Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[ainsworth74]

Yup let's keep the discussion on the new Moorgate stock to the existing thread that Philip Phlopp linked to

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Yup let's keep the discussion on the new Moorgate stock to the existing thread that Philip Phlopp linked to

RTM are really annoying with their 'today' articles and e-mails, which are never on the right day or date.

They can cause quite a panic until you realise just how far behind they can occasionally get, especially if you forget you've read about it directly from DfT, NR or the company involved.

RTM is free though, so I don't suppose I should complain too much.

 

[asylumxl]

Today isn't today.

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=124661

Ah that's what I get for trusting their updates.

 

[Class377/5]

700s will be compatible with the new Moorgate stock which has been described internally as a class 700 variant.

 

[jopsuk]

That will only be any use for rescue though as the minimum Moorgate + Thameslink train length would be either 280m or 360m! They'll be on separate train supply contracts so won't substitute.

 

[southern442]

700s will be compatible with the new Moorgate stock which has been described internally as a class 700 variant.

If the interior is exactly the same (albeit obviously minus the first class) then it won't really matter too much because the 2+2 seating will be entirely appropriate for that sort of line. However, if the interior is exactly the same, then it will only highlight the flaws of the 700's even more.

 

[jon0844]

It would be the same minus first class and the toilets, which should be fine. Loads more room to stand, no middle cabs, easy walk through gangways. I think they'll be fine.

Presumably any teething troubles on the 700s will be long sorted too.

 

[southern442]

It would be the same minus first class and the toilets, which should be fine. Loads more room to stand, no middle cabs, easy walk through gangways. I think they'll be fine.

It will certainly be fine for those units, but it will highlight the fact that people travelling on journeys of 40+ miles are being treated to the same interior as an inner-suburban metro service.

 

[Goldfish62]

It will certainly be fine for those units, but it will highlight the fact that people travelling on journeys of 40+ miles are being treated to the same interior as an inner-suburban metro service.

And I wouldn't be surprised if they have plug sockets and WiFi like the SWT 707s, but unlike the 700s...

 

[DerekC]

It will certainly be fine for those units, but it will highlight the fact that people travelling on journeys of 40+ miles are being treated to the same interior as an inner-suburban metro service.

The only real answer to that would have been to completely change the service plan concept for Thameslink so that it was more like Crossrail - i.e. carrying suburban passengers only, with no through long distance services. If you want through services between Brighton and Cambridge or wherever, people will use them for shorter distance commuting into London and if you want to accommodate high flows of commuters on these routes, the trains will have to be designed for them. I can't see any other way out. Most people using them for journeys of 40+ miles have an option to go by another service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or indeed to split Thameslink into IC and non IC, and run Bedford to Brighton with only about 3-4 stops using more IC style stock?

 

[DerekC]

Or indeed to split Thameslink into IC and non IC, and run Bedford to Brighton with only about 3-4 stops using more IC style stock?

The problem with that is twofold. First, where do you put your intermediate stops in the "IC" service? If they include for example East Croydon and St Albans (and there would be howls of protest if they didn't) the IC service will get just as crowded as the non-IC. And when you get to the core section the dwell time of all trains needs to be very similar - so end doors and vestibules are definitely out - and you end up tweaking the seat width, seat pitch and door width/vestibule size. It's not going to be very different. What you end up with is a slight increase in comfort for seated passengers at the expense of some standing room. The "IC/non-IC" approach is, of course, being put to the test with Class 800s and Class 345s at Reading. Interesting that we have such radically different approaches in different areas of the same network serving the same capital city. Do we assume a grand strategic experiment - or just a confusion?

 

[AM9]

It will certainly be fine for those units, but it will highlight the fact that people travelling on journeys of 40+ miles are being treated to the same interior as an inner-suburban metro service.

The distance is irrelevant, it's the average travelling time of passengers. A seat (and a toilet) is just as important on a train that takes 30 minutes to cover 20 miles as on one that takes 30 minutes to cover 40 miles.

 

[Class377/5]

And I wouldn't be surprised if they have plug sockets and WiFi like the SWT 707s, but unlike the 700s...

There's a very good reason why the 700s don't have plug so while the 707 and GN Desiro Cities do. Weight. The 700 order demanded lighter trains which meant bidders couldn't offer plug sockets as it would have failed the weight test.

Both the GN and 707 units were not subject to this requirement so can offer plugs at seats.

The problem is you need miles of wires in each unit which adds up. The weight issue was taken seriously with charts produced of the hourly weight over the tracks and daily. The tonnage over the Core is significantly high with 24tph and as it will be so heavily depended on so closing the Core for track maintenance, which must be avoided at all costs.

Unless those using are happy with more frequency track closures at weekends and some over holiday periods then putting in plugs is possible.

Oh and IC tock is out of the question for the Core as you need one type of stock from 2018 with identical performance. Not to mention the simple fact the Core can only hand 20m stock means you're only going to a different layout 700 which will cause confusion and delay movement and possibly delay trains not to mention all the destinations served from get similar type of units (regardless of people's opinions of the tables).

 

[AM9]

Or indeed to split Thameslink into IC and non IC, and run Bedford to Brighton with only about 3-4 stops using more IC style stock?

If 'IC' is meant to imply end doors and through seating, why is that so necessary for a 35-40 minute journey, (e.g. Bedford-St Albans-St Pancras) train, when a St Albans stopper takes over 30 minutes to get to St Pancras?
Even an Electrostar style interior (to put the doors where they need to be for the core stops) would overfill their restricted standing room at St Albans and Bedford passengers would have less chance of boarding at St Pancras in the evenings.
All such a change would do is give a few, (about 15%) more seats between St Albans and Bedford at the expense of a lot of standing room in the core and out to the first stop north.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There's a very good reason why the 700s don't have plug so while the 707 and GN Desiro Cities do. Weight. The 700 order demanded lighter trains which meant bidders couldn't offer plug sockets as it would have failed the weight test.

Both the GN and 707 units were not subject to this requirement so can offer plugs at seats.

The problem is you need miles of wires in each unit which adds up. The weight issue was taken seriously with charts produced of the hourly weight over the tracks and daily. The tonnage over the Core is significantly high with 24tph and as it will be so heavily depended on so closing the Core for track maintenance, which must be avoided at all costs.

Of all the clamour for lifestyle add-ins to new trains, power outlets are (and will increasingly be so in the future) the most irrelevant. As has been said before here many times, it is within the control of those who feel such a desperate need for charging their devices to carry their own solution. If anything is justified here then it is wi-fi, as those who do manage their own device availability cannot (yet) have confidence in an at-seat network connection over GSM. Fortuitously, equipping a train with effective wi-fi is not particularly weight or power intensive so it is likely to become a reality but power, - not so.

 

[Haydn1971]

Once the Class 700 fleet is fully deployed, are we likely to see platform edge doors fitted on the Class 700 only stations ?

 

[Class377/5]

Once the Class 700 fleet is fully deployed, are we likely to see platform edge doors fitted on the Class 700 only stations ?

Not planned for at all. Curved platforms at Blackfrairs, Farringdon and St Pancras along with City Thameslink's dipped platforms make platform edge doors very very difficult if not impossible. JLE and Crossrail are getting them on purpose built platforms designed around installing PEDs.

 

[paul332]

Not planned for at all. Curved platforms at Blackfrairs, Farringdon and St Pancras along with City Thameslink's dipped platforms make platform edge doors very very difficult if not impossible. JLE and Crossrail are getting them on purpose built platforms designed around installing PEDs.

While I don't expect to see PEDs on Thameslink, I believe TfL's research department is looking at ways to close the massive gaps at curved platforms including the worst examples at Bank, Piccadilly Circus and Embankment with severe curves and cants, by means of extending/retracting platform floor plates. Possibly with a view to PEDs some time in the future if regulations no longer permit grandfather derogations, although circulation space on the old platforms would be restricted. And they'd have to be robust and ultra-reliable. But the safety benefits of preventing one-unders would be profound.

 

[AM9]

While I don't expect to see PEDs on Thameslink, I believe TfL's research department is looking at ways to close the massive gaps at curved platforms including the worst examples at Bank, Piccadilly Circus and Embankment with severe curves and cants, by means of extending/retracting platform floor plates. Possibly with a view to PEDs some time in the future if regulations no longer permit grandfather derogations, although circulation space on the old platforms would be restricted. And they'd have to be robust and ultra-reliable. But the safety benefits of preventing one-unders would be profound.

Why would PEDs reduce circulation space? They may take about 200mm off the edge of the platform but passengers shouldn't stand on that anyway, especially when trains are approaching or leaving.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

While I don't expect to see PEDs on Thameslink, I believe TfL's research department is looking at ways to close the massive gaps at curved platforms including the worst examples at Bank, Piccadilly Circus and Embankment with severe curves and cants, by means of extending/retracting platform floor plates. Possibly with a view to PEDs some time in the future if regulations no longer permit grandfather derogations, although circulation space on the old platforms would be restricted. And they'd have to be robust and ultra-reliable. But the safety benefits of preventing one-unders would be profound.

Would a ready made solution such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLCReA6utSY be allowed in the UK?

 

[asylumxl]

Would a ready made solution such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLCReA6utSY be allowed in the UK?

I believe it was looked in to and deemed to have too many drawbacks and cost too much.

 

[southern442]

The only real answer to that would have been to completely change the service plan concept for Thameslink so that it was more like Crossrail - i.e. carrying suburban passengers only, with no through long distance services. If you want through services between Brighton and Cambridge or wherever, people will use them for shorter distance commuting into London and if you want to accommodate high flows of commuters on these routes, the trains will have to be designed for them. I can't see any other way out. Most people using them for journeys of 40+ miles have an option to go by another service.

...or just put tables in the 700's?

 

[332 > 444]

I believe it was looked in to and deemed to have too many drawbacks and cost too much.

Drat! i had an idea like that

 

[ainsworth74]

I've moved a very off-topic discussion about power sockets and alternatives to a new thread which can be found here. Obviously threads that run for a long period of time such as this one will drift but we do need to at least stay vaguely on topic! Many thanks

 

[DerekC]

...or just put tables in the 700's?

Well, yes if that's your key differentiator between IC and non-IC units - and of course if you think that would be a good use for a million quid or so of public money.

 

[Minstral25]

Well, yes if that's your key differentiator between IC and non-IC units - and of course if you think that would be a good use for a million quid or so of public money.

Actually yes! The cost of productivity lost because passengers using laptops to work (rather than watch the latest netflix blockbuster) over the next 40 years will more than cover that paltry £1m.

 

[Class377/5]

Actually yes! The cost of productivity lost because passengers using laptops to work (rather than watch the latest netflix blockbuster) over the next 40 years will more than cover that paltry £1m.

It'll cost far more than that. Due to the nature of contract, you'd have have DfT, GTR, Siemens, Cross London Trains and all 20 odd banks to agree to the terms so legal fees will be in the millions.

 

[AM9]

Actually yes! The cost of productivity lost because passengers using laptops to work (rather than watch the latest netflix blockbuster) over the next 40 years will more than cover that paltry £1m.

Then if those using their laptops may be working productively, there should be a ticket supplement for using a table. That means that they could spend a little of the spills of all this extra productivity on funding the table provision.

 

[DerekC]

Actually yes! The cost of productivity lost because passengers using laptops to work (rather than watch the latest netflix blockbuster) over the next 40 years will more than cover that paltry £1m.

Personally I find seatback tables pretty useless for using a laptop - they are too close to the seat back and you can't open the lid properly - much easier to leave the table folded and use the laptop on - my lap! And I agree it would be more than £1m - that's just the order of magnitude

 

[southern442]

Well, yes if that's your key differentiator between IC and non-IC units - and of course if you think that would be a good use for a million quid or so of public money.

I think it would be certainly.

• People use them to work on laptops
• People can eat food off of tables
• They are a convenient place to put items such as electronic tablets or books
• On a journey from London to Brighton they would definitely be most appropriate, especially as pretty much all the trains currently running on the BML (bar some 319's) have tables
• The interior at the moment is pretty basic so really it's the least they can do to make a substandard interior decent.