Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[AM9]

On a journey from London to Brighton they would definitely be most appropriate, especially as pretty much all the trains currently running on the BML (bar some 319's) have tables

Well you've just provided the reason why tables aren't necessarily appropriate for the class 700s: They are replacing the (largely table free) class 319s with their dual (core/metro and outer suburban) roles. They will also be quicker so any perceived need for tables would be slightly less. That is aside from the weight and operational reasons why tables would be both more expensive and potentially reduce core traffic performance.

 

[southern442]

Well you've just provided the reason why tables aren't necessarily appropriate for the class 700s: They are replacing the (largely table free) class 319s with their dual (core/metro and outer suburban) roles.

I thought they were supposed to be an improvement from the 319's rather than just trying to match them? Apparently not, as the seats are cheap, and first class is much worse. Also don't forget that some class 319's have tables.

And don't forget that they are also replacing 377's and 387's, that have full size tables and armrests. And plug sockets.

The 700's should be a compromise between a metro and an outer suburban interior. If they were meant exclusively for the Brighton and Bedford trains then they should have the same interior as the 377/5's. The compromise we are making here is the tables, which don't have to be full sized. The fact that they will have the same interior as the new metro desiro cities for GN just shows that this interior is NOT a compromise, it is just poor design.

They will also be quicker so any perceived need for tables would be slightly less.

Is the reduction in journey time going to be noticeable? I can tell you that it won't, especially as the BML is not getting any sort of upgrade to reduce congestion.

That is aside from the weight and operational reasons why tables would be both more expensive and potentially reduce core traffic performance.

Is that a problem for the current units? No. Will it be a problem for the new units? I really don't see why it would be.

 

[Bald Rick]

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

The ticket sure meant is called a first class fare!

 

[Hadders]

Let's be honest, it's not really possible to work on a Thameslink train because they're absolutely fully wedged for most of the day.

 

[southern442]

Let's be honest, it's not really possible to work on a Thameslink train because they're absolutely fully wedged for most of the day.

And because they don't have tables!

So are some Southern trains, but the tables don't get in the way there.


happy new year too

 

[DerekC]

The fact that they will have the same interior as the new metro desiro cities for GN just shows that this interior is NOT a compromise, it is just poor design.

It's actually very good design to meet the criteria that were set. Since you are absolutely set on blaming somebody, blame DfT who wrote the specification - but please do try to understand the problem that they were trying to solve.

 

[AM9]

I thought they were supposed to be an improvement from the 319's rather than just trying to match them? Apparently not, as the seats are cheap, and first class is much worse. Also don't forget that some class 319's have tables.

The seats themselves are similar to majority of those on the Electrostar units temporarily assigned to the route. The only 319s with tables are those modified for the Brighton Express services (319/2) which didn't include the high loadings of the core.

And don't forget that they are also replacing 377's and 387's, that have full size tables and armrests. And plug sockets.

The 377/2s, 377/5s and 387/1s are all on temporary loan so they have no significance for the planned class 319 replacements scaled for future passenger growth. For the 'plug sockets' answer, see the last paragraph of my post.

The 700's should be a compromise between a metro and an outer suburban interior. If they were meant exclusively for the Brighton and Bedford trains then they should have the same interior as the 377/5's. The compromise we are making here is the tables, which don't have to be full sized. The fact that they will have the same interior as the new metro desiro cities for GN just shows that this interior is NOT a compromise, it is just poor design.

They are a compromise between metro and outer suburban trains:

1) they have toilets fitted (outer suburban requirement for longer journey times)
2) they are 100mph rather than 75mph trains (outer suburban requirement for integrating with MML inter-city and BML express services)
3) they have wide entrance doors (for minimal dwell times both in the core and main stations on the MML & BML)
4) They have full width gangways and good standing room (for very high passenger density parts of both outer suburban, metro and core sections)​

The issue is that the core will in a few years be saturated with trains each as long as their routes will allow. ETCS signalling aided with ATO will maximise the frequency at 24tph so each train has been designed for the best balance between total peak capacity (over 1700 sitting and standing) yet with adequate seating for off-peak passengers.

Is the reduction in journey time going to be noticeable? I can tell you that it won't, especially as the BML is not getting any sort of upgrade to reduce congestion.

The trains are more powerful and lighter than the Electrostars on the BML and will all be 12-car in the peak. Their acceleration should be optimal for the route, and certainly faster than the 319s they are replacing so timetable recovery should be better than previously.

Is that a problem for the current units? No. Will it be a problem for the new units? I really don't see why it would be.

Once again I remind you that the trains will be in use for over 30 years, so there is little point in designing the route and its services for current loadings. All predictions are expecting a continuation in the current growth trends.
I refer you to Class377/5's post (#2114 in this thread) for the reasons why the trains are designed this way for use in the core.

Have a happy new year.

 

[southern442]

The seats themselves are similar to majority of those on the Electrostar units temporarily assigned to the route.

But surely you would think that the seats could be of a slighty more comfortable design? There are plenty of more comfortable seats out there on the market.

The 377/2s, 377/5s and 387/1s are all on temporary loan so they have no significance for the planned class 319 replacements scaled for future passenger growth.

Try telling that to the average passenger though. For the past few years they have been travelling on trains that are better than the ones that are replacing them.

They are a compromise between metro and outer suburban trains:

1) they have toilets fitted (outer suburban requirement for longer journey times)
2) they are 100mph rather than 75mph trains (outer suburban requirement for integrating with MML inter-city and BML express services)
3) they have wide entrance doors (for minimal dwell times both in the core and main stations on the MML & BML)
4) They have full width gangways and good standing room (for very high passenger density parts of both outer suburban, metro and core sections)​

The issue is that the core will in a few years be saturated with trains each as long as their routes will allow. ETCS signalling aided with ATO will maximise the frequency at 24tph so each train has been designed for the best balance between total peak capacity (over 1700 sitting and standing) yet with adequate seating for off-peak passengers.

I can understand the removal of seats as helping capacity issues, but what difference will the addition of tables make? People do not stand in the gap between transverse seats, there is nowhere near enough room.


The trains are more powerful and lighter than the Electrostars on the BML and will all be 12-car in the peak. Their acceleration should be optimal for the route, and certainly faster than the 319s they are replacing so timetable recovery should be better than previously.

I have no choice but to admit my mistake here, I was wrong. I could have a'Grumpy, Haywards Heath'-writing-in-the-Metro-style rant here about how the constant delays will mean that the increased acceleration will make no difference to the journey time overall. I think I must have just been in a bad mood when I wrote this. Although one thing I will say, is that I don't think journey times matter all that much to BML passengers, especially as the times at the moment are pretty good anyway.

Once again I remind you that the trains will be in use for over 30 years, so there is little point in designing the route and its services for current loadings. All predictions are expecting a continuation in the current growth trends.

Again, I don't see how tables will affect the loading capacity. If we are going to approach the topic of future loadings in this way then we might as well remove all seats from London to Brighton trains.

Have a happy new year.

And to you!

see bold text.

 

[Goldfish62]

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

In your world not only would there be no tables, but also no trains as passengers would all have been driven away.

 

[AM9]

In your world not only would there be no tables, but also no trains as passengers would all have been driven away.

So all those passengers on Thameslink will drive to London? I don't think so given that the new trains, the service, the signalling and the platform extensions are being geared to handle the ever increasing demand for capacity.
The 700s are table free (in standard class) to:
a) keep the weight to a minmimum, as explained in an earlier post
and
b) keep dwell times within reasonable limits which is critical in the core

In 5-10 years time, Thameslink will be carrying far more passengers than at present, - those passengers may not all have seats, tables, cup holders, perfect views out of the windows etc,, but they will actually be able to get on the trains and stand in comfort and safety, to complete their journey in as little time as can be expected.
Don't forget, the purpose of a high density railway is to carry the required number of passengers safely within whatever limitations the infrastructure has, not give a few passengers more comfort at the expense of others not being able to board overloaded trains.

If, after reading the detailed reasons why tables et al are not included, you have any better (affordable) solutions for the route, please share them on this thread. I would be interested to read them.

 

[swt_passenger]

It's actually very good design to meet the criteria that were set. Since you are absolutely set on blaming somebody, blame DfT who wrote the specification - but please do try to understand the problem that they were trying to solve.

DfT's specification DID ask for most seats to have tables, as pointed out earlier in the thread. The implication in an FOI reply early last year was that FCC had led on the detailed interior design and had decided not to fit tables during a later stage of specification.

 

[Minstral25]

So all those passengers on Thameslink will drive to London? I don't think so given that the new trains, the service, the signalling and the platform extensions are being geared to handle the ever increasing demand for capacity.
The 700s are table free (in standard class) to:
a) keep the weight to a minmimum, as explained in an earlier post
and
b) keep dwell times within reasonable limits which is critical in the core

In 5-10 years time, Thameslink will be carrying far more passengers than at present, - those passengers may not all have seats, tables, cup holders, perfect views out of the windows etc,, but they will actually be able to get on the trains and stand in comfort and safety, to complete their journey in as little time as can be expected.
Don't forget, the purpose of a high density railway is to carry the required number of passengers safely within whatever limitations the infrastructure has, not give a few passengers more comfort at the expense of others not being able to board overloaded trains.

If, after reading the detailed reasons why tables et al are not included, you have any better (affordable) solutions for the route, please share them on this thread. I would be interested to read them.

One simple reason - productivity for thousands of passengers. twice a day, 5 days a week, 48 weeks a year - many passengers use their 40 minute plus commute to work on presentations, emails etc.. All that will be gone with the 700's not just because of the lack of tables but also because the seats are too close. too narrow and too squished together.

That is 320 hours per year per passenger, which for 10,000 passengers a day is 3.2M hours of productivity removed from the UK economy.

I think 10,000 working passengers from Brighton, Littlehampton, Haywards Heath, Redhill, Sevenoaks, East Grinstead, Peterborough, Cambridge & Bedford is probably an underestimation.

If you balance the cost of that lost profitability against the cost of tables and decent seats it probably will seem cheap.

The trains are a compromise brought about by the DfT not having the brains to really realise the needs of the longer distance commuter and creating a problem that didn't exist before. It is obvious that its much better for local metro trains to go through the core rather than longer distance trains which should use the terminus's as now.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

One simple reason - productivity for thousands of passengers. twice a day, 5 days a week, 48 weeks a year - many passengers use their 40 minute plus commute to work on presentations, emails etc.. All that will be gone with the 700's not just because of the lack of tables but also because the seats are too close. too narrow and too squished together.

I can't get comfortable using my laptop on a fold down seat back table, I tend to use it on my knees/lap, instead. The point is now a bit moot as I've moved onto a phablet, and I know many people use Office on iPads, Surface and similar tablets.

 

[southern442]

The 700s are table free (in standard class) to:
a) keep the weight to a minmimum, as explained in an earlier post
and
b) keep dwell times within reasonable limits which is critical in the core

I don't see how having tables will increase dwell times. There may be a minimal difference in the off-peak maybe, because people have to push their way past tables or something like that, but in the peak the train will be crowded enough anyway so it really won't make all that much of a difference. I really don't get all the arguments that the inclusion of tables will mean the train can carry less passengers, or that they will increase dwell times or disrupt the flow of passengers because I really don't see how they will.

I can see why the idea of people switching to car travel purely because of the interior of a train can seem a little far-fetched, and I can support your argument against this by saying that this interior is not so bad that people will start driving into work etc. However, one argument that seems to be going on in this forum is that for routes like Thameslink, we need to remove seats to allow for more standing passengers and so on and so forth.

Now whilst that is an effective solution for increasing capacity, eventually what will happen is that trains will end up with no seats whatsoever, or some form of very basic seating like an airport people mover or something. If we continue down the removing seats route, that is what will happen. Thameslink trains will end up with no/very few seats.

Again, this is all well and good for the core route. But if someone like myself wanted to travel somewhere, say if I lived in Purley and wanted to visit someone who lived in Littlehaven, I would have to travel on one of these trains, in the off-peak, with little to no seats. If my journey started at Purley, I would not get a seat, so I would have to stand. If I drove, I would get a very comfy seat and probably get there in perhaps a little more time but for around the same cost as the train. Here, the car is the more favourable option. I can see that if as a family we wanted to go somewhere for leisure travel or to visit someone, we would drive instead of getting the train, because if we got the train we would have to stand for usually 30+ minutes. Indeed, if the trains to school in the morning had no seats whatsoever so I would have to stand, I would just get the bus every day and probably never use the train, which is something that isn't what I want to say as a train enthusiast.

 

[AM9]

... ... ...
If you balance the cost of that lost profitability against the cost of tables and decent seats it probably will seem cheap. ...

The reasons for a lack of tables in the delivered roilling stock has been explained by me and others more than once in this thread alone. However let's indulge in a bit of lateral thinking on the DfT spending more money for facilities to improve the productivity of all passengers, (should they actually want to do extra work whilst travelling).
Well, the simple fact is that the DfT has a budget* and like all government departments, it is obliged to deliver those parts of the manifesto programme plus in-government decisions as best it can with that budget or criticism and scorn will come from every quarter, (not the least in these fora).
Given that many patients, their friends and relatives spend hours waiting in hospital waiting areas for appointments, usually in hours that they would normally be at work, do you think that hospital should provide desks and power outlets to enable them to do their work there? I'm sure that a slight lengthening of waiting times and less space to actually spend those waits in will be gratefully received by sick people because it is benefitting the economy.

* some would say a drastically inadequate budget for what needs to be done.

 

[southern442]

some would say a drastically inadequate budget for what needs to be done.

Another thing we can agree on. I believe there are several other methods of conveying lots of people in reasonable comfort and whilst making people happy, but they all involve lots of money. The problem with this government is that they are desperately trying to get themselves a budget surplus. I can understand why they want one, but the country needs more government spending that ever now. I can think of (and I have drafted) several plans to increase capacity, provide for growing passenger numbers and also support the switchover from road and air transport to other methods of transport that this country needs. The one main problem is that they cost money. Lots. It is just the fact that we are in an unfortunate situation where we do not have as much money as we would like and the government are trying to keep it for themselves. If the appropriate investment was made then the impact would be enormous and would definitely pay for itself after some time, but the risk would not be taken by the current DfT or the government.

 

[physics34]

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 Box Photter]

The reasons for a lack of tables in the delivered roilling stock has been explained by me and others more than once in this thread alone. However let's indulge in a bit of lateral thinking on the DfT spending more money for facilities to improve the productivity of all passengers, (should they actually want to do extra work whilst travelling).
Well, the simple fact is that the DfT has a budget* and like all government departments, it is obliged to deliver those parts of the manifesto programme plus in-government decisions as best it can with that budget or criticism and scorn will come from every quarter, (not the least in these fora).
Given that many patients, their friends and relatives spend hours waiting in hospital waiting areas for appointments, usually in hours that they would normally be at work, do you think that hospital should provide desks and power outlets to enable them to do their work there? I'm sure that a slight lengthening of waiting times and less space to actually spend those waits in will be gratefully received by sick people because it is benefitting the economy.

* some would say a drastically inadequate budget for what needs to be done.

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.

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.

I'm certainly not looking forward to the prospect of Simon from sales & marketing elbowing me in the ribs as he tries to pick up his emails on the laptop perched on his lap.

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.

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.

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).

 

[southern442]

moved

 

[jopsuk]

It would be hard to get the extra 2fph off peak to Cambridge using Kings Cross, especially with them being 8/12 car!

 

[southern442]

I completely agree with The Box Photter. Before anyone from 'the other side' argues back, I just want to rule out one potential rebuttle:

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.

What one might say here is 'The 377's and 387's are only a temporary arrangement.' This argument is completely invalid as regardless of whether they were meant to be permanent or not, they have been serving passengers on this route. It doesn't matter if they were designed for it or not because they do work very well on the route. Passengers have been travelling on these trains for some time now, and they will notice the drop in quality from these trains. We are entirely looking at the passenger experience here. Frankly passengers will not give a care if these new trains claim to be designed for the route or not, they will only care about their experience. They won't care if the trains will leave less people behind, because they will still be full and bursting and will still leave people behind in certain situations. They won't care about future passenger projections. Want passengers want is a good train to get them from A to B. Granted the passengers that don't have any hope of getting a seat anyway won't be bothered by the change of unit, but those that do usually get a seat will be. They will see the decrease in quality of journey and that is all that matters.

 

[MML]

If I were travelling to London, I'd rather take a Class 377 or 387 when they start operating the half-hourly service from Corby to St. Pancras. Travelling to Brighton or Gatwick I would opt for the convenience of the through core service. But after getting rid of the uncomfortable low seating on the Class 319 and replacing it with more ergonomic seating on the newer fleets, customers are going to find it a real shock to have a Class 700 with a very basic interior and few seats.

Vorsprung durch technic as they say in Germany.
Pity it couldn't have been built in Derby instead. Might have reduced the balance of payments deficit too :roll:

 

[physics34]

If I were travelling to London, I'd rather take a Class 377 or 387 when they start operating the half-hourly service from Corby to St. Pancras.

wasnt this Corby thing just a rumour. Dont think there are any plans for this.

 

[swt_passenger]

wasnt this Corby thing just a rumour. Dont think there are any plans for this.

The NR CP5 enhancement plans 'assume' 377s in up to 12 car formation. I take that to mean they intend to design the wiring for that generic type of train, with multiple pantographs in use, but you'd have to assume any similar EMU would do.

"The following rolling stock is being assumed;
– Class 377 up to 12 cars, multiple pantographs (London to Corby)..."

 

[MML]

And I would assume a 12-car twice hourly Class 387 would stop at Kettering, Wellingborough, Bedford and either one or 2 of the Luton stations, giving an alternative to Thameslink for Luton and Bedford passengers.

Perhaps we've unintentionally just freed up some seats for the poor souls joining at Harpenden and St Albans.

 

[bramling]

I completely agree with The Box Photter. Before anyone from 'the other side' argues back, I just want to rule out one potential rebuttle:



What one might say here is 'The 377's and 387's are only a temporary arrangement.' This argument is completely invalid as regardless of whether they were meant to be permanent or not, they have been serving passengers on this route. It doesn't matter if they were designed for it or not because they do work very well on the route. Passengers have been travelling on these trains for some time now, and they will notice the drop in quality from these trains. We are entirely looking at the passenger experience here. Frankly passengers will not give a care if these new trains claim to be designed for the route or not, they will only care about their experience. They won't care if the trains will leave less people behind, because they will still be full and bursting and will still leave people behind in certain situations. They won't care about future passenger projections. Want passengers want is a good train to get them from A to B. Granted the passengers that don't have any hope of getting a seat anyway won't be bothered by the change of unit, but those that do usually get a seat will be. They will see the decrease in quality of journey and that is all that matters.

The above point is well made. It's also worth adding that the 700 is also a very considerable downgrade from the 365 - which on the Great Northern side has been in service for nearly 20 years, so far from temporary.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It would be hard to get the extra 2fph off peak to Cambridge using Kings Cross, especially with them being 8/12 car!

I don't see why Cambridge needs 6tph off-peak. Many of the existing trains have spare capacity even when 4-car. If the non-stop services were made 12-car, and everything else 8-car this would provide plenty of capacity with the current timetable; perhaps with the non-stop services alternately calling at Letchworth or Royston.

If anything the Peterborough route is busier off-peak, yet there are still plenty of 4-car services here too.

 

[The Box Photter]

And I would assume a 12-car twice hourly Class 387 would stop at Kettering, Wellingborough, Bedford and either one or 2 of the Luton stations, giving an alternative to Thameslink for Luton and Bedford passengers.

Perhaps we've unintentionally just freed up some seats for the poor souls joining at Harpenden and St Albans.

Current EMT stopping pattern omits Luton if calling at Bedford in either direction and vice-versa. Unless they're going to vastly increase the number of trains calling at Bedford, Luton & Parkway, running 12 car 377s/387s will do nothing for the Harpenden or St Albans passengers.

The real pressure on the Thameslink route is passengers joining (southbound) or alighting (northbound) at St Albans & Harpenden. St Albans passengers want to get on a train that is non-stop between St Albans & London even if it means standing in VERY close proximity to their fellow passengers. My anecdotal observations show that they would prefer to stand uncomfortably for 20 mins than sit down for 30 mins (which is the difference between the fast and stopping service). Stopping services leave St Albans for London in the morning peak with seats available, whilst the non-stop trains are full & standing BEFORE they reach St Albans.

In the evening peak, the same thing happens in reverse, with St Albans passengers squeezing into the last available square foot of standing room on the non-stop trains leaving St Pancras.

I realise that this will be shot down in flames, but the obvious solution would be to close the stations on the slow lines into London that have reasonable TFL alternatives, such as Cricklewood, Hendon, West Hampstead and Kentish Town, and have ONLY the stopping trains call at St Albans. This would free up capacity on the longer distance trains at the same time as speeding up the stopping service, thus encouraging more St Albans passengers to use it.

My fear is that some bright spark will suggest extension of the current Thameslink service to Wellingborough, Kettering or Corby, meaning that trains that currently arrive at my station (Flitwick) with seats available, would suddenly become full and standing from Bedford.

 

[southern442]

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?

 

[17jwarman]

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!

 

[AM9]

Another thing we can agree on. I believe there are several other methods of conveying lots of people in reasonable comfort and whilst making people happy, but they all involve lots of money. The problem with this government is that they are desperately trying to get themselves a budget surplus. I can understand why they want one, but the country needs more government spending that ever now. I can think of (and I have drafted) several plans to increase capacity, provide for growing passenger numbers and also support the switchover from road and air transport to other methods of transport that this country needs. The one main problem is that they cost money. Lots. It is just the fact that we are in an unfortunate situation where we do not have as much money as we would like and the government are trying to keep it for themselves. If the appropriate investment was made then the impact would be enormous and would definitely pay for itself after some time, but the risk would not be taken by the current DfT or the government.

In general terms I agree with just about everything you have said in the above post.