Southern add 40 vehicles to order

[RAGNARØKR]

Long Distance does not equate to Long Journey times neccesarily.

The Class 395 manages 57km (~35 miles) stop to stop in 19 minutes.

And Class 378s are unneccesarily extreme for most "metro" services.

I am talking about average journey times less than an hour, not the ten minutes of the Class 378s/S-Stock.

A train with a decent amount of seats in it cannot run through central London except on a limited stop/limited access basis. This is why the A-stock has not been replaced by something similar. It does not cope with the congested sections of the route from the centre out to Finchley Road, so the new trains have been replaced by trains with more free circulation space, especially around the doorways. The same trend can be seen if you compare the 1938 stock with the latest tube trains or the rebuilding of the 1973 Piccadilly Line units.

The down side of the S-stock is that people from further out are complaining about not being able to get a seat. Which is an echo of the same complaints that were raised when the A-stock was introduced in the early 1960s.

One size will not fit all.

 

[RobShipway]

A train with a decent amount of seats in it cannot run through central London except on a limited stop/limited access basis. This is why the A-stock has not been replaced by something similar. It does not cope with the congested sections of the route from the centre out to Finchley Road, so the new trains have been replaced by trains with more free circulation space, especially around the doorways. The same trend can be seen if you compare the 1938 stock with the latest tube trains or the rebuilding of the 1973 Piccadilly Line units.

The down side of the S-stock is that people from further out are complaining about not being able to get a seat. Which is an echo of the same complaints that were raised when the A-stock was introduced in the early 1960s.

One size will not fit all.

One size can fit all as it is down to how you have the seating arramged within the train, which is why as I stated before you order two types of the same train. One metro train with 3+2 seating and express train with 2+2 seating which has all ready been done with the class 377s and 350's.

 

[thelem]

3+2 seating doesn't work in any way. Seats are left empty because they are too narrow, and it is slow to load because the corridors are also too narrow. It's much better to have 2+2 seating and a wider corridor, which will allow more standing space in the congested parts (importantly, it needs enough for people to be able to pass each other in the corridor).

Has anyone tried a train with a 2+longitudinal layout? Would that give a wide enough corridor to allow most of the loading speed benefits of longitudinal seating?

 

[sprinterguy]

Has anyone tried a train with a 2+longitudinal layout? Would that give a wide enough corridor to allow most of the loading speed benefits of longitudinal seating?

That's essentially the layout that is utilised in the new Bombardier S8 stock on the Metropolitan line. It seems like the perfect layout for "longer distance" metro services in my opinion.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

One size can fit all as it is down to how you have the seating arramged within the train, which is why as I stated before you order two types of the same train. One metro train with 3+2 seating and express train with 2+2 seating which has all ready been done with the class 377s and 350's.

Yes but you cannot change the seating layout during the journey, apart from having tip-up seats.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's essentially the layout that is utilised in the new Bombardier S8 stock on the Metropolitan line. It seems like the perfect layout for "longer distance" metro services in my opinion.

S stock is not good for everything - there have been complaints from passengers at the outer ends of the route about the reduced number of seats. The A-stock was not good between Baker Street and Whitechapel during peak periods. The route illustrates the problem perfectly. One option is to separate long-distance and short-distance routes but then people have to change and that is unpopular too, though cross platform interchange can help eg as at Finchley Road, where the tracks are arranged down fast, down slow, up slow, up fast, with the slow usually being Jubilee Line.

The best way of optimising seats and loading times is to have slam door stock - doors every two metres and seats the full width of the vehicle. This is why the Metropolitan ordered the slam door T-stock as late as the 1930s and the Southern persisted with them until the mid-1960s. But slam door stock has a string of other drawbacks so that is out of the question.

Over more than 100 years there have been endless attempts to deal with the two conflicting requirements in the UK and abroad. Just look at the number of different layouts used for London surface line stock. Most of the letters of the alphabet have been used up.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Has anyone tried a train with a 2+longitudinal layout? Would that give a wide enough corridor to allow most of the loading speed benefits of longitudinal seating?

That is class 378 - probably the most successful of the Electrostars.

 

[ert47]

That is class 378 - probably the most successful of the Electrostars.

The 378 only has longitudinal seating (and is a Capitalstar - but thats just nitpicking). The closest Electrostar to that sort of description is the 376. One thing about that train is that its rather irritating if 2 people want sit on the perch seats near the door, there is simply not enough space!

--------

Just a question, Isn't metro not actually about the style of the train/the distance the train travels, but rather the frequency of the service?

 

[jon0844]

The best way of optimising seats and loading times is to have slam door stock - doors every two metres and seats the full width of the vehicle.

Has anyone ever considered the option of having multiple doors, but using sliding doors not slam doors?

Given a door has a window in it, what's to say you couldn't have something akin to an old slam door carriage - with a single sliding door between each (or some) seats? Then double doors at each end.

Personally, I think larger doors with a bigger vestibule is better for busy trains, and 2+2 seating to enable people to walk up/down the aisle, but it's a thought!

I actually think passengers would probably NOT like this though; as they now sit with the prospect of people getting on/off in front of them.

 

[D6975]

I don't think I've ever seen a coach with 2+2 longitudinal seating. An interesting idea, but you'd lose space for the access to each bay while still having the 'corridor' space down the middle of the coach, so it wouldn't produce an increase in the number of seats available.

You could however have 3+3 longitudinal seating but using normal width seats... There's a thought, and of course the seats against the window don't need access space, so those could be continuous down the full length of the coach. 4+3 in effect I suppose.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

Just a question, Isn't metro not actually about the style of the train/the distance the train travels, but rather the frequency of the service?

From the point of view of the rolling stock, it is the number of passengers carried and the closeness of the stations. Thus Thameslink is clearly a metro type service within Zone 6 and needs metro type trains to handle the traffic.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Has anyone ever considered the option of having multiple doors, but using sliding doors not slam doors?

Given a door has a window in it, what's to say you couldn't have something akin to an old slam door carriage - with a single sliding door between each (or some) seats? Then double doors at each end.

Personally, I think larger doors with a bigger vestibule is better for busy trains, and 2+2 seating to enable people to walk up/down the aisle, but it's a thought!

I actually think passengers would probably NOT like this though; as they now sit with the prospect of people getting on/off in front of them.

The best that might be possible would the something like the LUL D-stock with 4x single leaf doors but with much wider vestibules and perch-seats adjacent,

 

[Class377/5]

From the point of view of the rolling stock, it is the number of passengers carried and the closeness of the stations. Thus Thameslink is clearly a metro type service within Zone 6 and needs metro type trains to handle the traffic.

Couldn't disagree with this point any more. Thameslink is not a Metro. To have a maximum of 4tph at best is just scraping what is considered a metro and most of the future Thameslink metro will be 2tph.

However that said and there will be a metro element to Thameslink from West Hampstead (not Kentish Town) and Finsbury Park to Elephant & Castle and East Croydon.

 

[mr_jrt]

From the point of view of the rolling stock, it is the number of passengers carried and the closeness of the stations. Thus Thameslink is clearly a metro type service within Zone 6 and needs metro type trains to handle the traffic.

It certainly isn't on the MML, hence my desire to see more made of the good lines. There's at least 4 locations that would be good for stations if the capacity was there.

 

[thelem]

I don't think I've ever seen a coach with 2+2 longitudinal seating. An interesting idea, but you'd lose space for the access to each bay while still having the 'corridor' space down the middle of the coach, so it wouldn't produce an increase in the number of seats available..

When I said 2+longitudinal, I meant that on one side of the train you'd have four seats around a table (the '2'), then a wide corridor ('+'), and then a row of seats with the back against the window ('longitudinal').

 

[SF-02]

Any chance of some of these trains heading to Southeastern? Given the number of short formed trains running they seem to have a shortage of stock, and trains on the Dartford - Victoria line I get at rush hour are only 4 coaches when 8 or 10 are needed. This is the first train after 5pm when everyone is getting out of work at Denmark Hill heading to Lewisham and Dartford (the LO wont do anything to help that). Given the line is only every half an hour for most of the day it is a scrum getting on.

London Bridge rebuilding will mean less trains but extended to 12 coaches on many lines but not sure how that will affect stock levels. On current levels though more are needed on metro lines to Charing Cross and Cannon Street as well as the poor Victoria services.

 

[D365]

Could a 375 class and 377 class Electrostar couple at this moment? They are pretty much identical, so I assume it would just be a bit of paperwork needing to be cleared - or software I guess, shouldn't take too many lines - I'd hope.

As the 116+100 order is specified for 110mph, it could be useful on GWML suburban, at least in the short term.

 

[Class377/5]

Could a 375 class and 377 class Electrostar couple at this moment? They are pretyy much identical, so I assume it would just be a bit of paperwork needing to be cleared.

As the 116+100 order is specified for 110mph, it could be useful on GWML suburban, at least in the short term.

Class 375 and a 376 have coupled. They are ok for mechanical only coupling but if don't electrically then there's a big problem. The software on the 377 and 375 is very different and unlikely to get a compatable software written due to costs (who'd pay for a start).

Any chance of some of these trains heading to Southeastern? Given the number of short formed trains running they seem to have a shortage of stock, and trains on the Dartford - Victoria line I get at rush hour are only 4 coaches when 8 or 10 are needed. This is the first train after 5pm when everyone is getting out of work at Denmark Hill heading to Lewisham and Dartford (the LO wont do anything to help that). Given the line is only every half an hour for most of the day it is a scrum getting on.

London Bridge rebuilding will mean less trains but extended to 12 coaches on many lines but not sure how that will affect stock levels. On current levels though more are needed on metro lines to Charing Cross and Cannon Street as well as the poor Victoria services.

The introduction will create some spare units within the franchise once they start rolling out on Southeastern routes starting with Sevenoaks via Catford in 2016.

London Bridge may not see reduced SET services according to early plans.

 

[bronzeonion]

If it was up to me to run Thameslink I would order Class 378's for Luton to Sutton stopping services and Class 375's with 2+2 seating for Bedford to Brighton express services

 

[Class377/5]

If it was up to me to run Thameslink I would order Class 378's for Luton to Sutton stopping services and Class 375's with 2+2 seating for Bedford to Brighton express services

However neither would work. New 378 or 375 aren't coming to new lines. Pointless spending £4bn to them order trains unsuitable for the Core.

You'd be offered Adventra but not Electrostars any more.

 

[swt_passenger]

If it was up to me to run Thameslink I would order Class 378's for Luton to Sutton stopping services and Class 375's with 2+2 seating for Bedford to Brighton express services

Sutton won't be part of Thameslink though...

 

[Class377/5]

Sutton won't be part of Thameslink though...

There's still a chance it will be. Especially now 2tph need to be transferred from London Bridge to Elephant & Castle routes.

However whatever final routes are decided, Sutton to Blackfriars bays will be formed of Desiro Cities. ATO starts south of Elephant & Castle on all lines northwards.

 

[HSTEd]

Since the ATO will almost certainly be an ERTMS overlay of some description, there is no particular reason that units that will eventually need ERTMS equipment (ie all of them) will not also be able to recieve ATO equipment.

 

[RAGNARØKR]

If it was up to me to run Thameslink I would order Class 378's for Luton to Sutton stopping services and Class 375's with 2+2 seating for Bedford to Brighton express services

Sounds too obviously sensible to happen.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However neither would work. New 378 or 375 aren't coming to new lines. Pointless spending £4bn to them order trains unsuitable for the Core.

You'd be offered Adventra but not Electrostars any more.

Hmm, just as the type has settled down to some kind of stability, start building something else instead so everyone can have a new set of teething troubles to deal with.

 

[Eagle]

Could a 375 class and 377 class Electrostar couple at this moment?

They have different couplers (being as 377/3s are just 375/3s with the couplers replaced).

 

[Bald Rick]

Sutton won't be part of Thameslink though...

I wouldn't bet on that. Note the constituency that the Parlimentary Under Secretary of State for Transport represents.


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Since the ATO will almost certainly be an ERTMS overlay of some description, there is no particular reason that units that will eventually need ERTMS equipment (ie all of them) will not also be able to recieve ATO equipment.

Right answer, wrong reasoning. Trains into the bays need not be ETCS equipped, and you can expect 37xs and 46xs into the bays.


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If it was up to me to run Thameslink I would order Class 378's for Luton to Sutton stopping services and Class 375's with 2+2 seating for Bedford to Brighton express services

These trains can't meet the 45 sec dwell times in the core, particularly at Farringdon with the voltage changeover.

 

[bronzeonion]

I wouldn't bet on that. Note the constituency that the Parlimentary Under Secretary of State for Transport represents.


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Right answer, wrong reasoning. Trains into the bays need not be ETCS equipped, and you can expect 37xs and 46xs into the bays.


--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


These trains can't meet the 45 sec dwell times in the core, particularly at Farringdon with the voltage changeover.

I mean if the current service was to be retained not with all the new ATO rubbish etc
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sounds too obviously sensible to happen.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Hmm, just as the type has settled down to some kind of stability, start building something else instead so everyone can have a new set of teething troubles to deal with.

Damn right, common sense has no place on the modern UK railway!

 

[transmanche]

I mean if the current service was to be retained not with all the new ATO rubbish etc

How are they meant to get the required headways without ATO?

And ATO is hardly a new concept - LU have had it since the 1960s.

 

[Class377/5]

Hmm, just as the type has settled down to some kind of stability, start building something else instead so everyone can have a new set of teething troubles to deal with.

Things have to move forward other wise we'd still be in steam. Don't forget that the Electrostar has its roots in BR, it's not a new product at all. There are things that need changing as technology has moved on since they units were designed.

 

[MCR247]

They have different couplers (being as 377/3s are just 375/3s with the couplers replaced).

No they don't, tightlock (the original 375 coupler) was considered pointless so all 375s have Dellners now. The latest batches were delivered with it

 

[RAGNARØKR]

These trains can't meet the 45 sec dwell times in the core, particularly at Farringdon with the voltage changeover.

That is precisely the reason why Thameslink should be cut back to run within, more or less, LU Zone 6.

Trains designed to have 45 second dwell times are not going to have a suitable internal layout for long distance routes.

The whole scheme needs a rethink. It is worth noting that when LT took over routes formerly operated by the main line companies in the 1930s, the strategy was to cut them back and separate them from the main lines.

 

[The Ham]

That is precisely the reason why Thameslink should be cut back to run within, more or less, LU Zone 6.

Trains designed to have 45 second dwell times are not going to have a suitable internal layout for long distance routes.

The whole scheme needs a rethink. It is worth noting that when LT took over routes formerly operated by the main line companies in the 1930s, the strategy was to cut them back and separate them from the main lines.

OK, so Thameslink (and by your logic Crossrail) should be LU, seams a reasonable comment on face value, but where do you build the new terminus station to cope with the trains from further afield?

It would require large concourses to cope with all the passengers who would be changing from the Mainline to LU services. The distance between platforms needs to be big enough that you can have a lot of people changing without it being too long that no one wants to change.

How much of an overlap do you provide between the Mainline & LU services, the bigger the overlap the more people who may not join the Mainline services and just join the LU services, but make it too long and the LU services will be full before the terminus. Have the terminus too far our and virtually everyone will change services. Too close in and the build costs rocket as extra lines are required.

Yes there are problems with what stock to purchase, but that is small fry in comparison to trying to build a self contained LU route and get everyone to change from the Mainline services.

Spend a day watching the crowds at Waterloo, Victoria, Paddington, etc and you'll see why most people in the UK think that such a cross London line is such a good idea.

 

[ert47]

They have different couplers (being as 377/3s are just 375/3s with the couplers replaced).

No they don't, tightlock (the original 375 coupler) was considered pointless so all 375s have Dellners now. The latest batches were delivered with it

They only had tightlocks in order to couple with the old slamdoor stock in case of emergency. When they all had been removed from service...