Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[Bedpan]

I think I'm right in saying though that there are about 660 - 670 seats on a 12 car 700 compared with around 480 on the 8 car 377s currently plying the route.

 

[Yabbadabba]

You mean the 387 not the 700 (which is what this thread is all about).

Nope we have been told at work that it's a 700 and they wouldn't get their facts muddled up, surely not. lol

 

[Bishopstone]

You may also want to look at http://assets.goaheadbus.com/media/cms_page_media/1273/Proposed 2018 Thameslink service pattern.pdf

Both of the above items I believe have been discussed in this thread already?

The number of Thameslink trains is only half the story, though.

The other half is the extent to which they supplement, or replace, existing services to London termini.

For example, is the peak Littlehampton service going to be entirely additional, or will it pop into the paths of withdrawn Southern services? (Which incidentally, are sometimes full and standing from Hove with 3x 377, so a replacement 12-car 700 would be standing from Shoreham, or before.)

As regards standing, I tend to be a 'doorway standee' due to poor balance and an absence of grab bars in the aisles of most railway coaches. London Underground get this right, and I hope the 700s will feature the same ceiling-mounted grab rails running the full length of the coach, in addition to vertical poles.

 

[Class377/5]

Nope we have been told at work that it's a 700 and they wouldn't get their facts muddled up, surely not. lol

Its not a 700. The first one is due August, month after The Bridges Depot is fully commissioned. Can guarantee its a 387.

 

[swt_passenger]

London Underground get this right, and I hope the 700s will feature the same ceiling-mounted grab rails running the full length of the coach, in addition to vertical poles.

The photos (in a number of earlier pages of this thread) seem to show how that 700s will solve this by having two large grab handles on each gangway seat back. I'm not so sure that ceiling mounted grab rails are the right answer in mainline sized stock, they'd need to be a bit lower for comfort, around luggage rack height.

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

Well, if there aren't going to be more services and more carriages, they are going to need an awful lot of sidings to store all those trains they are building.

Hornsey depot
Three Bridges Depot
Horsham
Lovers Walk Brighton
Cricklewood

Are a few random locations that are being, or have already been provided with additional or reopened sidings so far. This is quite obviously already covered in the plans. Class377/5 has provided a much longer list of Thameslink stabling locations in a previous thread somewhere many months ago, but across the entire Southern/Great Northern/Thameslink current areas of operations it is not a huge change, because all the 319s, all the 387/1s, and some 377s are not going to be using their present locations either.

 

[Bishopstone]

The photos (in a number of earlier pages of this thread) seem to show how that 700s will solve this by having two large grab handles on each gangway seat back. I'm not so sure that ceiling mounted grab rails are the right answer in mainline sized stock, they'd need to be a bit lower for comfort, around luggage rack height.

Admittedly, ceiling mounted rails are always redundant if you're 5'0" in height, but there's plenty of taller folk around for whom they'd be useful.

Surely they'd be suspended from the middle of the coach, either side of the light fittings, well away from any luggage racks?

If the only supports are going to be seat back handles, you'll get clustering around seats and won't make full use of the floor space. How many people can stand around a seat, anyway? Two or three, maximum. Obviously only an issue in times of crush loading, but I thought the plan was to look ten years ahead and cater for such scenarios? (Or when the core collapses, or when an 8 turns up on a 12 diagram....)

 

[AM9]

Admittedly, ceiling mounted rails are always redundant if you're 5'0" in height, but there's plenty of taller folk around for whom they'd be useful.

Surely they'd be suspended from the middle of the coach, either side of the light fittings, well away from any luggage racks?

If the only supports are going to be seat back handles, you'll get clustering around seats and won't make full use of the floor space. How many people can stand around a seat, anyway? Two or three, maximum. Obviously only an issue in times of crush loading, but I thought the plan was to look ten years ahead and cater for such scenarios? (Or when the core collapses, or when an 8 turns up on a 12 diagram....)

With a 3+2 seating coach, there is just enough room for a single person to stand between two seats. With 2+2 seating, there is room for two, or at a pinch, 3 standees between each seat. Each seat handle has room for two hands to grip. So in the majority of cases everybody who needs a handle to hold will get one. In crush loading conditions, taller passengers will steady themselves by holding the edge of the luggage rack. In the more open areas, there are vertical rails on the centreline of the coach so passengers can cluster around these and not waste the open spaces.
Take a look at this picture of the demonstrator:

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/72563000/jpg/_72563850_72563849.jpg

Information picked up from viewing of the demonstrator will doubtless be used to hohne the final interior design but it already seems to have features designed to maximise its working capacity in line with the projected needs of the routes on which the class will be deployed.

 

[physics34]

The number of Thameslink trains is only half the story, though.

The other half is the extent to which they supplement, or replace, existing services to London termini.

For example, is the peak Littlehampton service going to be entirely additional, or will it pop into the paths of withdrawn Southern services? (Which incidentally, are sometimes full and standing from Hove with 3x 377, so a replacement 12-car 700 would be standing from Shoreham, or before.)

As Thameslink/GTR hasnt mentioned "additional Littlehampton/East Grinstead services", we can only assume they will be in the same or similar paths to the current London Bridge terminators. I know for a fact that with current signalling on the east grinstead line they cant have any additional services anyway.

They WILL be downgrade on current 377s to a point. Im still clinging onto the hope that the interiors will be altered for there to be more seats, with armrests, fold down tables ..or/and facing seats with tables... powerpoints and more cushioned seats. Doubtful though. You would guess that all parts have been ordered now.

 

[Bishopstone]

As Thameslink/GTR hasnt mentioned "additional Littlehampton/East Grinstead services", we can only assume they will be in the same or similar paths to the current London Bridge terminators. I know for a fact that with current signalling on the east grinstead line they cant have any additional services anyway.

Likewise, I thought Keymer Junction - Balcombe Tunnel was at, or very close to, capacity in the peaks, implying any further Thameslink services would be replacement rather than supplemental.

But, I suppose, potentially replacement of Victoria rather than London Bridge trains, which is a key distinction given where folk generally wish to be in the peak.

 

[physics34]

Likewise, I thought Keymer Junction - Balcombe Tunnel was at, or very close to, capacity in the peaks, implying any further Thameslink services would be replacement rather than supplemental.

But, I suppose, potentially replacement of Victoria rather than London Bridge trains, which is a key distinction given where folk generally wish to be in the peak.

there is a big timetable change in december this year which i believe is gonna pave the way for the new thameslink services from 2018. The details are available somewhere, but cannot remember the link at the moment.

 

[andyb2706]

there is a big timetable change in december this year which i believe is gonna pave the way for the new thameslink services from 2018. The details are available somewhere, but cannot remember the link at the moment.

Hi Physics, think this is what you may have been referring to.
http://www.southernrailway.com/southern/news/govia-thameslink-railway-launches-consultation-on-december-2015-timetable/

 

[AM9]

As Thameslink/GTR hasnt mentioned "additional Littlehampton/East Grinstead services", we can only assume they will be in the same or similar paths to the current London Bridge terminators. I know for a fact that with current signalling on the east grinstead line they cant have any additional services anyway.

They WILL be downgrade on current 377s to a point. Im still clinging onto the hope that the interiors will be altered for there to be more seats, with armrests, fold down tables ..or/and facing seats with tables... powerpoints and more cushioned seats. Doubtful though. You would guess that all parts have been ordered now.

Consider why over £1BN6 is being spent on a new design of trains for Thameslink.

They are required to transport the maximum number of passengers to and from Central London, both from the north and south of the region. The design, that is already in full manufacture, also has maximum attention paid to minimum dwell times (as required in the core), adequate seating for off peak passenger volumes, adequate amenities for the average journey duration, meets all current and near future accessibility legislation and has high reliabilty, maintainability and availability expectations.
I think that it unlikely that any of the above will change before all of the stock is deployed on the full timetable, and there would be little chance of any in-service changes, even to cosmetic detail like armrests or tables until a full refresh, say in the '30s. It also seems to many on these forums that 3+2 seating would be a retrograde step for trains that run services as busy as these will. The 377/5s and 319s (not 319/2s) have been much criticised for the cramped seating and many claim that the centre of 3 seats are rarely used, so I don't see what benefits would accrue if these trains were also changed to that configuration.

 

[Bald Rick]

Likewise, I thought Keymer Junction - Balcombe Tunnel was at, or very close to, capacity in the peaks, implying any further Thameslink services would be replacement rather than supplemental.

Slow lines north of Three Bridges have plenty of space. As do fast lines Croydon - New X Gate. Expect additional services.

 

[Bishopstone]

I agree 2+2 seating is the way to go, but if seat back tables and armrests are considered to be a hindrance to dwell time targets, why do they appear in the First Class areas?

 

[jon0844]

The 377/5s and 319s (not 319/2s) have been much criticised for the cramped seating and many claim that the centre of 3 seats are rarely used, so I don't see what benefits would accrue if these trains were also changed to that configuration.

Being able to walk through an entire 12 car train is a big benefit if there's sufficient space to allow people to do so. No point having a wide gangway and then no space to get through the aisles!

You can see people walking up and down S Stock and 378s every day, so this could be the biggest overall benefit - but that requires space. So I'd say that no arm rests and 2+2 seating will remain throughout their life.

But seat back tables... well, as I suggested before, you could potentially put them on selected seats - such as only the ones nearest the window. If there's a problem with someone in the aisle seat stopping people getting off, that's one possible solution even if might look a little odd. Otherwise, perhaps a far smaller tip down table that's enough to hold a mobile phone or cup of coffee/can of drink, but discourages (or even disallows completely) anything else being placed there.

 

[AM9]

I agree 2+2 seating is the way to go, but if seat back tables and armrests are considered to be a hindrance to dwell time targets, why do they appear in the First Class areas?

Because:

a) There are only about 24 first class seats at each end of the train so alighting times will usually be muck less than crowded standard class coaches.
b) It's unlikely that there will be any standing passengers in first class.
c) the additional cost of provision is small meat compared with the additional revenue taken by differentiating first class accommodation.

 

[tsr]

Because:

a) There are only about 24 first class seats at each end of the train so alighting times will usually be muck less than crowded standard class coaches.
b) It's unlikely that there will be any standing passengers in first class.
c) the additional cost of provision is small meat compared with the additional revenue taken by differentiating first class accommodation.

I can assure you there is already plenty of this, especially during disruption, on the Southern routes such as the East Grinstead line which will merge into the Thameslink peak service pattern. It can be very hard to do anything about it, because you sometimes can't actually fit the Standard Class "standees" anywhere else during some episodes of disruption.

Given some of these routes can already have completely full and standing 12 coach trains in the event of any incidents, and very full trains in normal circumstances, I should think the First Class areas of the Class 700s may unfortunately have to be similarly utilised on occasion, especially with vestibule space (although that should not have anything to do with armrests, etc.).

 

[jon0844]

If a train is cancelled, the next one should probably have first class declassified if it's going to be packed as a result. During off-peak times, it might not be an issue as there's plenty of space.

Whenever a train is short formed I also believe this should be the case, but obviously you can't short form fixed 8 and 12 car trains. However, I wonder how often you might get an 8 car standing in for a 12?

 

[tsr]

If a train is cancelled, the next one should probably have first class declassified if it's going to be packed as a result. During off-peak times, it might not be an issue as there's plenty of space.

That doesn't always work, as you may only have rammed conditions for (say) four or five stops; you would have a full complement of First Class passengers who have paid for their extra space throughout, but who have to make do with people occupying the now-declassified area for the rest of the journey, even though the train has emptied out. On Southern/Thameslink routes, it's extremely hard to selectively declassify part of a train, let alone for part of a journey. Apart from what I maintain are proposed to be ludicrously bad seats, the extra comforts of First Class on 700s will be a considerable benefit compared to the very spartan facilities elsewhere on the train, so you'd then have displaced First Class passengers fuming (quite rightly so). Claiming back the difference in fares would be of little consolation, trust me!

 

[Bishopstone]

Because:

a) There are only about 24 first class seats at each end of the train so alighting times will usually be muck less than crowded standard class coaches.
b) It's unlikely that there will be any standing passengers in first class.
c) the additional cost of provision is small meat compared with the additional revenue taken by differentiating first class accommodation.

Reference points (a) and (b), with current levels of revenue protection First Class is actually full and very often standing on certain services between Croydon and London. One of the worst being a 377x3 at 08.50-ish from East Croydon.

I suppose, when the 700s bring more standing room in Standard, some of these folk might choose to linger somewhere other than First Class. Equally, revenue protection might be stepped-up to coincide with the new dawn, and RPI should be able to patrol the 700s more easily. So yes, points taken.

On point (c), are you suggesting one of the issues with providing folding tables and armrests in Standard is cost? Seriously - after the billions sunk in this project - the money ran out before they bought the last few train furnishings?

Or is the inference that Standard was de-specced to make First Class look more attractive and boost upgrade revenue, bearing in mind there are more First seats to fill on a 12 car 700 than a 377? (48 versus 30, by my reckoning, based on a 377/5, or 48 versus 20 for an 8 car comparison.)

 

[jon0844]

I doubt there's an issue of cost for the folding tables, but a genuine and valid concern about how people will use the service in the core if people are nicely settled down with a laptop and breakfast on their aisle seat, and someone needs to get off who is by the window.

The problem is, you are restricting the practicality and comfort for the rest of the routes, which is a shame.

I doubt many people will upgrade to first class for a table, so it's going to be a bit disappointing - but not the end of the world. Just a lot more passengers spilling coffee and ending up with food stains on their clothes!

 

[physics34]

Consider why over £1BN6 is being spent on a new design of trains for Thameslink.

They are required to transport the maximum number of passengers to and from Central London, both from the north and south of the region. The design, that is already in full manufacture, also has maximum attention paid to minimum dwell times (as required in the core), adequate seating for off peak passenger volumes, adequate amenities for the average journey duration, meets all current and near future accessibility legislation and has high reliabilty, maintainability and availability expectations.
I think that it unlikely that any of the above will change before all of the stock is deployed on the full timetable, and there would be little chance of any in-service changes, even to cosmetic detail like armrests or tables until a full refresh, say in the '30s. It also seems to many on these forums that 3+2 seating would be a retrograde step for trains that run services as busy as these will. The 377/5s and 319s (not 319/2s) have been much criticised for the cramped seating and many claim that the centre of 3 seats are rarely used, so I don't see what benefits would accrue if these trains were also changed to that configuration.

i agree with you that 3+2 seating is pointless and the current 377/6, 377/7 and 387 seating arrangement is very adequate.

 

[Yabbadabba]

Its not a 700. The first one is due August, month after The Bridges Depot is fully commissioned. Can guarantee its a 387.

Yep I agree with you, lines of communication were not as good as they should be and the fact there was no NRAP issued for class 700s was a good give away.

 

[A-driver]

If a train is cancelled, the next one should probably have first class declassified if it's going to be packed as a result. During off-peak times, it might not be an issue as there's plenty of space.

Whenever a train is short formed I also believe this should be the case, but obviously you can't short form fixed 8 and 12 car trains. However, I wonder how often you might get an 8 car standing in for a 12?

I think this is an interesting point in here...short forms are caused by train faults (obviously) and if a unit has a fault it's still better to run an 8 car instead of 12 than run 0 cars. This won't be an option with fixed units, especially when I don't believe It possible to isolate a coach even.

So a train fault will lead to entire services cancelled, not just run with less cars.

 

[asylumxl]

On TL North there are plenty of passengers whom stand in First Class AND have the correct ticket. I often hear people saying if they have the ticket they're going to use it.

 

[AM9]

I think this is an interesting point in here...short forms are caused by train faults (obviously) and if a unit has a fault it's still better to run an 8 car instead of 12 than run 0 cars. This won't be an option with fixed units, especially when I don't believe It possible to isolate a coach even.

So a train fault will lead to entire services cancelled, not just run with less cars.

I didn't see the demonstrator but is there (or could there be) a provision to stop passengers from entering a coach in emergencies? Something like a police line tape that fits across the wide gangways. The trains will have full interior CCTV so if it was really important to enforce it, violators would at least be visible.

 

[A-driver]

I didn't see the demonstrator but is there (or could there be) a provision to stop passengers from entering a coach in emergencies? Something like a police line tape that fits across the wide gangways. The trains will have full interior CCTV so if it was really important to enforce it, violators would at least be visible.

Unless it's a door you won't stop commuters getting in a coach! They are happy breaking into vestibules on 313s which revolves forcing a door open! A bit of tape won't stop them, cctv or not.

My point is more the lack of driving cabs though...currently if I prep a 12 car and find a fault preventing the cab from entering service I can fairly quickly box it in-is swap the 3 units around so the defective cab is no longer at the front or rear. Problem solved. With a fixed 12 car the entire thing will have to come straight out of service. Even if I couldntn box or on at the moment, I could leave those 4 behind and run as an 8 car (so still taking the vast majority of passengers). If it's a fixed 12 then you are entirely reliant on a spare unit being available Or else you cancel the entire train and possibly subsequent services on that diagram.

 

[MCR247]

However an advantage of fixed formations is that hopefully it'll see the end of certain units sitting down in the core because the TMS of the front unit has fallen out with the TMS in the rear unit!

 

[Class377/5]

Parts of the 700s can boarded off with doorways with fold out doors that lock. Once the lock is used the train automatically shuts of that part of the train.

Oh and the reason they have no handrails in the ceiling is all the equipment removed from coach ends to provide wide inner car spaces meaning the ceiling panels are on latches. So you can't put the handrails in the ceiling without interfering with this.

And for the record the issue of one fault unit and spilting down or boxing in the fault is a red herring. This means you get a late start which means the train had to run fast mixing out stops so there little difference between that and cancelling it for many standing on the platform. In a congested railway spilting one off is hugly disruptive and trying to box a fault in during peak is a fanasty move as even with two drivers it brings things to a stand. sorry but anyone who thinks you can easily fix things on today's railways had never seen the choas a move makes in peak.

 

[AM9]

Parts of the 700s can boarded off with doorways with fold out doors that lock. Once the lock is used the train automatically shuts of that part of the train.

That's a sensible feature. In the life of the 700s it will probably be a serious H & S offence to allow passengers to travel in a coach that doesn't have fully operational exits, which may not include the gangways to the next coach.
Passengers desperate for seats or space always have the option to alight and catch a later train.