Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[bramling]

This is exactly the point I have been making, if the trains were being used exclusively on inner suburban services they would be absolutely great -

I still wouldn't describe them as "great", although they may just about pass as acceptable.

There would still be the hard seats, and those adjacent to the windows being unacceptably cramped.

I find it hard to reconcile posts on here saying how important core dwell times will be, with other posts where people have said they will take an aisle seat over a window seat where possible. That certainly won't be good for dwell times, especially with the poor legroom.

 

[AM9]

I still wouldn't describe them as "great", although they may just about pass as acceptable.

There would still be the hard seats, and those adjacent to the windows being unacceptably cramped.

I find it hard to reconcile posts on here saying how important core dwell times will be, with other posts where people have said they will take an aisle seat over a window seat where possible. That certainly won't be good for dwell times, especially with the poor legroom.

Views expressed in posts here (or on twitter etc.), are probably not representative of the majority of passengers, nor do they necessarily indicate the future actions of all passengers when the new trains are fully rolled out and running the new timetable.

 

[asylumxl]

Views expressed in posts here (or on twitter etc.), are probably not representative of the majority of passengers, nor do they necessarily indicate the future actions of all passengers when the new trains are fully rolled out and running the new timetable.

That doesn't mean the views expressed here don't match those of the majority of passengers.

I noted today that a friend from college posted a photo on FB captioned "not impressed with the legroom on these shiny new trains". She has absolutely zero interest in transport or railways.

 

[bramling]

Views expressed in posts here (or on twitter etc.), are probably not representative of the majority of passengers, nor do they necessarily indicate the future actions of all passengers when the new trains are fully rolled out and running the new timetable.

Quite so. I know some who will be using their car instead.

On a more serious note, I wouldn't be surprised to see many will make a bee line for the priority seats. On the class 365s, it's *very* noticeable since they messed about with the seating layout how certain airline seats have suddenly become noticeably popular and quick to be taken. Likewise on the class 317s, very often the first seats on the train to be taken are the single row of airline seats under the pantograph, which have massive legroom. Regulars do notice these things.

 

[Domh245]

That doesn't mean the views expressed here don't match those of the majority of passengers.

I noted today that a friend from college posted a photo on FB captioned "not impressed with the legroom on these shiny new trains". She has absolutely zero interest in transport or railways.

But as I said earlier, only those who strongly care either way are going to be bothered to make noise about it, just because they are on FB and not here doesn't mean that they are suddenly the average user. I don't think I'm wrong in suggesting that the majority of people simply don't care very much.

 

[bramling]

But as I said earlier, only those who strongly care either way are going to be bothered to make noise about it, just because they are on FB and not here doesn't mean that they are suddenly the average user. I don't think I'm wrong in suggesting that the majority of people simply don't care very much.

I certainly have a few colleagues at work who use Thameslink to work, and without exception they have all remarked negatively about the lack of legroom and uncomfortable seating on the new trains. There's been a Facebook dialogue as well. The majority of these travel in from Harpenden, Luton, Leagrave and Bedford, plus a few from the Southern area too. I've not heard anyone speak positively about them, except to welcome the extra length.

 

[Domh245]

So that would be "a few" out of several thousand who have ridden the train? Perhaps your office attracts nitpicky people :P

I also can't help but feel that as it is a fairly barebones train, you aren't going to get many people going out of their way to praise it (at least until they can suddenly catch that train that they were always having to let go because it was so full) so there would be a bias in terms of negative reviews.

 

[asylumxl]

I certainly have a few colleagues at work who use Thameslink to work, and without exception they have all remarked negatively about the lack of legroom and uncomfortable seating on the new trains. There's been a Facebook dialogue as well. The majority of these travel in from Harpenden, Luton, Leagrave and Bedford, plus a few from the Southern area too. I've not heard anyone speak positively about them, except to welcome the extra length.

It's the users who are all wrong you see.

The 700s are truly the most perfect trains ever created by man or otherwise. They offer only the finest levels of comfort and luxury, with absolute reliability. Failure is not an option. Every part, from the seat bases to the motors, has been meticulously engineered by hand (in Austria) at the quantum level, their wave functions collapsed and all uncertainty removed.

If Carlesberg made trains...

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If Carlesberg made trains...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzBEetfjbXA

It was always going to be a trade-off between the core and the outer sections. It's been many years since I last went on a Thameslink train but I'd imagine there are times of the day when people boarding at one of the core stations find that 2 or maybe even 3 trains in a row are so full they've not got any chance of getting on one

 

[asylumxl]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzBEetfjbXA

It was always going to be a trade-off between the core and the outer sections. It's been many years since I last went on a Thameslink train but I'd imagine there are times of the day when people boarding at one of the core stations find that 2 or maybe even 3 trains in a row are so full they've not got any chance of getting on one

Iny my experience I'd say it's more likely to happen at St Albans than in the core. But with the introduction of 377s and 387s more recently I'd say that became less common.

 

[Class377/5]

Seem there really are a few on this thread that cannot see anything but bad when it co ones to the 700s. Reality of course is much more mixed. Maybe its cause they've lost the battle? The 700s are coming whether or not anyone likes it.

 

[AM9]

Iny my experience I'd say it's more likely to happen at St Albans than in the core. But with the introduction of 377s and 387s more recently I'd say that became less common.

The arrival of the 377s & 387s meant the almost complete eradication of the 4-car 319s making all trains at least 8-car. It also enabled the busiest trains to be diagrammed as 12-car, so there was a slight reduction in overcrowding. If the inexorable rising trend in passenger numbers continued with that rolling stock on its minimum headways, the crush would become unacceptable by the end of the decade. The modelling shows that the full 700 service will delay that point some way into the future.
There is no 'do-nothing' option.

 

[asylumxl]

The arrival of the 377s & 387s meant the almost complete eradication of the 4-car 319s making all trains at least 8-car. It also enabled the busiest trains to be diagrammed as 12-car, so there was a slight reduction in overcrowding. If the inexorable rising trend in passenger numbers continued with that rolling stock on its minimum headways, the crush would become unacceptable by the end of the decade. The modelling shows that the full 700 service will delay that point some way into the future.
There is no 'do-nothing' option.

I don't know why you're preaching to the converted. I'm just responding with my experience.

 

[futureA]

That doesn't mean the views expressed here don't match those of the majority of passengers.

I noted today that a friend from college posted a photo on FB captioned "not impressed with the legroom on these shiny new trains". She has absolutely zero interest in transport or railways.

And if there was more legroom how many would be complaining about the lack of seats?!

 

[Saint66]

Recently myself and a number of friends who commute on TL have been discussing the service and line, and the only positives they see at the moment is the 'Brand new trains' which are being introduced, and they cannot wait until the class 700's are on 'More services which are also in the peaks, so we can use them much more easily'...

It really isn't all the negativity that is being portrayed in here amongst the general population of commuters... Again, on-board a class 700 on Friday the vast majority of those on-board seemed pretty content with the train, especially with the ease of getting seats along the whole train. Also notable was the amount of people seemingly happy to sit in the window seats with no complaints. Oh, and the leg apparent leg room issues caused no trouble with alighting in the core or at St Albans. The doors opened and closed quickly and everyone was on and off just as easily and quickly.

 

[asylumxl]

And if there was more legroom how many would be complaining about the lack of seats?!

There's already a lack of seats. It's primarily designed to have a lot of standing and circulation space [emoji38] .

 

[southern442]

No you haven't. Not every seat on a 377 has a table (seat back or other wise) so there's 177 trains off your have list (three cars have nub so may or may not be counted). 375/9 as well so another 27 trains off your list.

I see the point that you are making, not every single seat has a table. But every group of seats has one (bar three seats on the 377/4s I believe), and my assumption was that the tables that could be fitted to the 700s would not be full-size. Personally I don't think that half-size tables are a problem, but the class 700 has nothing. The point Bald Rick appeared to be making was that more trains similar to the class 700 also have nothing (which is true for inner suburban) and I was making the point that in terms of outer suburban trains, the amount of trains that have nothing is less than the amount of trains that have some form of tables and/or armrests. I consider my point to still be very valid as the majority of services that the 700s will be running will be outer suburban.

The 350/2 don't have tables at all seats so another 37 units out.

If you look at my post, you will see that I did not include 350/2s as trains with tables.

Add in another 36x 375, 57x 378 that are also part of the London Commuting services mean your list is now a very different thing. And that's without all the Underground stock that are part of those service group too.

For reasons mentioned previously, I didn't include inner suburban stock. If I had included London Underground and Overground then I still think armrests and tables would have won because nearly all tube stock has armrests.

It's not quite as simple as you make out. If there is only have tables at every seats or none then the list you presented is changed as units can be neither.

As I mentioned before, I still included trains with half-size tables because they are something that the class 700s could be fitted with. I would shut up if there were tables of any kind fitted.

You can't claim that units with majority of the class having tables can be counted in the have pile either.

I made sure to not do this. The only places that I did were with the class 357s because some of them have first class provision and I wasn't sure which ones did, plus it wasn't the whole train so I just discounted them, and also with class 319's because there are 8 trains that have a 2+2 armrests and tables interior but I was unsure if these were with Northern or not.

 

[Hadders]

For me the two issues with the 700s are:

- seat width. An extra inch of two would make all the difference. The leg room is tight but not offensive.
- lack of tables. Half tables and small seat back tables as per the 365s would do the trick.

 

[jon0844]

For me the two issues with the 700s are:

- seat width. An extra inch of two would make all the difference. The leg room is tight but not offensive.
- lack of tables. Half tables and small seat back tables as per the 365s would do the trick.

Even a tiny 317/1 type table could be useful for a coffee mug or two. Maybe something can be fitted later on.

As for just adding an inch or two on the seat widths.. the real benefit is the ability to walk through the train. The aisles allow for this to happen even if there are people standing in the aisles. A 365 isn't easy to move through if people are in an aisle, so every millimetre counts.

As people like to keep bags with them, it means people in an airline seat can keep a carry on bag next to them and you can STILL walk through.

I don't think we can underestimate just how much of a benefit this is going to be, as it actually means people can move around the train to find more space.

Currently on most stock, people simply won't move as it seems quite tricky and a lot of people won't want any risk of conflict by trying to squeeze past someone.

 

[bramling]

Seem there really are a few on this thread that cannot see anything but bad when it co ones to the 700s. Reality of course is much more mixed. Maybe its cause they've lost the battle? The 700s are coming whether or not anyone likes it.

This just about sums up your attitude.

The "battle" is lost when the customer is dissatisfied. The reality is opinion regarding these trains is "mixed" - as you have acknowledged yourself. The fact that a sizeable proportion of people find the seating inadequate is simply unacceptable. There doesn't seem to be the same level of dissatisfaction raised about other new trains. I certainly don't remember massive dissatisfaction when Electrostars were introduced in their various locations (especially the older variants), nor the class 365 when they first arrived on Great Northern for that matter.

Meanwhile, we're already hearing rumours that tables may make an appearance in one form or another (despite all the posts on here giving endless reasons why it wasn't feasible) - which, if so, will be a partial improvement. Hopefully not too much money will have been wasted by not specifying them initially.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Even a tiny 317/1 type table could be useful for a coffee mug or two. Maybe something can be fitted later on.

As for just adding an inch or two on the seat widths.. the real benefit is the ability to walk through the train. The aisles allow for this to happen even if there are people standing in the aisles. A 365 isn't easy to move through if people are in an aisle, so every millimetre counts.

As people like to keep bags with them, it means people in an airline seat can keep a carry on bag next to them and you can STILL walk through.

I don't think we can underestimate just how much of a benefit this is going to be, as it actually means people can move around the train to find more space.

Currently on most stock, people simply won't move as it seems quite tricky and a lot of people won't want any risk of conflict by trying to squeeze past someone.

It would help if the duct didn't intrude so heavily into foot and knee space. That's nothing to do with adding to gangway width, it's just bad design.

 

[J-2739]

This just about sums up your attitude.

An attitude of delivering useful information to this forum.

The "battle" is lost when the customer is dissatisfied. The reality is opinion regarding these trains is "mixed" - as you have acknowledged yourself. The fact that a sizeable proportion of people find the seating inadequate is simply unacceptable.

Mixed opinions are always a good thing in life. You've also just hinted that not everyone despise the legroom.

There doesn't seem to be the same level of dissatisfaction raised about other new trains. I certainly don't remember massive dissatisfaction when Electrostars were introduced in their various locations (especially the older variants), nor the class 365 when they first arrived on Great Northern for that matter.

376, anyone?

(sorry, not a Londoner)

 

[jon0844]

The Internet (for the general public) was still in its infancy then. Yes you had newsgroups, but they were mostly used by the academic world.

So it just be difficult to judge what people thought in comparison to real-time reviews today from everyone and anyone.

 

[Class377/5]

I see the point that you are making, not every single seat has a table. But every group of seats has one (bar three seats on the 377/4s I believe), and my assumption was that the tables that could be fitted to the 700s would not be full-size. Personally I don't think that half-size tables are a problem, but the class 700 has nothing. The point Bald Rick appeared to be making was that more trains similar to the class 700 also have nothing (which is true for inner suburban) and I was making the point that in terms of outer suburban trains, the amount of trains that have nothing is less than the amount of trains that have some form of tables and/or armrests. I consider my point to still be very valid as the majority of services that the 700s will be running will be outer suburban.

No there are 2 seats across airline with no tables on the 377s. Bald Rick stated London Commuter trains so your study missed that and went for another point.

As for part tables, the 377/3 nubs are fairly useless.

If you look at my post, you will see that I did not include 350/2s as trains with tables.

I only saw 350 which seemed to be the whole class.

For reasons mentioned previously, I didn't include inner suburban stock. If I had included London Underground and Overground then I still think armrests and tables would have won because nearly all tube stock has armrests.

But they are part of the service group Rick mentions so ignoring them to prove a point about something not said misses the point.

As I mentioned before, I still included trains with half-size tables because they are something that the class 700s could be fitted with. I would shut up if there were tables of any kind fitted.

I'm not sure half tables are as easy as made out. Seat back tables require the seats to be replaced so its not going to be cheap either way if they get tables into the 700s.

I made sure to not do this. The only places that I did were with the class 357s because some of them have first class provision and I wasn't sure which ones did, plus it wasn't the whole train so I just discounted them, and also with class 319's because there are 8 trains that have a 2+2 armrests and tables interior but I was unsure if these were with Northern or not.

You however did by including the 377s and other classes. I don't think its fair to have a significant part of the train have no tables and yet be labelled as having tables. Especially as your lists were tables or no tables. I think a third group of some tables is needed for balance.

This just about sums up your attitude.

The "battle" is lost when the customer is dissatisfied. The reality is opinion regarding these trains is "mixed" - as you have acknowledged yourself. The fact that a sizeable proportion of people find the seating inadequate is simply unacceptable. There doesn't seem to be the same level of dissatisfaction raised about other new trains. I certainly don't remember massive dissatisfaction when Electrostars were introduced in their various locations (especially the older variants), nor the class 365 when they first arrived on Great Northern for that matter.

I have admitted from the start that the views of people have been spilt. Any new train have been the same for decades if not ever. The A stock was hated on introduction for example yet when it came to replacing them there was the same arguments used for their replacements! Seems people don't like change.

My attitude is one of getting a decent service running and using every trick I can think of to provide a service for passengers. That's what the railways have always been about.

Your views however have been extremely selfish (or have been presented as that) and you don't want anything to change despite the fact that increasing numbers mean it cannot stay the same forever.

Maybe you've forgotten that the GN has already had benefits from the TLP as that's the reason you got 12 car services in the first place. So your nice little railway already has extra capacity in use. And I speak to someone who used to commute on the GN a few years ago, 8 car railway is under a lot of pressure. Hell I've had to stand to Welwyn and Stevenage before now in peak when visiting friends and travelling with them.

That is not acceptable for a modern railway to do nothing about that. The TLP is about increasing capacity. You cannot do that without making through services as there is a limit to what the terminal stations can handle. he French figured this out awhile ago as well as other cities. It works here so why not London? This is no different from when the Tube took over various routes in London to help release capacity at the mainline station.

However if you believe that these trains are receiving worse views than the other recent trains, look at the 345 thread which is following the 700 thread experience. The 387 thread you'll see constant comments and the 377s still get the same comments. So there is unhappiness over some issues of seating but then again when was the last train that satisfied everyone and was hard wearing? The example of the car industry is doing that fairs to account for the wear and tear a railway seat goes through is light years ahead of a personal car.

Meanwhile, we're already hearing rumours that tables may make an appearance in one form or another (despite all the posts on here giving endless reasons why it wasn't feasible) - which, if so, will be a partial improvement. Hopefully not too much money will have been wasted by not specifying them initially.

Its not rumours. Officials (I can't remember who) has stated they are in talks. That's what we call a fact btw. A rumour is something not officially discussed publicly.

It would help if the duct didn't intrude so heavily into foot and knee space. That's nothing to do with adding to gangway width, it's just bad design.

Personally I'd rather have that so in an impact the canal deforms to keep my seat upright and my space persevered as much as possible than a external wall that deforms into me.

An attitude of delivering useful information to this forum.

Mixed opinions are always a good thing in life. You've also just hinted that not everyone despise the legroom.

376, anyone?

(sorry, not a Londoner)

378, 377 on TL, 387 are all recent examples.

Hopefully many people will be able to use the info I'm posting for a positive experience.

Just to note next week should see the next increase with a further two diagrams. I'm more excited about the one after (date to be announced closer to the time).

 

[The Box Photter]

Yeah, we passengers who rely on Thameslink are overjoyed to hear you're excited that more sub-standard 700s are to be inflicted on us.

1W11 massively delayed this morning (700107) ran fast from Bedford to Luton. How is this delivering anywhere near the required level of customer service.?

1W93 was also delayed by having to be regulated to allow a late running 700 cross onto the down slow north of Leagrave. Your monstrosities are tearing the timetable apart.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Yeah, we passengers who rely on Thameslink are overjoyed to hear you're excited that more sub-standard 700s are to be inflicted on us.

1W11 massively delayed this morning (700107) ran fast from Bedford to Luton. How is this delivering anywhere near the required level of customer service.?

1W93 was also delayed by having to be regulated to allow a late running 700 cross onto the down slow north of Leagrave. Your monstrosities are tearing the timetable apart.

Any chance you have some data showing that 700s are having more failures than the 319s or is this just anecdotal?

 

[AM9]

Any chance you have some data showing that 700s are having more failures than the 319s or is this just anecdotal?

Probably more wishful thinking!

 

[physics34]

Yeah, we passengers who rely on Thameslink are overjoyed to hear you're excited that more sub-standard 700s are to be inflicted on us.

1W11 massively delayed this morning (700107) ran fast from Bedford to Luton. How is this delivering anywhere near the required level of customer service.?

1W93 was also delayed by having to be regulated to allow a late running 700 cross onto the down slow north of Leagrave. Your monstrosities are tearing the timetable apart.

Even im finding your posts tiresome, and I've been quite critical of the 700s..... well, the interiors anyway.

The performance will improve. The timetable will be a big issue. 24tph will not work.

The 700s are virtually perfect for Sutton loop/Kent link/ metro services... just not for outer suburban work.

 

[D365]

The timetable will be a big issue. 24tph will not work.

Why's it not going to work? The Germans make it work on their S-Bahns.

 

[glbotu]

Why's it not going to work? The Germans make it work on their S-Bahns.

I mean, realistically speaking, Thameslink isn't really an S-Bahn. It's more of a Regio-Bahn which runs through the city. Which to a certain extent seems to be the argument that is being made. Luton/St-Albans - Sutton Loop/Sevenoaks/Caterham/Tattenham Corner probably could fall under the S-Bahn category and could probably deal with S-Bahn type stock. Cambridge/Peterborough/Bedford to Brighton/Horsham/Maidstone probably isn't and probably shouldn't. There is, however, a concern that the outer-suburban services have been lumped with inner-suburban stock, which I can see as a reasonable concern (as opposed to bathtub curve problems which'll probably disappear rather quickly). I'm surprised that there hasn't been an attempt to have two different internal configurations as sub-classes (ie: a Class 700/2 with a more "Regional" internal configuration, but the same performance characteristics), thus enabling

a) "Nicer" trains on outer-suburban services.
b) Adequate core performance
c) They could be swapped out for "Inner" configuration trains at short notice in the event of train failure, so a service would always be run.

Sure, it means the timetable planners have to earn their keep a bit more, but assuming the GN/TL/SN/SE timetable will probably have to be totally re-written anyway, I'm pretty sure they could manage.

 

[physics34]

Why's it not going to work? The Germans make it work on their S-Bahns.

Every train needs to be on time from its destination...... virtually impossible
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I mean, realistically speaking, Thameslink isn't really an S-Bahn. It's more of a Regio-Bahn which runs through the city. Which to a certain extent seems to be the argument that is being made. Luton/St-Albans - Sutton Loop/Sevenoaks/Caterham/Tattenham Corner probably could fall under the S-Bahn category and could probably deal with S-Bahn type stock. Cambridge/Peterborough/Bedford to Brighton/Horsham/Maidstone probably isn't and probably shouldn't. There is, however, a concern that the outer-suburban services have been lumped with inner-suburban stock, which I can see as a reasonable concern (as opposed to bathtub curve problems which'll probably disappear rather quickly). I'm surprised that there hasn't been an attempt to have two different internal configurations as sub-classes (ie: a Class 700/2 with a more "Regional" internal configuration, but the same performance characteristics), thus enabling

a) "Nicer" trains on outer-suburban services.
b) Adequate core performance
c) They could be swapped out for "Inner" configuration trains at short notice in the event of train failure, so a service would always be run.

Sure, it means the timetable planners have to earn their keep a bit more, but assuming the GN/TL/SN/SE timetable will probably have to be totally re-written anyway, I'm pretty sure they could manage.

Caterham and Tattenham not happening now. From Rainham instead.

Yep I believe a sub class should be created for outer suburban. It would be too late to change the order now I guess for interior fittings but I guess there was time a while back when this could've been altered.