Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[Goldfish62]

It's standard for new TfL trains now (S stock, 378s and 345 Crossrail) I don't know if it's standard for other new "commuter" stock going forward? Will the SW trains Desiro Cities have through gangways for example?

Yes, because they're Desiro Cities. It's a standard part of the design.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Yes, because they're Desiro Cities. It's a standard part of the design.

Would stock with wide gangways be a problem anywhere on the network? I'm thinking here of the Merseyrail loop. I have only made a handful of journeys on 378s and S-stock but I appreciated the spacious feel the wider gangways give.

 

[Class377/5]

Would stock with wide gangways be a problem anywhere on the network? I'm thinking here of the Merseyrail loop. I have only made a handful of journeys on 378s and S-stock but I appreciated the spacious feel the wider gangways give.

The wide gangways won't cause a problem because the trains are the same width as others externally. The inner car connectors are within gauge too so Merseyrail could use the same sort of stock.

 

[physics34]

You lose 8 seats a carriage cos of those wide gangways. Is it really worth it??!

 

[asylumxl]

You lose 8 seats a carriage cos of those wide gangways. Is it really worth it??!

But you gain a lot of standing space. And that makes for more capacity and that's what the rail industry are interested in.

 

[jon0844]

You lose 8 seats a carriage cos of those wide gangways. Is it really worth it??!

Yes.

Look at the S-Stock in London. Now even in the peaks, it's mostly possible to get on a train and not be incredibly squashed and uncomfortable. At worst, you may need to wait for the next train.

If the stock had more seats, it would be a nightmare.

Off-peak, there are still plenty of seats for the number of users.

When these trains start running Bedford to Brighton, there's a chance more people will need to stand at peak times or through the core (depending on where the train was boarded) but it will never be full the whole journey.

Overall, it will be far more comfortable for those standing.

 

[Class377/5]

You lose 8 seats a carriage cos of those wide gangways. Is it really worth it??!

Is it worth it?

Well every commuter, passenger, disabled group wanted it. To not mention the feeling on here and most forums that 2+2 is the best way to go.

Called listening to feedback.

Not to mention the reality that you can't move down a 377 with 2+3 seating meaning you get people unable to move down the train freely. Ride a 377 at Gatwick in the center coaches and see the effect for yourself then ride a 387 and see the difference.

 

[physics34]

Is it worth it?

Well every commuter, passenger, disabled group wanted it. To not mention the feeling on here and most forums that 2+2 is the best way to go.

Called listening to feedback.

Not to mention the reality that you can't move down a 377 with 2+3 seating meaning you get people unable to move down the train freely. Ride a 377 at Gatwick in the center coaches and see the effect for yourself then ride a 387 and see the difference.

thats not what i meant, but ive actually got my facts wrong on what i did mean anyway so ignore me on this point. i meant wasted space at the carriage ends, by the large corridor connection.

 

[Class377/5]

thats not what i meant, but ive actually got my facts wrong on what i did mean anyway so ignore me on this point. i meant wasted space at the carriage ends, by the large corridor connection.

Funny enough that what I had actually wrote originally.

If your talking about the end of carriages then I think your confused. The large gangways have actually increased floor space by removing the end door cupboards allowing for more seats not less as you thought.

There is no water space as in the usual design the end of the cars have cupboards and thin in by the inter coaches doors. The Desiro City (as well as the S Stock) removes the cupboards allowing use of this space rather than boxing the ends in. Result is better connectivity between coaches (and why the 700s wont tell you what coach your in) as well as makes the train feel more spacious generally (area around the accessible loo wont feel so airy).

 

[Blamethrower]

Is it worth it?

Well every commuter, passenger, disabled group wanted it. To not mention the feeling on here and most forums that 2+2 is the best way to go.

Called listening to feedback.

Not to mention the reality that you can't move down a 377 with 2+3 seating meaning you get people unable to move down the train freely. Ride a 377 at Gatwick in the center coaches and see the effect for yourself then ride a 387 and see the difference.

But did they want it at the expense of comfort? Did they want it at the expense of seat back tables and arm rests?

If you satisfy focus groups, you are actually just satisfying a single issue focus. Were individual passengers asked?

Yes they were, were they listened to? no

Everyone myself and my fiancee have spoken to (who travel from Bedford every day) hated the mockups and dread the day when they have to use the 730am service on a new train.

If you cite the s-stock as an example, the longest journey is from Aldgate to Chesham, hardly the same is it? Plus the seats are actually quite wide on those because the loading gauge is larger.

If capacity is such a problem in the core and this is what they're focussing on, why not make longitudinal seating? Or rip all the seats out? That would be lovely and "spacious" wouldn't it? This is really an exercise in how to dupe people who know nothing about loading gauges.

They are simply trying to satisfy all groups but as a result of this massive compromise, they are not satisfying ANYONE who will use the trains.

I would configure them in the same way that 377s are now. 2+2 with seat backs, arms and tables in front and rear coaches, 2+2 with no seat backs, no tables and no arm-rests in the rest

Instead every single seat is tiny and offers nothing for a commuter of over 20 minutes except agonising coccyx, back and leg pain

 

[petersi]

They are simply trying to satisfy all groups but as a result of this massive compromise, they are not satisfying ANYONE who will use the trains.

I would configure them in the same way that 377s are now. 2+2 with seat backs, arms and tables in front and rear coaches, 2+2 with no seat backs, no tables and no arm-rests in the rest

Instead every single seat is tiny and offers nothing for a commuter of over 20 minutes except agonising coccyx, back and leg pain

The problem is that Thameslink is a hybrid regional metro system
The rolling stock therefore has compromises in layout.

Let see how they work in practice.

Unfortunately its not possible to design a signal train for Bedford say Gatwick, and for say Welwyn Garden city to London terminal. One is regional the other is metro.

 

[physics34]

Funny enough that what I had actually wrote originally.

If your talking about the end of carriages then I think your confused. The large gangways have actually increased floor space by removing the end door cupboards allowing for more seats not less as you thought.

There is no water space as in the usual design the end of the cars have cupboards and thin in by the inter coaches doors. The Desiro City (as well as the S Stock) removes the cupboards allowing use of this space rather than boxing the ends in. Result is better connectivity between coaches (and why the 700s wont tell you what coach your in) as well as makes the train feel more spacious generally (area around the accessible loo wont feel so airy).

i meant the seats which are normally up against the coach end walls either side of the 377 "star trek" doors. I had an imagine in my mind that this was wasted space but when i looked at the photos again i realise there are seats in these positions. The equipment that is normally in the those cupboards is nw in the ceiling? Right?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But did they want it at the expense of comfort? Did they want it at the expense of seat back tables and arm rests?

If you satisfy focus groups, you are actually just satisfying a single issue focus. Were individual passengers asked?

Yes they were, were they listened to? no

Everyone myself and my fiancee have spoken to (who travel from Bedford every day) hated the mockups and dread the day when they have to use the 730am service on a new train.

If you cite the s-stock as an example, the longest journey is from Aldgate to Chesham, hardly the same is it? Plus the seats are actually quite wide on those because the loading gauge is larger.

If capacity is such a problem in the core and this is what they're focussing on, why not make longitudinal seating? Or rip all the seats out? That would be lovely and "spacious" wouldn't it? This is really an exercise in how to dupe people who know nothing about loading gauges.

They are simply trying to satisfy all groups but as a result of this massive compromise, they are not satisfying ANYONE who will use the trains.

I would configure them in the same way that 377s are now. 2+2 with seat backs, arms and tables in front and rear coaches, 2+2 with no seat backs, no tables and no arm-rests in the rest

Instead every single seat is tiny and offers nothing for a commuter of over 20 minutes except agonising coccyx, back and leg pain

Ha ha, i agree but alas i dont think anything is gonna change. I suspect a few complaints from longer distance travellers.

 

[AM9]

....If you cite the s-stock as an example, the longest journey is from Aldgate to Chesham, hardly the same is it? ....

Well actually, this longest journey from Aldgate to Chesham will take 68 minutes. The journey from the opposite of the Thameslink core i.e. Blackfriars to Bedford mostly takes between 61 and 72 minutes. So where's the significant difference?

 

[tsr]

Well actually, this longest journey from Aldgate to Chesham will take 68 minutes. The journey from the opposite of the Thameslink core i.e. Blackfriars to Bedford mostly takes between 61 and 72 minutes. So where's the significant difference?

For Aldgate to Chesham, you expect a (more comfortable) Tube train. Tube trains are explicitly designed for shorter journeys and always have relatively Spartan facilities. For Bedford to Blackfriars, or v/v, you are on a train operating just part of a mainline journey, for which there is only a very small segment which is "Tube-like". Mainline stock may need to imitate Tube stock in some ways (nobody can really argue with wider or more doors, decent standing room, Tube-style stations etc.), but it does not need to be hopelessly uncomfortable or impractical for those undertaking longer journeys, some of which may be in competition with more expensive and somewhat quicker EMT or Southern options (in this case) which may rapidly become better options.

 

[Blamethrower]

Well actually, this longest journey from Aldgate to Chesham will take 68 minutes. The journey from the opposite of the Thameslink core i.e. Blackfriars to Bedford mostly takes between 61 and 72 minutes. So where's the significant difference?

Err mileage? Loading Gauge? Line speeds? Number of stations?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ha ha, i agree but alas i dont think anything is gonna change. I suspect a few complaints from longer distance travellers.

Unfortunately yes :cry:

I read today that there is an epidemic of back pain. Obviously it's our fault for being too sedentary but I would counter with the fact that all the chairs provided for us by employers, buses, plains and trains will slowly ruin our backs.

I've sat on loads of terrible chairs for years and for the first time in my life, I have one that is comfortable. It has a concave seat, putting the weight on the outside of your thighs rather than on your coccyx and back.

I posed the question to train manufacturers (make the seat concave) and had no reply.

Sitting on flat seats all day ruins your back and I believe, all trains should have concave seats. Even if they are still narrow, you could still be comfortable.

 

[Class377/5]

But did they want it at the expense of comfort? Did they want it at the expense of seat back tables and arm rests?

If you satisfy focus groups, you are actually just satisfying a single issue focus. Were individual passengers asked?

Yes they were, were they listened to? no

Everyone myself and my fiancee have spoken to (who travel from Bedford every day) hated the mockups and dread the day when they have to use the 730am service on a new train.

If you cite the s-stock as an example, the longest journey is from Aldgate to Chesham, hardly the same is it? Plus the seats are actually quite wide on those because the loading gauge is larger.

If capacity is such a problem in the core and this is what they're focussing on, why not make longitudinal seating? Or rip all the seats out? That would be lovely and "spacious" wouldn't it? This is really an exercise in how to dupe people who know nothing about loading gauges.

They are simply trying to satisfy all groups but as a result of this massive compromise, they are not satisfying ANYONE who will use the trains.

I would configure them in the same way that 377s are now. 2+2 with seat backs, arms and tables in front and rear coaches, 2+2 with no seat backs, no tables and no arm-rests in the rest

Instead every single seat is tiny and offers nothing for a commuter of over 20 minutes except agonising coccyx, back and leg pain

I was comparing the inner car connections and desire for 2+2 seating so most of your post had nothing to do with the contents of my own post but your own desire to state you dislike the fleet. Note I never ever said they tried to satify the groups, just on this one single point they got what they want, nothing about everything else they wanted.

Think you'll find the loading gauge on the Met line isn't that different from Thameslink. In fact the difference between the S stock and 700s is 0.1m Especially as the trains have to comply with the most restrictive parts of the SSL not the Met's Add the S7 and S8 are the same dimensions bar one had an extra coach.

As for the tiny seats, strange you don't mention the 387s with the same seats bases.

Oh by the way your suggestion of tables and arm rest in the first and last coaches, er the first class areas (pretty much almost a coach each) have this so your suggestion is almost pretty much what's in the 700s already. And your suggestion is confusing the 377 and 387s as only the 387s are 2+2 throughout the train unless I'm misreading your post.

I do have to ask, how long have you spent in the seats on the mock up btw?

Let's be honest, seating is subjective. I like the 387 seating, some don't. In fact I get pain on a 319 seat where as the 387s are very comfortable. Not that's my personal opinion.

i meant the seats which are normally up against the coach end walls either side of the 377 "star trek" doors. I had an imagine in my mind that this was wasted space but when i looked at the photos again i realise there are seats in these positions. The equipment that is normally in the those cupboards is nw in the ceiling? Right?

Correct, all the end cupboard stuff is in the ceiling.

 

[HSTEd]

Was it even necessary to have the same door layout throughout the train?

The central part of the train could be laid out like an S8, with a 2+2 seating system suited to longer journeys on the outer ends.
Passengers will probably tend to accumulate around the centre of the train anyway on underground platforms with side entrances.
The smaller number of doors at the ends would also discourage people from attempting to board there.

 

[Class377/5]

Was it even necessary to have the same door layout throughout the train?

The central part of the train could be laid out like an S8, with a 2+2 seating system suited to longer journeys on the outer ends.
Passengers will probably tend to accumulate around the centre of the train anyway on underground platforms with side entrances.
The smaller number of doors at the ends would also discourage people from attempting to board there.

Doesn't work like that on Thameslink as some station exits are only at one end, East Croydon for example, which causes loadings to be bit more all over the place.

 

[richa2002]

Well every commuter, passenger, disabled group wanted it. To not mention the feeling on here and most forums that 2+2 is the best way to go.

Called listening to feedback.

I doubt the question was "Would you like wider doors at the expense of seats?". I suspect it was more, "Would you like wider doors to get in and out quicker and more comfortably?" or simply "Would you like wider doors?". Failing to mention the fewer seats.

It's very naive to blindly believe surveys.

 

[AM9]

Err mileage? Loading Gauge? Line speeds? Number of stations?

The mileage is irrelevant if you are sitting inside the train.
The loading gauge difference is small enough to be irrelevant as has been dealt with by 377/5. The Met seats are mostly longtitudonal whereas all of the 700 seats are transverse conventional (except maybe some tip-ups).
So what has linespeed got to do with seats, particularly when you consider how bouncy the Met is at 60mph compared with the MML at 100mph.
Just like linespeeds, the number of stations is irrelevant, especially when you compare the average passenger journey times. Only a relatively few proportion of all passengers travel beyond Luton, so seats should be available for most if not all who want them. The average journey time of all passengers between Blackfriars and Bedford I would suggest is around 30-40 mins. The average journey time on the S8s between Aldgate and Chesham/Amersham is probably similar.

Your comments seem typical of somebody who boards trains at the start of their journey (going into London). You want wider comfortable seats with armrests, tables etc., that reduce the available space for those boarding later at the busiest stations, (e.g. Harpenden, St Albans*). The railway is there to transport people in as much shared comfort as possible given the limited infrastructure, not just the privileged few and blow the unfortunates who get on later.

* I have never been a regular peak hour traveller on the MML and normally get a seat from St Albans, so don't assume that this is a 'sour grapes' whinge.

 

[tsr]

Doesn't work like that on Thameslink as some station exits are only at one end, East Croydon for example, which causes loadings to be bit more all over the place.

East Croydon now has two separate areas for exiting the station... but that's generally good point, though. FWIW, I feel that if you look up and down the mainline, you'll generally find that the variety of positions of station exits is quite good, meaning that experienced commuters on the Brighton route tend to spread themselves out if the stock allows it (for example, on an evening peak Down direction 12-car Brighton service, I usually find you can walk through each aisle, with a bit of polite negotiation).

 

[Class377/5]

I doubt the question was "Would you like wider doors at the expense of seats?". I suspect it was more, "Would you like wider doors to get in and out quicker and more comfortably?" or simply "Would you like wider doors?". Failing to mention the fewer seats.

It's very naive to blindly believe surveys.

Not sure where you are getting the door width from as I was talking purely about inside the train not exiting. I do believe it went more what do you want and the groups responded x, y, z etc etc.

 

[southern442]

As for the tiny seats, strange you don't mention the 387s with the same seats bases.

The 387's have armrests , making the seat space wider, and they have tables.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oh by the way your suggestion of tables and arm rest in the first and last coaches, er the first class areas (pretty much almost a coach each) have this so your suggestion is almost pretty much what's in the 700s already. And your suggestion is confusing the 377 and 387s as only the 387s are 2+2 throughout the train unless I'm misreading your post.

Oh great! So we should all pay an even more expensive fare just to get the same level of comfort that is provided on standard class in other units?

 

[Class377/5]

The 387's have armrests , making the seat space wider, and they have tables.

The discussion was over the seats, not the spacing. Interesting most of the Thameslink stock had no arm rests.

Oh great! So we should all pay an even more expensive fare just to get the same level of comfort that is provided on standard class in other units?

I never said that did I. Of course it depends on what your comparing against as it's clear that on Thameslink such things (seat back tables etc) are not there for most people anyway (try finding them on most 319s).

 

[tsr]

Any suggestions that the facilities on 319s should merely be matched on new stock would not go down well with the regulars...

 

[fgwrich]

Any suggestions that the facilities on 319s should merely be matched on new stock would not go down well with the regulars...

I'm already surprised at the lack of Wifi - How will those Civil Servants and MPs who claim to travel by train connect to their work with no Wifi?...

But being serious for a moment, I am rather surprised at this omission, given the various older fleets, including the HSTs, which will soon have Wifi if not fitted already.

Good Train, Poor Specification?

 

[tsr]

I'm already surprised at the lack of Wifi - How will those Civil Servants and MPs who claim to travel by train connect to their work with no Wifi?...

But being serious for a moment, I am rather surprised at this omission, given the various older fleets, including the HSTs, which will soon have Wifi if not fitted already.

Good Train, Poor Interior Specification?

If I may, I have inserted the word in bold into your post.

There is no denying that from a technical point of view, the Class 700 is a fine train. It features many brilliant features within its construction which I am sure will make the Thameslink route much better from an operational point of view. From a crew perspective, I am also sure that once settled in, these trains stand a chance of becoming favoured over current options.

However, that is the point at which things fall down. For it is the passenger for whom the railway is provided on routes stemming from the TL Core, and it is the passenger for whom the train must be made. It is no good having an amazingly reliable train if said reliable train is like sitting on a concrete tomb with an interior supplying all the conveniences of a crypt. Cool and functional these trains may be, but what they will not be, if they are to be anything like the mock-up displayed on that auspicious occasion at the ExCeL centre, is fully passenger-focussed and comfortable for anything other than the equivalent typical longer-distance Tube journeys that they perhaps best rival.

I cannot say that 319s are better, because they are not. In their unrefurbished (recently) state, they are frankly just about adequate and nothing more. The 700s will be clean and probably cleaned well. They will have decent air handling and lighting. They will feel fresh. They will get off the mark quickly and tell the passengers where they are. But they will not have that "thing" which makes you feel settled and really pleased that you did that journey by train - mark my words. Try doing a little light editing of some paperwork whilst glancing at the view, or maybe having a spot of lunch - perfectly reasonable things to do between Gatwick Airport and Leagrave, or Horsham and Stevenage. No chance, unless you'd like to pay significantly more to sit on a slightly wider tombstone.

There's a lot that a router or two, some half-width tables and the odd cupholder won't solve, but in this case, there's a lot that they would.

 

[physics34]

Err mileage? Loading Gauge? Line speeds? Number of stations?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Unfortunately yes :cry:

I read today that there is an epidemic of back pain. Obviously it's our fault for being too sedentary but I would counter with the fact that all the chairs provided for us by employers, buses, plains and trains will slowly ruin our backs.

I've sat on loads of terrible chairs for years and for the first time in my life, I have one that is comfortable. It has a concave seat, putting the weight on the outside of your thighs rather than on your coccyx and back.

I posed the question to train manufacturers (make the seat concave) and had no reply.

Sitting on flat seats all day ruins your back and I believe, all trains should have concave seats. Even if they are still narrow, you could still be comfortable.

Well I think this is a very valid debate, I have often sat above a motor bogie on a 377 and found the jolting and ride in general quite harsh. The slam door stock was so much more comfortable with the springy seat cushions acting as secondary suspension. I really don't think newer stock is of such a good ride quality that this secondary suspension should be abandoned.

ALso 377s seem to sway alot from side to side. Would be interesting to see how the spine acts in this situation.

I am aware that fire/European regulations probably make old style seats with big cushions, like on 4CIGs not possible anymore though.

That is interesting about concave seats, I've never really thought about that, and as a back pain sufferer myself that would be a good solution.

The 700 stock is fine for metro style work as mentioned but longer distance travel they are definitely not. There is no way you'd sit on a seat with such little cushioning for an hour and a half if that seating was installed in your car, for example. It's a big shame that comfort for many is being disregarded for the sake of making the trains 'lighter'.

 

[jon0844]

Well passengers are getting heavier....!

I think they'll be fine, and people will still be able to get a seat most of the time (or for some of the journey).

I do agree that the very clean, almost clinical, interior might not make it as a cosy for a long trip - i.e. a leisure trip from St Albans or further north to Brighton.

The 365s now look rather 'cold', although that's just a look. They're still comfortable, even if the environment is not as nice as it once was - but is clearly better to keep clean.

 

[hassaanhc]

Well I think this is a very valid debate, I have often sat above a motor bogie on a 377 and found the jolting and ride in general quite harsh. The slam door stock was so much more comfortable with the springy seat cushions acting as secondary suspension. I really don't think newer stock is of such a good ride quality that this secondary suspension should be abandoned.

ALso 377s seem to sway alot from side to side. Would be interesting to see how the spine acts in this situation.

I am aware that fire/European regulations probably make old style seats with big cushions, like on 4CIGs not possible anymore though.

That is interesting about concave seats, I've never really thought about that, and as a back pain sufferer myself that would be a good solution.

The 700 stock is fine for metro style work as mentioned but longer distance travel they are definitely not. There is no way you'd sit on a seat with such little cushioning for an hour and a half if that seating was installed in your car, for example. It's a big shame that comfort for many is being disregarded for the sake of making the trains 'lighter'.

I've found Desiros to have a lot of sideways movement at speed as well, but only when sitting over the bogie. I actually managed to somehow get a headache as a result between Northampton and Long Buckby where the track is not very smooth . The sideways movement is something I noticed when I went on my first Desiro ride that was not on a stopping service with close stations, and got up to 80-90mph or whatever the line speed is from Waterloo to Guildford via Woking.