Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[387star]

Chiltern railways have cup holders on 172s could they fit those

 

[AM9]

I have no idea whether, or when, tables will be fitted. I was merely rebutting the contention that GTR had not announced the fitting of tables. Because - as demonstrated - they have in fact announced this repeatedly.

However, I enjoyed the explanation of how a company official stating 'we will fit tables' should be interpreted as 'we won't fit tables'.

I doubt that GTR or any TOC would be held to a multi-million pound modification programme with lost services and waste materials just because one or more of their social media teams has placated complaining passengers with unsubstantiated posts.
The only news of improvements to be introduced by a TOC that have any credibility would come as an unequivocal press announcement with dates, details of how much they are paying for their customers and some indication of their commitment to the improvement such as the name of the company who is undertaking the work. Any assumptions from a string of Twitter posts might be just what GTR wanted to get the press and the most vociferous passengers off their backs. They know that once the class 700s are running reliably as intended, most passengers will see benefits from the services' extra capacity and the grumbling will go away.
Something to remember, GTR has a management contract not a franchise. Innovation probably takes a back seat unless it saves the DfT money. With a largely captive fast growing passenger base, neither GTR or the DfT need to do anything to the new DfT supplied and specified trains other than make them run reliably and cost effectively.

 

[The Box Photter]

I doubt that GTR or any TOC would be held to a multi-million pound modification programme with lost services and waste materials just because one or more of their social media teams has placated complaining passengers with unsubstantiated posts.
The only news of improvements to be introduced by a TOC that have any credibility would come as an unequivocal press announcement with dates, details of how much they are paying for their customers and some indication of their commitment to the improvement such as the name of the company who is undertaking the work. Any assumptions from a string of Twitter posts might be just what GTR wanted to get the press and the most vociferous passengers off their backs. They know that once the class 700s are running reliably as intended, most passengers will see benefits from the services' extra capacity and the grumbling will go away.
Something to remember, GTR has a management contract not a franchise. Innovation probably takes a back seat unless it saves the DfT money. With a largely captive fast growing passenger base, neither GTR or the DfT need to do anything to the new DfT supplied and specified trains other than make them run reliably and cost effectively.

AM9, were you frightened by a seat back table when you were a small child? Perhaps you fell from a table on a train and bumped your head.

Your steadfast antipathy to the fitment of such threatnening items suggests some deep-seated psychological trauma in your early life. Can we arrange some cognitive therapy... or are you just trolling?

 

[Class377/5]

Worth noting that GTR has got nothing to do with the putting tables into the 700s. That's the DfT. GTR is just responsible for helping testing, commissioning and run them in service according to its contract.

 

[GodAtum]

I had my first ride on a class 700 from east Croydon - Redhill and back. I can understand people's complaints about the metal thing sticking out on the window side. 1st class is comfy enough with armrests. Screen broken outwards, but working inwards. Only bad thing is that on a 12 coach train, only 1st class at front. Makes it a lot harder to get a seat, as 1st class is very popular on this route.

 

[AM9]

AM9, were you frightened by a seat back table when you were a small child? Perhaps you fell from a table on a train and bumped your head.

Your steadfast antipathy to the fitment of such threatnening items suggests some deep-seated psychological trauma in your early life. Can we arrange some cognitive therapy... or are you just trolling?

Not at all. Most of my childhood rail journeys were on LU so I grew up without any dependency on train tables.
Sometimes I find tables (freestanding or seatback) useful when travelling. Other times, they can be a problem to all but those who think that they are for them alone.
As far as providing them on suburban trains goes, millions of passengers have managed without them for decades and will somehow get through the rest of their lives in their absence. Carrying the required number of passengers safely and reliably trumps all minor passenger requirements particularly for relatively short journeys which thanks to better performing trains and track are getting even shorter.
Thanks for your concern regarding my state of mind, no doubt based on some psychological expertise that you have but I have no concerns, for any such event in early life just didn't happen. If of course your facetious comments are just an attempt at dismissing my posts in which I am serious in trying to explain the way I see the provision of seat-back tables, power outlets etc., to new trains that are 60% manufactured and in delivery, then who is trolling. I don't do trolling.
By the way, Class377/5 in his post #5404 has pointed out (not for the first time) that GTR has nothing to do with the table issue. It would be the DfT who funded and authorised any such work and to my mind, it's naïve to think that random comments on GTR's twitter feed make any impression down Horseferry Road.

 

[swt_passenger]

Can anyone remind me what the fundamental difference is between this obstruction and the one found on existing Desiro UK 350, 360, 450 etc? How come they never seem to get much discussion?

 

[tsr]

Chiltern railways have cup holders on 172s could they fit those

Something which I suggested at the ExCeL exhibition and several further times on these forums, pretty much ignored studiously every time.

I really don't get what possible problem cup holders could have with relation to the weight of the train, dwell times, safety, space for standing passengers or anything like that. Yes, there would be a modest cost for each one (a bit of moulded plastic - hardly high-tech at least in terms of material technology) and they would require fixings, it is true, but they would not need to be designed to bear any major load. Cup holders are not only fitted in the saloons of some commuter stock such as Turbostars and Network Turbos, but in many train cabs on the GTR fleet (and others).

It would be a simple change which would benefit at least a few dozen people per journey of a 700, reduce slip hazards on the floors, possibly help station retail sales in a modest way, allow more specific locations for litter to collect and therefore allow quicker litter picking (so you wouldn't have to bend down to the floor quite so often), give GTR a tiny bit of good PR when anything like that is so desperately needed... what's not to like?

 

[bramling]

I doubt that GTR or any TOC would be held to a multi-million pound modification programme with lost services and waste materials just because one or more of their social media teams has placated complaining passengers with unsubstantiated posts.
The only news of improvements to be introduced by a TOC that have any credibility would come as an unequivocal press announcement with dates, details of how much they are paying for their customers and some indication of their commitment to the improvement such as the name of the company who is undertaking the work. Any assumptions from a string of Twitter posts might be just what GTR wanted to get the press and the most vociferous passengers off their backs. They know that once the class 700s are running reliably as intended, most passengers will see benefits from the services' extra capacity and the grumbling will go away.
Something to remember, GTR has a management contract not a franchise. Innovation probably takes a back seat unless it saves the DfT money. With a largely captive fast growing passenger base, neither GTR or the DfT need to do anything to the new DfT supplied and specified trains other than make them run reliably and cost effectively.

Someone must have been complaining about the lack of tables, as it's been picked up at DFT level.

 

[Mordac]

Maybe they could fit the ridiculous tiny tables they have on 380s.

 

[swt_passenger]

The DfT's Rolling Stock High level specification published back in 2008:

12.1.2 The emerging specification(s) for the interior is likely to include the following

• seating in a 2+2 style with a large central gangway;
• a predominance of airline style face to back seating in order to maximise
passenger accommodation, but with the provision of some face to face
seating arranged in bays to accommodate family groups;
• access to a table, either fixed or folding, for most seated passengers;
• tip up, folding and perch seating to allow the maximum possible flexibility of
interior layout;

An FOI request a year or two back revealed that it was FCC that recommended that tables should not be fitted. Presumably someone in DfT must have agreed?

 

[The Box Photter]

Not at all. Most of my childhood rail journeys were on LU so I grew up without any dependency on train tables.
Sometimes I find tables (freestanding or seatback) useful when travelling. Other times, they can be a problem to all but those who think that they are for them alone.
As far as providing them on suburban trains goes, millions of passengers have managed without them for decades and will somehow get through the rest of their lives in their absence. Carrying the required number of passengers safely and reliably trumps all minor passenger requirements particularly for relatively short journeys which thanks to better performing trains and track are getting even shorter.
Thanks for your concern regarding my state of mind, no doubt based on some psychological expertise that you have but I have no concerns, for any such event in early life just didn't happen. If of course your facetious comments are just an attempt at dismissing my posts in which I am serious in trying to explain the way I see the provision of seat-back tables, power outlets etc., to new trains that are 60% manufactured and in delivery, then who is trolling. I don't do trolling.
By the way, Class377/5 in his post #5404 has pointed out (not for the first time) that GTR has nothing to do with the table issue. It would be the DfT who funded and authorised any such work and to my mind, it's naïve to think that random comments on GTR's twitter feed make any impression down Horseferry Road.

Sorry, didn't realise you had no sense of humour that you're currently aware of.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Can anyone remind me what the fundamental difference is between this obstruction and the one found on existing Desiro UK 350, 360, 450 etc? How come they never seem to get much discussion?

Hmm does not look like the 40% I measured, more like 33%. BUT then I noticed it was first class !. I don't recall it being that bad (40%) in second class in 450s but I could be wrong. Even what appears to be 33% in the picture in first class looks bad to me though .

 

[N228PF]

After seeing the photo of legroom, it's exactly like this coach I'm on, which doesn't have armrests as I travel across the US.

 

[AM9]

Sorry, didn't realise you had no sense of humour that you're currently aware of.

Nor me you. Still I find this continual complaining about something that the DfT aren't really interested in, especially as Corbyn is now set to give the Tories an easy run in 2020 quite amusing. The government have their hands full with the Southern industrial relations issue so a few complaints about tables will be kicked into the long grass.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Someone must have been complaining about the lack of tables, as it's been picked up at DFT level.

So if the DfT has picked it up, could you give an opinion on just when a table fitting programme might be completed on the entire class 700 fleet?

 

[asylumxl]

Sorry, didn't realise you had no sense of humour that you're currently aware of.

Do not be so harsh on the poor chap.

Some people did not have access to luxuries such as tables for most of their youth, with the only furnishings in their home being a variety of chairs.

It made for great circulation space mind you.

 

[Class377/5]

The DfT's Rolling Stock High level specification published back in 2008:

An FOI request a year or two back revealed that it was FCC that recommended that tables should not be fitted. Presumably someone in DfT must have agreed?

Have you got a link to that? Haven't seen that myself.

 

[jaig]

Any workings for Sunday?

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

 

[bramling]

So if the DfT has picked it up, could you give an opinion on just when a table fitting programme might be completed on the entire class 700 fleet?

I don't know. One presumes at this stage it's now a problem as many trains have been built and presumably the remaining seats have already been procured.

The simple fact as far as I'm concerned is they should have been specified in the first place, in the same way as the legroom in the window seats should also have been fit for purpose.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Any workings for Sunday?

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

See post 5388

 

[swt_passenger]

Have you got a link to that? Haven't seen that myself.

Here you are, I cannot copy and paste from the pdf, but amongst others, paragraph 2 on page 2 is relevant, where it says that FCC were contracted to advise on interior layout:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requ...ach/3/150119 FoI Response to Hollinghurst.pdf



There's another fairly definitive DfT statement on the what do they know website regarding tables now though, and this one can be copied, my bold:

In order to make journeys as comfortable as possible, the trains have ‘2+2’ seating, more space for luggage, better ride quality, better air conditioning more accessible toilets and better on-train information than similar commuter services. In addition, we are working with Siemens to provide Wi-Fi and seat- back tables.

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/346169/response/852313/attach/3/attachment.pdf

I still think that the physical work involved in retro-fitting tables is not that simple a job - but this document does clearly show that DfT are aware of the issue.

 

[jaig]

See post 5388

Ok, thank you

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

 

[bramling]

Here you are, I cannot copy and paste from the pdf, but amongst others, paragraph 2 on page 2 is relevant, where it says that FCC were contracted to advise on interior layout:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requ...ach/3/150119 FoI Response to Hollinghurst.pdf



There's another fairly definitive DfT statement on the what do they know website regarding tables now though, and this one can be copied, my bold:



I still think that the physical work involved in retro-fitting tables is not that simple a job - but this document does clearly show that DfT are aware of the issue.

I just love the fact they have the nerve to say "as comfortable as possible". I find it hard to see how these useless and horrible trains could have been made more *uncomfortable* than they are.

From the point of view of comfort, the 2+2 seating frankly may as well be 2+3 seating as they are just as cramped. From the point of view of a commuter the rest of the features mentioned are simply not really relevant to their journey.

 

[jon0844]

On the 1208 from Bedford to Brighton. No screens and no announcements from the driver. Bit poor for a new train to provide no information to those with visual impairments, or indeed those who are deaf.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

700112 and 700109 working today

 

[Domh245]

On the 1208 from Bedford to Brighton. No screens and no announcements from the driver. Bit poor for a new train to provide no information to those with visual impairments, or indeed those who are deaf.

I do wonder why there seems to be a lot of incidents of trains running around without PIS working. Is this just a case of lazy drivers not setting it up, possibly as a throwback to the days of 319s, or is there something else behind it (eg PIS codes not being given to the driver)

 

[jon0844]

For accessibility reasons, there should be no excuse unless the PA system is entirely faulty.

We did have an announcement at Blackfriars, so that rules out a total failure.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
One of the luggage racks (I think) in coach 1 is vibrating badly at a certain speed. Anyone got an Allen key?!

Fortunately the train has been crawling most of the way so it isn't a major annoyance!

 

[W230]

I do wonder why there seems to be a lot of incidents of trains running around without PIS working. Is this just a case of lazy drivers not setting it up, possibly as a throwback to the days of 319s, or is there something else behind it (eg PIS codes not being given to the driver)

A few facts here, dear sir:

The PIS has to be set up on 700s. We can't negate to set it up because we are "feeling lazy". The train won't move without it. However, several of the units (in fact pretty much all the ones i've driven) have many a software issue and one of the things that is repeatedly failing is PIS. This also causes problems with door opening resulting in the need for a manual override release at almost every station. Frustrating and slows things down.

Furthermore, just to clarify, shortly after PIS was fitted to the 319s last year (or maybe the year before now, I can't remember) we were instructed by FCC/GTR in no uncertain terms not to use it. Unfortunately a lot of the PIS systems didn't work correctly/had gremlins and started saying the stations in reverse order or even totally different routes. I still try and set it up on 319s though it works on very few units (maybe 1 in 15 at most) but i'm not supposed to. It must be really annoying for passengers too as none of the destination blinds work either on ANY 319 now. They did seem to work for a bit but I wonder if they have been disconnected. If you go on a 319 you will certainly notice that any unit with the PIS in each coach has had it covered over with a sticky label saying something along the lines of "being updated on further exciting information"... Maybe they're just ready for Northern not us...

Funnily enough I was only wondering the other day why PIS seems to be such a difficult thing to get working on trains. We still have plenty of PIS failures with 377/387s.

 

[asylumxl]

If you go on a 319 you will certainly notice that any unit with the PIS in each coach has had it covered over with a sticky label saying something along the lines of "being updated on further exciting information"... Maybe they're just ready for Northern not us...[emoji38]

We both know that's ridiculous..ly accurate.

 

[Class315]

700016 May had the title of being the first 700 to traverse the WCML, The unit worked as 5X73 13:45 Three Bridges Up Depot - Ferme Park and may hold that title as due to the closure of the North London Line, the service took an alternative route reversing at Acton Lane Junction, before heading back towards Ferme Park Via Primrose Hill and the KX incline.