Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[jon0844]

I may get hounded for this, but I think that having fixed 12- and 8-car formations will lead to more cancellations. For example, if a 12-car unit develops a fault, the train will have to be cancelled. If it was 3 4-car trains, the faulty train will be taken out of use and the train will still run, but in a short formation. This wouldn't be possible with fixed formations. Is that a problem or am I missing something that means this problem wouldn't arise?

I can't imagine the carnage if a 12 car train goes out of service and everyone has to somehow get on the next 8 or 12 car train.

 

[AM9]

There is just one statement that ive said before which im fully convinced is true, bottom line.....

"Rolling stock on outer-suburban services should have table provisions due to many passengers these days using electronic devices for their hour-plus journey and for somewhere to put a hot cup of coffee (or other drinks) that the railways promote people to purchase"

They are going to be installing wifi at a later date, admitting the above.

The seat comfort and armrest situation is another debate, and im now having to accept, reluctantly, that hard seating with two inchs of sponge is classed as adequate for a 2hr journey (even though even a shorter flight on RYANAIR offers more comfortable seating, on a form of transport that doesnt go over jointed track and rough sets of points), and is the future, and that comfortable seating as found on an EPB or a CIG with sprung seats that take alot of impact off your back (secondary suspension) is now considered "luxury".

I travelled on a fast horsham recently on 377/6 stock and the ride was awful. Not "comfortable" at all.

Cost should not be relevant as this stock will be carrying millions of people over 30 years or so, and unless the tables were going to be made of gold or the seating was going to be like a leather sofa, then adequate balance should be financed in.

The weight issue is irrelevant as a single person weighs more than a table so why should this even be factored in when they want the trains to carry as many people as possible.?? Sounds barmy to me.

The table issue is as has been said related to weight. Anything that is fitted to the train is carried for the life of the train. The cost is more to do with the additional track charges and the cost of additional maintenance of the core infrastructure, (see post #2114).
Wi-fi is notheing to do with tables or the seat types. There is a government call for universal wi-fi installation in trains and it adds very little weight to the trains so doesn't impact on the core maintenance issue.

 

[southern442]

This is a Class 700 discussion so im just going to ask a few questions that have a link to that.
What will happen to the slow line platforms at Kings Cross? TSGN have already given Moorgate a 24/7 service and once Great Northern turns into Thameslink and starts running through those canal tunnels, there will be no slow line trains terminating at KX. You could fit an Adelante in those platforms or squeeze in a Grand Central HST I think, but really, I want some clarification on that one.

I'm not 100% sure about this one, but it would make sense for Hull Trains or Grand Central to use them. Also AFAIK the King's Lynn services and a few others will not be transferred to Thameslink so they will still use these platforms.

They have also recently announced they are going to build some more 700s for Moorgate. As far as I know, they have no toilets. Why? This has the smell of non forward planning.

They will be similar to 700's, but will not be 700's exactly. They won't have toilets because they are only designed for metro use which apparently doesn't justify the inclusion of a toilet.

I also do not understand why Moorgate services don't all go to Stevenage. Could you not have 3tph Stevenage ia Hertford North and 3tph Stevenage via Welwyn Garden City? I understand that the Welwyn Viaduct is probably what is stopping this.

And yes, they do not all go to Stevenage because the ECML doesn't have enough capacity beyond Welwyn GC due to it only being double-tracked.

However, if they did quadrouple track that section, could you then not have the future Thameslink services call at Finsbury Park, Welwyn Garden City, Stevenage then all stations to Peterborough/Kings Lynn and have Moorgate trains do all the suburban services?

In theory, yes you could have this layout, and it would be quite a practical solution, however it is the cost of the quadroupling the line that would prevent the DfT from doing this. As I said before this sort of risk investment would end up paying for itself, but oh well.

I am just a curious lad who wants to know things because Exeter is hardly interesting in terms of railway traffic. I would be very grateful if someone could answer these questions please!

See answers in bold. Hope it helps.

 

[D365]

I'm not 100% sure about this one, but it would make sense for Hull Trains or Grand Central to use them. Also AFAIK the King's Lynn services and a few others will not be transferred to Thameslink so they will still use these platforms.

According to SimSig, the suburban platforms 9-11 are only 170m long at best and therefore too short for a 5-car IEP or HST formation. However a 180 would fit just fine, seeing as Grand Central will be taking over the five GWR units.

They will be similar to 700's, but will not be 700's exactly. They won't have toilets because they are only designed for metro use which apparently doesn't justify the inclusion of a toilet.

The current Class 313s don't have toilets. I don't see where forward planning is supposed to be lacking, modern EMUs are designed for WC cubicles to be fitted at any point.

 

[petersi]

According to SimSig, the suburban platforms 9-11 are only 170m long at best and therefore too short for a 5-car IEP or HST formation. However a 180 would fit just fine, seeing as Grand Central will be taking over the five GWR units.

.

I confused surly a five car IEP is 130m long may be slightly longer due to the nose there fore should it no fit into a 170m platform

 

[A-driver]

I may get hounded for this, but I think that having fixed 12- and 8-car formations will lead to more cancellations. For example, if a 12-car unit develops a fault, the train will have to be cancelled. If it was 3 4-car trains, the faulty train will be taken out of use and the train will still run, but in a short formation. This wouldn't be possible with fixed formations. Is that a problem or am I missing something that means this problem wouldn't arise?

I raised that exact point earlier in the thread. At the moment a fault on a 12 car is easily rectified by running as an 8 or boxing a defective cab in. I was told that, quite simply, no faults will develop on the 700s as they have been so well built and will be so well looked after.

Let's re discuss this after they have started crippling he service by failing though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

According to SimSig, the suburban platforms 9-11 are only 170m long at best and therefore too short for a 5-car IEP or HST formation. However a 180 would fit just fine, seeing as Grand Central will be taking over the five GWR units.



The current Class 313s don't have toilets. I don't see where forward planning is supposed to be lacking, modern EMUs are designed for WC cubicles to be fitted at any point.

I'm confused, if an 8 car EMU can fit in those platforms then a 5 car unit definitely will-I know intercity coaches are often longer but not by that much...

You'd struggle to get a 313 on top of a 180 in 9-11 but you'd easily fit a 2 car unit on top with breathing space.

 

[asylumxl]

I raised that exact point earlier in the thread. At the moment a fault on a 12 car is easily rectified by running as an 8 or boxing a defective cab in. I was told that, quite simply, no faults will develop on the 700s as they have been so well built and will be so well looked after.

Let's re discuss this after they have started crippling the service by failing though.

And wait until there are 24tph through the core with these beauties. Then the fun will truly begin. The 12 car sets won't fit in Smithfields Sidings either, so that's an option gone...

The service already falls apart at the drop of a hat, yet when people raise concerns they're casually brushed aside and they're told how reliable the infrastructure and trains will be. Somehow I don't think that means a lot if there is a power failure or similar somewhere.

 

[westcoaster]

I can't imagine the carnage if a 12 car train goes out of service and everyone has to somehow get on the next 8 or 12 car train.

The units have bi-folding doors at half length on an 8 car, and at 1/3 & 2/3 length on a 12 car, this will enable the unit to stay in service if a fault develops.

Incase anyone is wondering, and it not been posted before, class 700 formations will be known as

RLU for an 8 car (reduced length unit)
FLU for a 12 car (full length unit)

 

[southern442]

And wait until there are 24tph through the core with these beauties. Then the fun will truly begin. The 12 car sets won't fit in Smithfields Sidings either, so that's an option gone...

The service already falls apart at the drop of a hat, yet when people raise concerns they're casually brushed aside and they're told how reliable the infrastructure and trains will be. Somehow I don't think that means a lot if there is a power failure or similar somewhere.

I think that when the Thameslink programme is exposed to a little thing called 'what things are like in practice' the timetable will fall apart and the 700's will be about as well received as the 185's.

 

[AM9]

Your response is a straw-man argument. We're not talking about making sick people in A&E waiting rooms whip out a laptop so they can put together a powerpoint presentation on the latest month's sale figures.

Your statement is pretty strawman, given that I didn't say anything about "making sick people in A&E waiting rooms .... etc.". If you read it you can see that I said was "patients, their friends and relatives spend hours waiting in hospital waiting areas for appointments, usually in hours that they would normally be at work..." but that would hardly include 'sick' people and they certainly wouldn't be 'forced' to work, unless of course they had that sort of employer that was more concerned about profit than his staff's welfare. If they are under the weather, they could sit there watching movies whilst waiting, - like some rail travellers seem to expect to.

From the point of view of passenger comfort and convenience, the Class 700s are no better than the Class 319 and in most respects are worse than the 377s and 387s. The seats are too narrow, too close together and offer nowhere for passengers to place a coffee or rest a book/ipod/ipad etc.

No better than 319s? - except they have air conditioning, a better ride, much more standing room, longer trains on nearly all services and a lack of centre seats of 3. The intervention with temporary Electrostars was a consequence of the delays in procuring the 700s so in specifying and designing the future trains, that is irrelevant. I await the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the local rag here following a surprised favourable response to the 387s. There weren't any complaints about the firm seat though so it seems to be a UKR issue.

Whilst the 700s might be lighter and quicker to accelerate, these features are only important if they are used to benefit passengers by way of a quicker & more reliable service. Currently, the 377s and 387s have the ability to accelerate more rapidly than the 319s, but journey times north of St Pancras for all three types of unit on similar stopping patterns are almost identical. Add in the need to fit in with the EMT services on the fast lines south of Harpenden & Luton and there doesn't seem to be any benefit to be gained from the 700's increased power and acceleration.

You've recognised the reason for the similar timed journeys, i.e. the service is run by a mix of 25 year old 319s and 1-10 year old Electrostars. The current timetable has to be based on this mixed stock so the benefit of more modern stock cannot be realised until all trains are 700s. That's normal for the introduction of new stock.

If the only way that the requisite number of trains passing through The Core can be accommodated is to worsen the journey experience of the majority of passengers, then perhaps the powers that be should be thinking again about the number of TPH that they want to squeeze through. I'm certain that most Bedford line passengers couldn't give a monkey's about the destination of their train once it drops them off at St Pancras, Farringdon, City or Blackfriars. The same could be said for passengers coming north from Brighton.

The journey experience for the majority of passengers from quite early in the lifetime of the class 700s will be greatly improved. For those who currently have trouble getting on the trains, let alone have the luxury of a seat, it will improve a lot. Bedford passengers are a minority on the line. As has been stated by Bald Rick and others, the average journey time on Thameslink is 25mins. It is the Dft's responsibility to provide the best service for the majority of passengers, within the budget and existing infrastructure constraints. Without unlimited funding, they can't please all the people all the time.

What BENEFIT to passengers will derive from putting GN trains into the already overloaded Core? - None, but there will be an "on paper" saving through greater stock utilisation, until everything goes tits-up in 3rd-rail land and there are no Cambridge or Peterborough trains for an hour (which is common for us "south of Bedford" passengers).

I can't answer that one other than that maximum capacity at Kings Cross is finite so beyond a certain point in the next few years, services cannot expand to cover the demand. No doubt somebody here with sufficient knowledge of the GN's available infrastructure will be able to explain. Of course with any large scale improvement of services there will be those who see no benefit or even a slight reduction of service, but that is just part of life, where there are always winners and losers.

 

[D365]

I confused surly a five car IEP is 130m long may be slightly longer due to the nose there fore should it no fit into a 170m platform

I'm confused, if an 8 car EMU can fit in those platforms then a 5 car unit definitely will-I know intercity coaches are often longer but not by that much...

You'd struggle to get a 313 on top of a 180 in 9-11 but you'd easily fit a 2 car unit on top with breathing space.

Apologies both, I miscalculated 26m*5 to be 180m rather than 130m

I think that when the Thameslink programme is exposed to a little thing called 'what things are like in practice' the timetable will fall apart and the 700's will be about as well received as the 185's.

Can comparison be made to reliability and 'breakdown contingency' arrangements on an S-Bahn network?

 

[AM9]

... They have also recently announced they are going to build some more 700s for Moorgate. As far as I know, they have no toilets. Why? This has the smell of non forward planning. ...

They are not class 700s any more than the new SWT 5-car sets are. They are all Siemens Desiro City trains in various customer specified versions. Trains are modular in construction so that the customer can specify what they need. Trains like those used on the Moorgate services and the class 707 metro stock on order for services running out of Waterloo don't need toilets.

 

[bramling]

Your statement is pretty strawman, given that I didn't say anything about "making sick people in A&E waiting rooms .... etc.". If you read it you can see that I said was "patients, their friends and relatives spend hours waiting in hospital waiting areas for appointments, usually in hours that they would normally be at work..." but that would hardly include 'sick' people and they certainly wouldn't be 'forced' to work, unless of course they had that sort of employer that was more concerned about profit than his staff's welfare. If they are under the weather, they could sit there watching movies whilst waiting, - like some rail travellers seem to expect to.



No better than 319s? - except they have air conditioning, a better ride, much more standing room, longer trains on nearly all services and a lack of centre seats of 3. The intervention with temporary Electrostars was a consequence of the delays in procuring the 700s so in specifying and designing the future trains, that is irrelevant. I await the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the local rag here following a surprised favourable response to the 387s. There weren't any complaints about the firm seat though so it seems to be a UKR issue.



You've recognised the reason for the similar timed journeys, i.e. the service is run by a mix of 25 year old 319s and 1-10 year old Electrostars. The current timetable has to be based on this mixed stock so the benefit of more modern stock cannot be realised until all trains are 700s. That's normal for the introduction of new stock.



The journey experience for the majority of passengers from quite early in the lifetime of the class 700s will be greatly improved. For those who currently have trouble getting on the trains, let alone have the luxury of a seat, it will improve a lot. Bedford passengers are a minority on the line. As has been stated by Bald Rick and others, the average journey time on Thameslink is 25mins. It is the Dft's responsibility to provide the best service for the majority of passengers, within the budget and existing infrastructure constraints. Without unlimited funding, they can't please all the people all the time.



I can't answer that one other than that maximum capacity at Kings Cross is finite so beyond a certain point in the next few years, services cannot expand to cover the demand. No doubt somebody here with sufficient knowledge of the GN's available infrastructure will be able to explain. Of course with any large scale improvement of services there will be those who see no benefit or even a slight reduction of service, but that is just part of life, where there are always winners and losers.

The 25-minute average claim has already been debated on here with suspicion. Regardless of how some journeys on today's Thameslink may cause this figure to be arrived at, it's complete rubbish for the proposed network. As posted before, on the Great Northern side 25 minutes will get you from Finsbury Park to Welwyn North on a stopping train, or Finsbury Park to Stevenage on a faster train. Any journey to Knebworth, Hitchin, Arlesey, Biggleswade, Sandy, St Neots, Huntingdon, Peterborough, Letchworth, Baldock, Ashwell, Royston, Meldreth, Shepreth, Foxton or Cambridge will be over 25 minutes. Many of those stations won't have any alternative, especially off-peak.

I don't believe King's Cross is the main constraint on the GN side. The fast line south of Potters Bar and the Welwyn bottleneck are the main constraints. Thameslink is not going to help these areas if trains present themselves late or out of turn, something which today is minimised by down trains starting from King's Cross. Meanwhile today there are still quite a few 8-car services on the Great Northern which could still be accommodated at King's Cross if expanded to 12. Even more 12-car services could be handled at King's Cross had the suburban platforms been extended, rather than the concourse built over the space.

Losing King's Cross as a supposed capacity constraint, instead Thameslink locks certain services to 8-cars because of platform lengths elsewhere. The Cambridge-Tattenham Corner service is a case in point - the 8-car 700s will have to work somewhere in the peaks. Another example of Thameslink Programme making the pieces fit rather than delivering what might actually be what users want.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think that when the Thameslink programme is exposed to a little thing called 'what things are like in practice' the timetable will fall apart and the 700's will be about as well received as the 185's.

Yes very much so. The Great Northern side is currently pretty reliable and punctual (the current driver availability issue aside). Users will not appreciate standing on crowded core platforms for ages waiting for a delayed half-hourly service. This doesn't happen today on Thameslink as most common service groups are every 15 minutes.

Meanwhile, users of the non-stop Cambridge trains will not appreciate running from signal to signal on the double-track Cambridge branch following a delayed slower Thameslink train. The proposed service pattern makes this a certainty should the slightest delay occur.

 

[southern442]

No better than 319s? - except they have air conditioning Is AC any better than just opening windows? , a better ride Unless the trains in question are pacers, the passengers don't care too much about ride quality. The ride quality on 319's isn't bad anyway, much more standing room No more room than the 319/4's, longer trains on nearly all services Could be done with any train but fair enough and a lack of centre seats of 3. The intervention with temporary Electrostars was a consequence of the delays in procuring the 700s so in specifying and designing the future trains, that is irrelevant. I await the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the local rag here following a surprised favourable response to the 387s. There weren't any complaints about the firm seat though so it seems to be a UKR issue. The 387's are miles better than the 700's in my opinion but they are by no means the best trains out there, the 377's are much better. The complaining about the firm seats was pretty much over and done with after the 377/6's, although that doesn't mean that the seats are no longer cheap and could be loads better.

The journey experience for the majority of passengers from quite early in the lifetime of the class 700s will be greatly improved. For those who currently have trouble getting on the trains, let alone have the luxury of a seat, it will improve a lot. Bedford passengers are a minority on the line. As has been stated by Bald Rick and others, the average journey time on Thameslink is 25mins. It is the Dft's responsibility to provide the best service for the majority of passengers, within the budget and existing infrastructure constraints. Without unlimited funding, they can't please all the people all the time.

When the DfT did that survey, did they take into account that the average journey time would increase when all the Peterborough, Cambridge, Littlehampton, Horsham and East Grinstead passengers joined the pool? With all those journeys, I doubt the average will be any less than 30 mins.

I can't answer that one other than that maximum capacity at Kings Cross is finite so beyond a certain point in the next few years, services cannot expand to cover the demand. No doubt somebody here with sufficient knowledge of the GN's available infrastructure will be able to explain. Of course with any large scale improvement of services there will be those who see no benefit or even a slight reduction of service, but that is just part of life, where there are always winners and losers.

Capacity on Thameslink isn't finite either - especially when there is disruption on the BML! (Which there is almost every day )

I think you get the gist of the bold text thing now.

 

[Skimble19]

The units have bi-folding doors at half length on an 8 car, and at 1/3 & 2/3 length on a 12 car, this will enable the unit to stay in service if a fault develops.

Incase anyone is wondering, and it not been posted before, class 700 formations will be known as

RLU for an 8 car (reduced length unit)
FLU for a 12 car (full length unit)

Not really sure how folding doors will help with things like a broken windscreen? At present as A-Driver said the defective unit would be boxed in or the service ran as an 8 or 4... No amount of "bi-folding doors" will solve things like that.. In fact what things could they help with?

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Are bi-folding doors even allowed in tunnels? I though that part of the reason the DLR got rid of the original units they had was down to bi-folding doors not being allowed in the Bank tunnel

 

[A-driver]

Are bi-folding doors even allowed in tunnels? I though that part of the reason the DLR got rid of the original units they had was down to bi-folding doors not being allowed in the Bank tunnel

Yes as there won't be any narrow single bore tunnels and the 700s won't have nose end doors anyway so you can't evacuate from the front. Te narrowest tunnels will probably be the single bores on the slows at Barnet and Wood Green. And they currently have 8/12 car 321/365s with no nose end doors.

The units for the Moorgate line won't be allowed bi food doors and have nose end doors. If, on a 313, we have to lock a coach out now we can't run on te NCL and go to kings X instead because passengers must have in obstructed access from one end to the other for evacuation. Hence the cab doors have a passenger side emergency handle for the lock. No other GN stock has that.

 

[urpert]

RLU for an 8 car (reduced length unit)

FLU for a 12 car (full length unit)

The stopping points (little diamond shaped signs) have already started to appear - I've spotted them at Blackfriars and East Croydon.

 

[AM9]

Originally Posted by southern442
No better than 319s? - except they have air conditioning Is AC any better than just opening windows?
Your opinion

, a better ride Unless the trains in question are pacers, the passengers don't care too much about ride quality.
The ride quality on 319's isn't bad anyway, much more standing room No more room than the 319/4's,
don't agree
not true, 12-car 319s (or Electrostars - except 378s) couldn't cope with 1700+ passengers even in crush loading conditions

longer trains on nearly all services Could be done with any train but fair enough and a lack of centre seats of 3.
The 387's are miles better than the 700's in my opinion but they are by no means the best trains out there, the 377's are much better. The complaining about the firm seats was pretty much over and done with after the 377/6's, although that doesn't mean that the seats are no longer cheap and could be loads better.
I'm talking about real passengers i.e the majority, not train enthusiasts. The 377/6 & 7s weren't even known to locals here.

When the DfT did that survey, did they take into account that the average journey time would increase when all the Peterborough, Cambridge, Littlehampton, Horsham and East Grinstead passengers joined the pool?
So 5 minutes longer (if that is more than an opinion) Even 30 mins (five minute longer) is not like 2 hours often quoted here.

I can't answer that one other than that maximum capacity at Kings Cross is finite so beyond a certain point in the next few years, services cannot expand to cover the demand. No doubt somebody here with sufficient knowledge of the GN's available infrastructure will be able to explain. Of course with any large scale improvement of services there will be those who see no benefit or even a slight reduction of service, but that is just part of life, where there are always winners and losers.

Capacity on Thameslink isn't finite either - especially when there is disruption on the BML! (Which there is almost every day )

Nor is it infinite!

Sorry, don't have time for a better formatted reply. Off to Gatwick for a flight.

 

[jopsuk]

What's the current build/delivery/testing status?

 

[Julian G]

What's the current build/delivery/testing status?

4 units delivered (700106/7/8/110)
They are still going up and down the line doing overnight tests.

 

[Bald Rick]

I may get hounded for this, but I think that having fixed 12- and 8-car formations will lead to more cancellations. For example, if a 12-car unit develops a fault, the train will have to be cancelled. If it was 3 4-car trains, the faulty train will be taken out of use and the train will still run, but in a short formation. This wouldn't be possible with fixed formations. Is that a problem or am I missing something that means this problem wouldn't arise?

If there is an in service problem with one unit on one of the existing trains today, the service is more often than not cancelled. There is not enough time to shunt / reform units around at Bedford / Brighton / wherever before the next duty.

The 700s are essentially 2 completely independent units coupled together. So if one of the half units develops a fault in service, it should be able to continue to destination with the other half doing the work. The exception to this is a problem with the leading cab, but that is exactly the same scenario as today: it is either driven back to a suitable station with the rear cab, or rescued by another unit.

Where there is potential for more cancellations is where a whole unit is not ready at the start of service. But, as Siemens are contracted to provide a certain number of daily diagrams, you would hope that they have done their sums right and provided sufficient spare capacity in the fleet to cope with this.

 

[A-driver]

If there is an in service problem with one unit on one of the existing trains today, the service is more often than not cancelled. There is not enough time to shunt / reform units around at Bedford / Brighton / wherever before the next duty.

The 700s are essentially 2 completely independent units coupled together. So if one of the half units develops a fault in service, it should be able to continue to destination with the other half doing the work. The exception to this is a problem with the leading cab, but that is exactly the same scenario as today: it is either driven back to a suitable station with the rear cab, or rescued by another unit.

Where there is potential for more cancellations is where a whole unit is not ready at the start of service. But, as Siemens are contracted to provide a certain number of daily diagrams, you would hope that they have done their sums right and provided sufficient spare capacity in the fleet to cope with this.

Won't help with a unit stabled at a remote siding (ie Peterborough) being prepped by a driver who finds a fault. Instead of shunting e units round or running short (happens at least weekly on the GN) will have to cancel altogether. Or if a train arrives into Peterborough to go in the sidings u till the next morning with a cab fault an entire unit swap with Hornsey will have to be sorted-relying on having drivers spare to do the swap etc.

 

[southern442]

Is AC any better than just opening windows?
Your opinion

I suppose it is my opinion, but AC is no more efficient than opening a window, and AC breaks-air doesn't.

Unless the trains in question are pacers, the passengers don't care too much about ride quality.
The ride quality on 319's isn't bad anyway
No more room than the 319/4's,
don't agree
Ok, but when was the last time you heard passengers complaining about the ride quality (other than pacers)?

not true, 12-car 319s (or Electrostars - except 378s) couldn't cope with 1700+ passengers even in crush loading conditions
Why would the 700's be able to carry more people than a 12-car 319/4? Same seating configuration and also no tables (which apparently means you can carry more passengers)


The 387's are miles better than the 700's in my opinion but they are by no means the best trains out there, the 377's are much better. The complaining about the firm seats was pretty much over and done with after the 377/6's, although that doesn't mean that the seats are no longer cheap and could be loads better.
I'm talking about real passengers i.e the majority, not train enthusiasts. The 377/6 & 7s weren't even known to locals here.
Well I'm also talking about real passengers. That is why I have been saying passengers won't care about whether a train type was temporary or not, the new trains will be a step down in comfort for the majority of those passengers.

When the DfT did that survey, did they take into account that the average journey time would increase when all the Peterborough, Cambridge, Littlehampton, Horsham and East Grinstead passengers joined the pool?
So 5 minutes longer (if that is more than an opinion) Even 30 mins (five minute longer) is not like 2 hours often quoted here.

Yes, obviously 2 hours is a bit of an exaggeration, but the point is there will be many more passengers travelling long-distance after the full Thameslink commences operation and they will be hit hardest with regards to the interior. The East Grinstead, Littlehampton and Horsham passengers who would have previously been used to comfy seats with armrests and full tables will see ironing boards with minimal padding and no armrests or tables. Passengers for Peterborough and Cambridge who were previously used to a 365 with decent seats and tables, or 317's with comfy seating (although a useless table) will now see no decent seats and no tables. They will also see that rail fares are rising and quality of journey is decreasing, and will look to other forms of transport like coaches (that are cheap and have decent facilities) or a car (that is nice and private).



Capacity on Thameslink isn't finite either - especially when there is disruption on the BML! (Which there is almost every day )

Nor is it infinite!

OH NO You got me again, I will have to edit that.

(You have to type something here)

 

[AM9]

(You have to type something here)

i didn't have a lot of time so I thought that I'd try your way of posting. I'm now in Marrakech so anything I post here will be from a phone or a tablet, - I don't like using them much.

OK, so there can't be any problems with the rest of the post then.

 

[bramling]

If there is an in service problem with one unit on one of the existing trains today, the service is more often than not cancelled. There is not enough time to shunt / reform units around at Bedford / Brighton / wherever before the next duty.

The 700s are essentially 2 completely independent units coupled together. So if one of the half units develops a fault in service, it should be able to continue to destination with the other half doing the work. The exception to this is a problem with the leading cab, but that is exactly the same scenario as today: it is either driven back to a suitable station with the rear cab, or rescued by another unit.

Where there is potential for more cancellations is where a whole unit is not ready at the start of service. But, as Siemens are contracted to provide a certain number of daily diagrams, you would hope that they have done their sums right and provided sufficient spare capacity in the fleet to cope with this.

This isn't entirely true. I've certainly had trains booked to leave King's Cross as 8 or 12 cars, but where a fault on one unit has led to the train being divided and one of the units left behind. Obviously it's less practicable if the problem is on the front unit.

Of course on Thameslink there wouldn't be time to bother fiddling about in the core, so once again the passenger loses out.

 

[jon0844]

I don't envy those who travel on a day when things go tits up. I suppose if you're at St Pancras you might be able to walk over to King's Cross to take a slower train there if you're going up the ECML, or use the tube to get to Finsbury Park and get a train from Moorgate, because any disruption is bound to make the low level platforms a nightmare.

 

[whoosh]

These trains will have a lot of duplication and back up systems to prevent failure in service. Traction motor power will be increased to other motors if a set is isolated (the computer systems will be able to do this themselves) and give the train the same performance. Siemens will attempt to get a derogation to not have to have a speed restriction with a vehicle's brakes isolated, as again, braking will be automatically adjusted on the remaining vehicles to give the same rate of deceleration for the train as it has with no vehicles' brakes isolated.

The speedometer can be switched to a different screen in the cab, and if it hasn't got the function already, could have a software mod, to take it's feed from a different axle if it doesn't work properly.

One of the training managers has said that the most vulnerable part of the train in terms of a train failure, will be the windscreen wiper. I think he's right.

Don't know about the wiper, but some parts will be swappable modules, such as the external cameras for Driver Only Operation, able to be changed in a couple of minutes.

Siemens will pay GTR either £60,000, or £80,000 (I think it's the latter actually), if a service is cancelled due to train failure - either way, significant sums of money. I think it will be a reliable train.

Remember, for a twelve car train, whilst you can't box in a defective cab, you only have equipment in two cabs you have to devote maintenance time to, instead of six. That could actually be an advantage rather than the disadvantage it's being portrayed as.

 

[Class377/5]

I may get hounded for this, but I think that having fixed 12- and 8-car formations will lead to more cancellations. For example, if a 12-car unit develops a fault, the train will have to be cancelled. If it was 3 4-car trains, the faulty train will be taken out of use and the train will still run, but in a short formation. This wouldn't be possible with fixed formations. Is that a problem or am I missing something that means this problem wouldn't arise?

Not really. The situation as present is you can't just knock off a unit and leave it there. The railway is too busy for that.

This is a Class 700 discussion so im just going to ask a few questions that have a link to that.
What will happen to the slow line platforms at Kings Cross? TSGN have already given Moorgate a 24/7 service and once Great Northern turns into Thameslink and starts running through those canal tunnels, there will be no slow line trains terminating at KX. You could fit an Adelante in those platforms or squeeze in a Grand Central HST I think, but really, I want some clarification on that one.

They have also recently announced they are going to build some more 700s for Moorgate. As far as I know, they have no toilets. Why? This has the smell of non forward planning. I also do not understand why Moorgate services don't all go to Stevenage. Could you not have 3tph Stevenage ia Hertford North and 3tph Stevenage via Welwyn Garden City? I understand that the Welwyn Viaduct is probably what is stopping this. However, if they did quadrouple track that section, could you then not have the future Thameslink services call at Finsbury Park, Welwyn Garden City, Stevenage then all stations to Peterborough/Kings Lynn and have Moorgate trains do all the suburban services?

I am just a curious lad who wants to know things because Exeter is hardly interesting in terms of railway traffic. I would be very grateful if someone could answer these questions please!

1) There are peak only services that will terminate at Kings Cross still.
2) the 313s they replace will have done longer journies. Fixing Welwyn Viaduct is going to be a very expensive problem to slice and the business case doesn't stand up.

Won't help with a unit stabled at a remote siding (ie Peterborough) being prepped by a driver who finds a fault. Instead of shunting e units round or running short (happens at least weekly on the GN) will have to cancel altogether. Or if a train arrives into Peterborough to go in the sidings u till the next morning with a cab fault an entire unit swap with Hornsey will have to be sorted-relying on having drivers spare to do the swap etc.

And there is no difference from today and getting to a siding and finding there is a fault. You still need additional drivers to move anything left behind.

Of course ignoring the pervious posts and the fact the 700s have more back up than current stock means they will fall less. Seems people forget everything falls at some point but it's how often that failure occurs that matters.

4 units delivered (700106/7/8/110)
They are still going up and down the line doing overnight tests.

Back next week on testing. Heatd 109 coming on Wednesday.

 

[Hadders]

I don't envy those who travel on a day when things go tits up. I suppose if you're at St Pancras you might be able to walk over to King's Cross to take a slower train there if you're going up the ECML, or use the tube to get to Finsbury Park and get a train from Moorgate, because any disruption is bound to make the low level platforms a nightmare.

I do have concerns about the suitability of St Pancras Low Level station once the GN trains start running through.

Now, I know that the whole Thameslink programme is meant to see big changes to the places where people change from national rail to the underground - so for many it'll make sense to change for to the Metropolitan/Circle/H&C at Farringdon rather than St Pancras, for example, but for many (particularly off-peak 'tourists') it'll take years for them to realise this and I suspect the majority will continue to change at St Pancras out of habit.

The low level platforms at St Pancras Low Level are relatively narrow; passengers for (say) Stevenage, Hitchin, Knebworth etc may need to wait for 15-20 minutes clogging up the platform.

The gateline to the low level platform is quite short - it probably could be made longer but then there are only 3 escalators down to the the first level - 2 in one direction and 1 in the other. This doesn't seem sufficient as there are large pillars preventing the addition of another one (although the fixed staircase could probably be converted).

There's then my old query of should I go to Kings Cross or St Pancras? Trains to Cambridge and Peterborough will go from both. If I just miss one at Kings Cross will it be best to nip across to St Pancras - I do hope there will be departure boards for both stations at Kings Cross and St Pancras.