Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[HarleyDavidson]

All the testing that Siemens did in the past didn't stop a 12 car getting gapped and closing the Portsmouth direct a couple of years ago after freezing rain.

All it needed was someone to get a paddle out and scrape the juice rail and it would have kept going, but the H&S mafia stopped that happening so the job stopped.

 

[Class377/5]

Not sure how you'd get different temperatures of such extremes in open gangways but I see your point.

If the 700s will have a big incident. But then the 387s have done so why would a new design be different to an upgraded verion of a current design? At some point trains fail and during the introduction phasd is add much add being used to the units as units themselves. They applies to all types of stock.

All the testing that Siemens did in the past didn't stop a 12 car getting gapped and closing the Portsmouth direct a couple of years ago after freezing rain.

All it needed was someone to get a paddle out and scrape the juice rail and it would have kept going, but the H&S mafia stopped that happening so the job stopped.

12 car 377 have been gapped Norwood in the last 12 months so what's point other attacking Siemens? Infrastructure is supposed to be designed so that happen.

 

[D365]

Actually, my comment about the 700 "sitting down" was intended as a comment on the out of the box reliability of pretty much all new rolling stock and the obsession with "more technology must be better". They look impressive and shiny when the relevant Minister for Transport arrives to take the credit and cut the ceremonial ribbon. Give them a few weeks in traffic and the squeaks & rattles will start, followed by the PIS playing up. Then the doors won't open at St Pancras, then the connections between the carriages will start to leak and allow draughts into the passenger space, then the oh-so state of the art toilets will go out of service because no-one has emptied the retention tanks, then the air-conditioning will be freezing in one coach, but sub-tropical in the next etc, etc... Oh and did I mention the seats designed for anorexics and the "extra-comfy" standing room.

I'm sorry if I seem to be a bit down on Siemens, it seems that whoever we get to design & build our trains, they never really work as intended and because they're all different, they can't be dragged or pushed out of the way by a different type of train. Incidentally, I did once have the misfortune to buy a Siemens-branded phone. It looked sleek & whizzy and had many unique features, but it was a crap phone.

Your remarks seem a little tactless... I wouldn't be surprised to have heard much of the same when the Class 313s etc (second-generation MUs) were introduced. Despite extensive testing with the PEP prototypes I don't recall reading that production fleets were achieving sky-high reliability 'out of the box'.

 

[The Box Photter]

I'm not sure where tact comes into it. There's self-interest at work here as I'm one of the passengers who'll be beta testing these trains.

With the best will in the world, no artificially constructed test chamber or test track for that matter can replicate real-world conditions. Have the doors been tested, for example, under conditions that simulate dozens of snow-encrusted shoes depositing snow/ice/meltwater/dirt/leaves into the door channels/runners, then have the doors subject to airflow at 70 mph+ at minus 2 degrees Celsius for 10 mins, then open and repeat for the equivalent of a run from Bedford to Brighton. - Probably not.

You only have to look at the previous track record of any Government-procured large ticket project on the railway going as far back as APT and up to IEP to realise that the people specifying and designing the trains are the last people who will ever need to use them. APT was the wet-dream of aircraft designers let loose on the railway and IEP is the rail equivalent of getting a horse designed by a committee, i.e. a camel.

What had to step in to fill the void left by the APT's failure? HST, a train designed for the purpose it was intended to fulfill by railway engineers.

Class 700 has been designed from the outset to fulfill the perceived needs of a tiny proportion of the passengers who will use the trains every day.

The seating capacity of a 12-car class 700 is LESS than the seating capacity of a 12-car class 377/5 consist. In what way does that deliver a better environment for the fare-paying passenger? Being able to stand up with a bit more air around you than in an existing train still means you are standing up.

 

[JaJaWa]

Actually, my comment about the 700 "sitting down" was intended as a comment on the out of the box reliability of pretty much all new rolling stock and the obsession with "more technology must be better". They look impressive and shiny when the relevant Minister for Transport arrives to take the credit and cut the ceremonial ribbon. Give them a few weeks in traffic and the squeaks & rattles will start, followed by the PIS playing up. Then the doors won't open at St Pancras, then the connections between the carriages will start to leak and allow draughts into the passenger space, then the oh-so state of the art toilets will go out of service because no-one has emptied the retention tanks, then the air-conditioning will be freezing in one coach, but sub-tropical in the next etc, etc... Oh and did I mention the seats designed for anorexics and the "extra-comfy" standing room.

Huh? They're not being made by Bombardier.

 

[Bigfoot]

All the testing that Siemens did in the past didn't stop a 12 car getting gapped and closing the Portsmouth direct a couple of years ago after freezing rain.

All it needed was someone to get a paddle out and scrape the juice rail and it would have kept going, but the H&S mafia stopped that happening so the job stopped.

So it wasn't actually gapped then. Frozen con rail is a different kettle off fish...

 

[AM9]

I can see this thread (or whatever 700 thread is running when they enter service next year) giving those up North a good laugh as they seem to think that the south-east is full of smug passengers used to shiny new trains that are comfortable, reliable and fit for purpose.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Not sure how you'd get different temperatures of such extremes in open gangways but I see your point.

If the 700s will have a big incident. But then the 387s have done so why would a new design be different to an upgraded verion of a current design? At some point trains fail and during the introduction phasd is add much add being used to the units as units themselves. They applies to all types of stock.



12 car 377 have been gapped Norwood in the last 12 months so what's point other attacking Siemens? Infrastructure is supposed to be designed so that happen.

Why don't modern EMUs (running off the 3rd rail) have more pickup shoes? The 442s have got shoes on each coach (apart from the motor coach)?

 

[D365]

Why don't modern EMUs (running off the 3rd rail) have more pickup shoes? The 442s have got shoes on each coach (apart from the motor coach)?

The problem begins when you have gaps longer than the average EMU, as it's technically not feasable (and a potential risk) if you were to think about running a 750V DC bus across couplings. Obviously this plays into the advantage of a fixed-formation design such as the Class 700, though this depends on the electrical specficiation of which I am not familiar.

 

[Class377/5]

I'm not sure where tact comes into it. There's self-interest at work here as I'm one of the passengers who'll be beta testing these trains.

With the best will in the world, no artificially constructed test chamber or test track for that matter can replicate real-world conditions. Have the doors been tested, for example, under conditions that simulate dozens of snow-encrusted shoes depositing snow/ice/meltwater/dirt/leaves into the door channels/runners, then have the doors subject to airflow at 70 mph+ at minus 2 degrees Celsius for 10 mins, then open and repeat for the equivalent of a run from Bedford to Brighton. - Probably not.

Testing included several hours of temperatures outside your range with door tests too. So properly yes or already the nearest you can.

Will note Siemens does this as standard, most builders don't bother to even try. But hey if need to feel the need to moan because one manfacture likes to do additional tests go ahead but seems your missing the point.

Oh and don't forget the testing in rainy conditions too.

Class 700 has been designed from the outset to fulfill the perceived needs of a tiny proportion of the passengers who will use the trains every day.

Personal opinion I do not share.

The seating capacity of a 12-car class 700 is LESS than the seating capacity of a 12-car class 377/5 consist. In what way does that deliver a better environment for the fare-paying passenger? Being able to stand up with a bit more air around you than in an existing train still means you are standing up.

Because your trying to compare just 12 trains a day to every train being 12 car. Thats a sigificant difference.

Also are you suggesting that 3+2 seating should be included so the capacity goes up? Considering every time passengers are asked about, they state they 3+2 should be removed. On here, its a constant complaint, yet you used to attack because you dislike the amount of seats! You can't have it both ways!

How does it provide a better environment? Er the actual increase in seats on the route due to more carriages means your more likely to get a seat.

Why don't modern EMUs (running off the 3rd rail) have more pickup shoes? The 442s have got shoes on each coach (apart from the motor coach)?

More modern EMUs do. 319s have 4 shoes per 4 car where as 377s have 8. Don't forget that due to length differences a five 442 length is more like a 6 car 377 meaning your getting far shoes on newer units than the old stock.

 

[Skimble19]

Because your trying to compare just 12 trains a day to every train being 12 car. Thats a sigificant difference.

Also are you suggesting that 3+2 seating should be included so the capacity goes up? Considering every time passengers are asked about, they state they 3+2 should be removed. On here, its a constant complaint, yet you used to attack because you dislike the amount of seats! You can't have it both ways!

How does it provide a better environment? Er the actual increase in seats on the route due to more carriages means your more likely to get a seat.

3+2 should definitely not be included. I think the passengers most likely to be annoyed by the interior of the 700s will be those who use 365s on GN and 377s on TL, who will find them pretty basic in comparison. Regular users of 317s, 319s and 321s are likely to find them an improvement, but then they should be better than 30+ year old trains.. It's just a shame a few basic things that would have made a difference such as tables in standard couldn't have been changed...

 

[jon0844]

Don't worry. The 365 refreshes are now getting us quite prepared!

 

[D365]

Don't worry. The 365 refreshes are now getting us quite prepared!

Oh don't you start!

 

[Goldfish62]

Actually, my comment about the 700 "sitting down" was intended as a comment on the out of the box reliability of pretty much all new rolling stock and the obsession with "more technology must be better". They look impressive and shiny when the relevant Minister for Transport arrives to take the credit and cut the ceremonial ribbon. Give them a few weeks in traffic and the squeaks & rattles will start, followed by the PIS playing up. Then the doors won't open at St Pancras, then the connections between the carriages will start to leak and allow draughts into the passenger space, then the oh-so state of the art toilets will go out of service because no-one has emptied the retention tanks, then the air-conditioning will be freezing in one coach, but sub-tropical in the next etc, etc... Oh and did I mention the seats designed for anorexics and the "extra-comfy" standing room.

I'm sorry if I seem to be a bit down on Siemens, it seems that whoever we get to design & build our trains, they never really work as intended and because they're all different, they can't be dragged or pushed out of the way by a different type of train. Incidentally, I did once have the misfortune to buy a Siemens-branded phone. It looked sleek & whizzy and had many unique features, but it was a crap phone.

Siemens trains don't rattle and squeak. I think you're getting confused with another manufacturer....

I'm not aware that trains these days are necessarily more problematic in entering service that trains have ever been.

 

[Hadders]

3+2 should definitely not be included. I think the passengers most likely to be annoyed by the interior of the 700s will be those who use 365s on GN and 377s on TL, who will find them pretty basic in comparison. Regular users of 317s, 319s and 321s are likely to find them an improvement, but then they should be better than 30+ year old trains.. It's just a shame a few basic things that would have made a difference such as tables in standard couldn't have been changed...

The 700s would appear to be a significant downgrade to the 365s - the idea being fewer seats so more people can stand.

Yes, the trains will all be 8 or 12 cars but they already are during the peaks so this will mean fewer seats in the peak. I don't understand why we couldn't have a 365 style layout, perhaps with some seats missing near the doors to create a larger standing area.

Don't worry. The 365 refreshes are now getting us quite prepared!

Quite! What I don't understand is that as cars get more luxurious over time trains seem to go backwards.

 

[jon0844]

Oh don't you start!

For the record, I'm really looking forward to the 700s and think they'll be just fine. The 365 refreshes (particularly the accessible toilet) are just fine too, even though I do think both will be less cosy than trains before.

But due to everything squeezing through the core, the layout is necessary for the peaks (when people usually accept standing for at least some of the journey) and seating will be adequate for the off peaks.

Unless we can get people to stop using trains, I expect all new suburban trains will go this way so we may as well start getting used to it.

 

[jopsuk]

ON the GN side especially there will be more trains and those trains will almost all have more carriages. Off peak to Cambridge will have almost double the number of carriages in total each hour

 

[AM9]

Quite! What I don't understand is that as cars get more luxurious over time trains seem to go backwards.

Because cars are chosen by the buyer who (presumably) chooses who and how many travel in them. There is of course the aspirational aspect of car purchase as well so there is no comparison. If cars were more aggressively taxed, based on their size - either internal or external, or their weight; buying decisions would be very different.
Trains, like all other public transport vehicles are chosen for their flexibility in use, their cost of ownership and their reliability. Just look at passenger aircraft, ferry boats, buses etc.. Every piece of their usable space is being put into use, either as passenger carrying space or to meet contemporary health and safety requirements.

 

[Hadders]

But we used to have trains that were better than those they replaced. the MK2s, 3s and 4s spring to mind.

Arguably that no longer happens...

 

[AM9]

For the record, I'm really looking forward to the 700s and think they'll be just fine. The 365 refreshes (particularly the accessible toilet) are just fine too, even though I do think both will be less cosy than trains before.

But due to everything squeezing through the core, the layout is necessary for the peaks (when people usually accept standing for at least some of the journey) and seating will be adequate for the off peaks.

Unless we can get people to stop using trains, I expect all new suburban trains will go this way so we may as well start getting used to it.

I think that views that will be expressed on the 700s when they enter service will be based on personal experience, perceived needs and past experience. Those who have got used to specific trains where they usually get their favourite seat will see the new trains as a downgrade to 'their' travel amenity. Those who rarely get a seat and not infrequently can't even get on the train will see the chance of a reliable standing space as a great improvement.
The bottom line is that public transport is provided for all and with a mixed pattern of commuter and leisure travel such as is demanded of the Thameslink route, the vehicles need to be all things to all passengers. If the current trand of passenger growth meant that just three years after the 700s' introduction, the core was as chaotic in the peak as it is now, there would be a furore over the waste of money, and inconvenience to everybody over the last 6 years that the Thameslink (nee TL 2000) project has caused.
Trains with lots of seats per linear length are generally slow at busy stations, causing build-ups of delays. The TL timetable would very quickly break down and the actual capacity of the line would shrink to earlier BedPan levels.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But we used to have trains that were better than those they replaced. the MK2s, 3s and 4s spring to mind.

Arguably that no longer happens...

So you think that MKIIs,IIIs & IVs are suitable for outer suburban lines like Thameslink and GN at current passenger levels?

 

[Class377/5]

The 700s would appear to be a significant downgrade to the 365s - the idea being fewer seats so more people can stand.

Yes, the trains will all be 8 or 12 cars but they already are during the peaks so this will mean fewer c in the peak. I don't understand why we couldn't have a 365 style layout, perhaps with some seats missing near the doors to create a larger standing area.

This is actually a false claim. There will be more carriages with longer trains. For example Cambridge goes from 4tph to 6tph.

Im not so sure what you mean by 365 style with seats missing?

 

[A0]

Your remarks seem a little tactless... I wouldn't be surprised to have heard much of the same when the Class 313s etc (second-generation MUs) were introduced. Despite extensive testing with the PEP prototypes I don't recall reading that production fleets were achieving sky-high reliability 'out of the box'.

Indeed they didn't - they were plagued with problems on the passenger doors - being opened when moving - and the tripcock which was needed for operating between Drayton Pk & Moorgate.

In fact there's one book I have (quite a recent one) which claims they were one of railway's "blunders" - now at almost 40 years old the 313s have proven to be a robust and reasonably reliable unit.

The reality is every subsequent generation of rolling stock has been better than what went before - the problem is people's personal preferences. And the enthusiast community is far worse than the general public in this regard. The fact is the majority of commuters want a seat as the first priority - which is why 3+2 seating or airline style seating in HSTs makes sense - whereas the enthusiasts want something reminiscent of a 4VEP or Mk1....

 

[RichardN]

The really busy services from East Croydon to/from London Bridge where the extra standing space would come in most useful I think are caused by largish gaps in the current peak timetable (by large I mean 10-15 minutes) and these should be gone from the post upgrade timetable. I'm sure it will get busier, so the standing room is still needed though.

 

[physics34]

The really busy services from East Croydon to/from London Bridge where the extra standing space would come in most useful I think are caused by largish gaps in the current peak timetable (by large I mean 10-15 minutes) and these should be gone from the post upgrade timetable. I'm sure it will get busier, so the standing room is still needed though.

It concerns me that standing has/will become the acceptable standard for journeys over say 30mins..... We all know it is impossible on our system to provide every passenger with a seat but i feel its going away from this rather than towards a solution with more seats.

I know there will be probably be a net rise in the amount of seats avaliable in the short term (with many trains being 12 v 8) but long term concerns me.

GOing back to the East Grinstead and Littlehampton workings.... these will have less seats than they have now. Im not sure at the loadings of Littlehampton trains but I know the grinnies to will now be standing only from oxted rather than Riddlesdown.

 

[AM9]

It concerns me that standing has/will become the acceptable standard for journeys over say 30mins..... We all know it is impossible on our system to provide every passenger with a seat but i feel its going away from this rather than towards a solution with more seats.

I don't think that there is an affordable means of providing more seats. Just like the tube where some passengers stand for over 30 minutes every workday, it is a fact of life that most of the affordable options of improvements to the victorian railway have been done. What's left are very expensive modifications/replacements that only give limited improvement whilst causing disruption both during their implementation and often create a new problem elsewhere. Alternatively, new routes are possible at extremely high capital cost whether underground (Crossrail?) or on the surface (don't even think about the inner London land costs).

 

[The Box Photter]

Theoretically with a train through the Core every 2 mins or so there should be a big increase in capacity between St Pancras & Blackfriars/London Bridge. But, and its a very BIG but, how many passengers currently travelling through the Core do so only between St Pancras and London Bridge?

Most passengers arrive at stations in the Core from their home station considerably further north or south of London. In my experience, the 12 car train I normally use into London in the morning (which has more seats than an 12 car 700) is full with all seats (some 3+2) occupied on leaving Luton. It is standing room only at Harpenden and often uncomfortably full on leaving St Albans. On arrival at St Pancras (usually around 0820, but often later) I would estimate that around one third of passengers alight, meaning that there are now some seats available. Those passengers alighting are NOT replaced 1 for 1 by new passengers wishing to travel south.

This is a peak train, but where is the massive onflow of new passengers that dictate the tube-train layout and design of the class 700? I realise that 3+2 seating is not ideal, but given the option of squeezing into the middle seat or standing from Harpenden into London in more "comfort" I know my preference.

 

[Bald Rick]

Theoretically with a train through the Core every 2 mins or so there should be a big increase in capacity between St Pancras & Blackfriars/London Bridge. But, and its a very BIG but, how many passengers currently travelling through the Core do so only between St Pancras and London Bridge?

Most passengers arrive at stations in the Core from their home station considerably further north or south of London. In my experience, the 12 car train I normally use into London in the morning (which has more seats than an 12 car 700) is full with all seats (some 3+2) occupied on leaving Luton. It is standing room only at Harpenden and often uncomfortably full on leaving St Albans. On arrival at St Pancras (usually around 0820, but often later) I would estimate that around one third of passengers alight, meaning that there are now some seats available. Those passengers alighting are NOT replaced 1 for 1 by new passengers wishing to travel south.

This is a peak train, but where is the massive onflow of new passengers that dictate the tube-train layout and design of the class 700? I realise that 3+2 seating is not ideal, but given the option of squeezing into the middle seat or standing from Harpenden into London in more "comfort" I know my preference.

That train is always uncomfortably full from St Albans, indeed I have been unable to board it 3 times in the last two weeks. So for me, more standing space is very much welcome. As for on/off at St Pancras, that depends where you sit on that train. If you sit in the front two coaches, as many people get on at St P as get off, and some get left behind. If you get a different train, you will find more people at St P boarding than alighting; the numbers waiting at St P is driven by the arrival times of their services from HS1 / ECML, so there is some natural variation.

One source of the 'massive onflow' of passengers will be LU and Crossrail. For anyone commuting to Canary Wharf (and there's plenty from the MML / ECML) it suddenly becomes much more attractive than the current alternatives.

 

[The Box Photter]

Well if people are dumb enough to ignore the other 10 carriages of a 12 car train or 6 of an 8 car just so they can be closer to the escalator at City Thameslink they deserve to be left behind. This could be solved by better management of passengers by platform staff and better indications as to where each set of doors will stop at the platform.

The main problem at St Albans is that passengers from that city do not want to spend more than about 20 minutes on their morning train into London. This is why they jam themselves uncomfortably into the fast trains and ignore the stopping service that conveniently starts at St Albans, on which they'd all definitely get a seat. I know the "stopper" takes a bit longer, but as it calls at West Hampstead it would allow a convenient interchange with the Jubilee line for passengers wanting Canary Wharf.

Perhaps there is a sensible business case for running a few St Albans express trains slightly ahead of the normal semi-fasts, only calling at West Hampstead for interchange with Jubilee line and Kentish Town for the Northern line. These trains could then run to East Croydon and turn there to do the opposite into London from the south, calling only at London Bridge (if that ever reopens). As St Albans passengers are happy to stand, these trains could have no seats at all, thus allowing maximum use of every square metre of floor space. On arrival that St Pancras, the platform side of the train (which will be equipped with roller shutters along its entire length) will open, thus allowing maximum egress space.

 

[physics34]

so you want trains with no seats? why are we aiming for more standing places..... things should be getting better, not worse!

And passengers using the fast service should use the slow one cos there is more space..... no, why should they? Demand says there should be more fast services!

 

[Stats]

It concerns me that standing has/will become the acceptable standard for journeys over say 30mins..... We all know it is impossible on our system to provide every passenger with a seat but i feel its going away from this rather than towards a solution with more seats.

All new franchise agreements, including GTR's, contain a clause that passengers must have a reasonable expectation of a seat on all off-peak services, and within 20 minutes of boarding on a peak service. I can't imagine many TOCs meeting that