preclude the use of 12-car sets.

I agree splitting the sub-fleets isn't really practical. You could do something different between the 8 cars and 12 cars though, as it's rare for a 12-car to appear on an 8-car diagram (it has happened on King's Cross-Cambridge a couple of times). So if you were to go for a better specified interior on the 12-cars then the only issue would be on the comparatively uncommon occasions when an 8-car is substituted, or on the slightly less uncommon occasions when it's diagrammed (which no doubt regular users would become aware of, and could avoid if necessary).

You will no doubt be pleased to know that my trip up to STP and back from ZFD were both made in standard class. No problems there. Of course when the new footbridge is completed at St Albans, the pattern of the rear cars use in down services will probably change.

Declassified first was full, I take it?

 

[Aictos]

Presumably something attracts people to declassified first on a 700. Assuming it’s not an attraction to antimacassars, it can only be either the presence of tables or the plug sockets.

I find it's mostly because of the plug sockets when I travel on them, mind you there must be a third reason that hasn't mentioned...

For me, a combinaction of the better seat (as I tend to do longer journeys on them) plus the plug socket.

I'm the same, recently I've had a 2.5hr commute one way on them so I generally make my way to the declassified 1st Class and make myself comfortable, the slightly better seating and the plug sockets are my main reasons for using it.

Table and bigger seat in my experience. Very rare to see the plug sockets in use, indeed I don’t even know where they are!

Plug sockets are under the seats in much the same way that they are fitted on Class 717s and also how they're fitted on the SouthEastern HS1 Class 395s. Usually a pair of plug sockets per two seats.

So which longer-distance services were planned to be an 8-car service group? I still can’t think of any.

Whilst Rainham to Luton may be longer distance, I’d still put this as a metro route.

Even though it's a 2.5hrs end to end, it is a metro route as it stops nearly everywhere from London Bridge to Rainham but is semi fast north of St Pancras.

All the infrastructure on Rainham-Luton is fit for 12-car operation (with SDO at some short platforms), so (IIRC) would likely be 12-car if there were sufficient stock.

No it isn't, not all the infrastructure is fit for 12 car operation especially in Kent.

As an aside, whilst Rainham to Luton is clearly 12-car capable, I suspect there might not be sufficient stabling for that whole service to go 12-car if units were to be lengthened? The stabling situation on the Midland side is already messy with 8-cars having to find their way up to Bedford and 12-cars down to Cricklewood.

I hate to burst your bubble guys but Luton to Rainham isn't 12 car capable at all because some stations are only permitted to take a maximum length of 10 car trains even if the actual platform length is longer then 240m.
So regardless of the Class 700s having SDO or not, it's not permitted by Network Rail so not worth discussing 12 car operation on the Luton to Rainham services.

Higham 10 car only
Woolwich Arsenal 10 car only

And that was taken from the Network Rail (Kent, Wessex, Sussex) Sectional Appendix dated Feb 2021.

 

[Ianno87]

No it isn't, not all the infrastructure is fit for 12 car operation especially in Kent.


I hate to burst your bubble guys but Luton to Rainham isn't 12 car capable at all because some stations are only permitted to take a maximum length of 10 car trains even if the actual platform length is longer then 240m.
So regardless of the Class 700s having SDO or not, it's not permitted by Network Rail so not worth discussing 12 car operation on the Luton to Rainham services.

Higham 10 car only
Woolwich Arsenal 10 car only

And that was taken from the Network Rail (Kent, Wessex, Sussex) Sectional Appendix dated Feb 2021.

Is it "not permitted" or "just not cleared yet". Is there any fundamental issue why SDO cannot be used at those locations (as opposed to simply not having been cleared yet)? E.g. neither station has a junction immediately at one end of the station.

 

[Failed Unit]

No it's 700023 upwards

You sure. Sat on 700028 right now. No tables here.

 

[edwin_m]

What fraction of the UK population use trains regularly, specifically 'need' seat tables/power/wi-fi on their journeys and whose patronage would be influenced by the presence of those on outer suburban trains.

Post-Covid I think there will be more who travel into the office as required for meetings etc, often at off-peak times, and would appreciate the ability to catch up with a few emails or other tasks on a laptop. The journey time from the outer ends of the route is long enough to make this worthwhile.

 

[Bald Rick]

Post-Covid I think there will be more who travel into the office as required for meetings etc, often at off-peak times, and would appreciate the ability to catch up with a few emails or other tasks on a laptop. The journey time from the outer ends of the route is long enough to make this worthwhile.

Purely from observation, most people catch up on emails etc on their phone. The people I see using laptops are more often that not doing coding for IT!

 

[387star]

You sure. Sat on 700028 right now. No tables here.

I meant 700124 upwards

 

[Aictos]

Is it "not permitted" or "just not cleared yet". Is there any fundamental issue why SDO cannot be used at those locations (as opposed to simply not having been cleared yet)? E.g. neither station has a junction immediately at one end of the station.

You have to ask SouthEastern as they manage the station and as such they are the ones who put in train length restrictions in.

 

[fkofilee]

As a regular traveller (Super Off Peak TCs are soooooooooooooooooooooo good at weekends TL Only from GTW) I love the dec 1st class.
Tables, Comfier Chairs, Power Sockets
Hell even single seats on some tables

Ive found HRH - Peterborough Services tend to be 12 cars at all times but I could be wrong.
I also find that GTW to Bedford / BTN to Cambridge tend to be 8 cars on occasions.