Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[physics34]

Stays at same frequency I believe. There was a proposal to double the frequency at the expense of curtailing the service at Blackfriars, but the passengers wanted to keep their links to the core and MML, which meant that they're stuck with the 2tph in each direction they have now.

oh yeh ok, this sounds familiar yes. Well... hope they enjoy the cramped conditions lol

 

[Bald Rick]

I attempted to get my first ride on a 700 today (I know, I know, I'm late to the party!) but the first two trains were going on branches that they don't go, so I ended up on an old 319 (the seats on them, which look identical to those on ScotRail's 318s and 320s, seem much much harder than the 318s/320s!). Hopefully get a 700 this evening!

What's my best bet for getting a 700? Getting one that's come from Brighton?

I saw one going the other direction (okay, I'd seen one in the platform at Brighton before, but I was rushing around with disruption causing chaos—I'd been meant to go down the Arun Valley line!), and I must say the bogies do look like they have very little metal to them compared with most other stock I see; no surprise they're designed for lightness, really.

Almost all the northbound evening peak trains that start at Brighton / Three
Bridges / Gatwick to Bedford are now 700s. Times off Blackfriars:

1638
1652
1708
1722
1752
1810
1822 (cancelled tonight though)

 

[Verulamius]

In addition to the existing Thameslink service around the loop, the Thameslink/Southern consultation was suggesting an extra 2ph service London Bridge to Blackfriars (and vice versa) around the loop in the peak.

 

[AM9]

AM9: Yes, the capacity of the train as a whole would be lowered, but in order to provide suitable level of comfort really that should have been looked into methinks - for taller passengers it's often more comfortable to stand unless you can get a bay seat.

The planned capacity to meet the expected growth in passengers needs to be at the levels only provided by the 700s. Even this year, 12 car Electrostars leave passengers at stations in the peak and passengers having their own seat at the busiest times is less important that actually getting all travellers on board.
Of course all real commuter routes run trains that are a compromise between passengers' ideals in comfort and actually delivering the required level of service. Given the relatively short time that the average passenger spends on the trains, the nature of the compromises are biased towards getting people to their destinations. The 20-25 minute average journey time is similar to the time that could be spent waiting on a station whilst watching two overloaded trains leave that you couldn't board.

 

[Class377/5]

A 12 car 700 has fewer seats than a 12 car 365.

Seriously, I really don't understand why we can't have the class 700s with 365 style seating. I doubt this would see a significant reduction in capacity.

We do need to remember that the majority of the 700s won't be crush loaded, and the train ambiance should reflect this.

700 12 car has 666
365 12 car has 735 seats (according to platform 5 each unit has 245 standard seats)

However do the 365 has the cycle spaces plus as much disabled/easy access areas? They certainly don't have the stand back areas required for Core loading plus extra space created from being walk through so trying to use a 365 design updated won't give so many seats as people seem to believe.

As for not crush loaded, You be surprised. On Brighton mainline, the 8 car Electrostars were full and standing from 0600 from Haywards Heath prior to the 700s arrival. Peak 12 cars on Thameslink were full before leaving Brighton. And this is only the start, the 700s were ordered to cope with passengers increases over the next 30 years which show no signs of not increasing year on year.

The maximum (safe) capacity of a 12-car class 700 is (ISTR) 1750 passengers of which 666 will be seated. The corresponding capacity of a 12-car Electrostar is about 100 more seats including the centre of three seats which are rarely used in preference to standing and about another 500 standing. I presume that the 365s have a similar capacity. The bottom line of Thameslink line travel including the GN branches in the near future is that trains will be at the maximum length for their routes and with support of the latest technology, running at their maximum workable frequency. All of that is necessary for the expected passenger growth, even with the considerable infrastructure investment that has taken place in the last 10 years.

I'm not sure that's the max safe capacity but the max according to the specs given. Crush loaded trains maybe higher.

For off-peak travellers, the 700s will have about 15% less seats, although the loss is actually very little owing to the tendency for centre seats to be ignored by most off-peak passengers. Clearly the same seating has to meet the requirements of all service loading, but the critical core dwell time issues have to take priority. The aspects of design to achieve the core performance have been discussed thoroughly earlier in this thread, specifically, the absence of power outlets, tables and seat armrests. The delays that such facilites in commuter trains contribute to have been studied and AIUI, demonstrated in specific tests, - such is the critical nature of Thameslink core operation.

I'm not sure how you get the 15% less seats when your talking abut going from 4/8 to 8/12 cars off peak so there is actually a big increase in seating capacity as a result.

As for the 'ambience' of various trains, this is to a large degree, a matter of personal opinion, and of course, many passengers will have their own preference. A significant proportion of all passengers though are quite ambivalent to the aesthetics of train interiors and just want to get there with the least time and safety impact. In the case of high capacity commuter trains though, punctuality, journey times, reliability and above all, safety are the most important parameters, particularly when the average passenger journy times are considered.

Indeed. Its all very subjective but people seem to confuse the current situation with what the 700s were designed to do. Move people for the next 30 years. Not often we work on the basis of tomorrow rather than today.

 

[jon0844]

Passed a 700 today and looked in and saw the PIS was working at City Thameslink.

Also spotted one to Bedford that I think might have struggled a bit, given it was at Blackfriars....

 

[asylumxl]

The planned capacity to meet the expected growth in passengers needs to be at the levels only provided by the 700s. Even this year, 12 car Electrostars leave passengers at stations in the peak and passengers having their own seat at the busiest times is less important that actually getting all travellers on board.

Kinda missing the point.

I can't speak for the person in question, but I certainly would rather have more standing space and fewer seats, with the remaining groups of seats having a slightly larger spacing than currently. Certainly other people have echoed similar thoughts in this thread and have got the same response.

This would create more capacity in the long run. The seats would be occupying less "furnishable space" and allow for more standing passengers. It'd also allow for more space when boarding and alighting.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Kinda missing the point.

I can't speak for the person in question, but I certainly would rather have more standing space and fewer seats, with the remaining groups of seats having a slightly larger spacing than currently. Certainly other people have echoed similar thoughts in this thread and have got the same response.

This would create more capacity in the long run. The seats would be occupying less "furnishable space" and allow for more standing passengers. It'd also allow for more space when boarding and alighting.

This may well be needed if passenger growth continues at its current rate!

 

[Hadders]

700 12 car has 666
365 12 car has 735 seats (according to platform 5 each unit has 245 standard seats)

However do the 365 has the cycle spaces plus as much disabled/easy access areas? They certainly don't have the stand back areas required for Core loading plus extra space created from being walk through so trying to use a 365 design updated won't give so many seats as people seem to believe.

As for not crush loaded, You be surprised. On Brighton mainline, the 8 car Electrostars were full and standing from 0600 from Haywards Heath prior to the 700s arrival. Peak 12 cars on Thameslink were full before leaving Brighton. And this is only the start, the 700s were ordered to cope with passengers increases over the next 30 years which show no signs of not increasing year on year.

I've no objection to the 700s being walk through. What I do think is wrong is the ironing board seats and lack of tables.

I think a sensible compromise would have been 365 style seats (ie 2+2, non-ironing board not pushed right up against the side of the train) with the broad seat layout that's been adopted in the 700s (large stand back areas etc)

Small seat back tables with triangular tables as in the 365s would make for a far better passenger experience. To be honest I'm not really fussed about power sockets or wi-fi.

It seems to me that everything's been designed around entry and egress in the core (important though that is) which will represent 10 minutes or so on an average train journey with little regard to the comfort of passengers using the train outside of the core.

 

[J-2739]

The 365 seats probably don't comply with the latest crashworthiness standards then.

 

[asylumxl]

This may well be needed if passenger growth continues at its current rate!

Exactly. Which is why I feel it'd have been a prudent design choice.

It seems to me as though someone at the DfT just wanted to tick boxes. This many seats? Check. This much standing space? Check.

We continuously hear about the need for more standing space to meet both current and future demand on the route, yet an opportunity was missed to increase standing space and improve comfort ever so slightly.

The number of people I see sitting sideways on 700s on my daily commute is quite alarming and not all of them are tall either. Having to contort yourself and destroy your kneecaps to sit straight on seems a bit antisocial.

 

[AM9]

... It seems to me that everything's been designed around entry and egress in the core (important though that is) which will represent 10 minutes or so on an average train journey with little regard to the comfort of passengers using the train outside of the core.

I would guess that over 80% of commuter passengers start from or go to one of the core stations though. In a few years, the dwells at stations like Stevenage, St Albans, West Hampstead and Finsbury Park will have a significant impact on both outer suburban and MML/ECML capacity.
If anybody should feel that their comfort has been compromised, it's the off-peak pasengers who have to put up with the provisions that are only needed because of the volume of commuters who pack the trains for 2 hours every day on their discounted anytime season tickets.

 

[Hadders]

The 365 seats probably don't comply with the latest crashworthiness standards then.

I doubt they do, which is why I said 365 style

Car seats from 20 years ago probably don't meet modern crash worthiness standards but we don't get subjected to ironing board style uncomfortable seats in new cars so I don't see why we should have to put up with them on trains!

 

[jon0844]

The 365 seats probably don't comply with the latest crashworthiness standards then.

If you sit down a bit in the seats, and lay your head back, they're probably comparable to most head-rests in a car. But sit upright, or if you're taller than me (5ft10) and the top of the seat will be pretty much your neck.

So I guess they're not going to comply by today's standards. That's why the seats are so much taller on a HST, a 387 etc.

That means once seated, especially in a window seat, you don't see much. That all contributes towards the train feeling cramped.

Sit on a 313 or 315 with low seats (which definitely don't comply, but have grandfather rights) and it actually feels really odd. You can see so much that it feels almost uncomfortable, as you can't just relax and 'disappear'.

I'd say the openness of the 700s, despite high back seats, still makes them feel spacious. Something the 387s could never do.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
On a train with different software it seems.

Also with different info on every other display, the others saying to move down inside the carriage.

The left screens are all of the bull horn for some reason - never changing.

 

[J-2739]

I doubt they do, which is why I said 365 style

Car seats from 20 years ago probably don't meet modern crash worthiness standards but we don't get subjected to ironing board style uncomfortable seats in new cars so I don't see why we should have to put up with them on trains!

Do they comply though? 'Ironing Boards' are definitely higher than the 365 seats, which are safer in the event of a crash (people flying all over the place).

I have to agree with jonmorris0844 on this. I'm around 5ft also, but with the high back seats being obviously higher, I have something to rest my head on.

 

[radamfi]

I'm around 5ft also

He said 5ft 10, so I guess you meant something different?

I'm also around 5ft 10, but I have short legs, so my "top half" is actually quite long so when I sit down I look quite tall. So I don't really care about legroom but a tall seat back is useful.

 

[J-2739]

He said 5ft 10, so I guess you meant something different?

I'm also around 5ft 10, but I have short legs, so my "top half" is actually quite long so when I sit down I look quite tall. So I don't really care about legroom but a tall seat back is useful.

I normally use centimeters as a unit of measuring objects, so I had to convert it to compare (using google of course!!)

I'm a bit different. I actually don't like too much legroom as I like to rest my knees on something, gently enough not to annoy the person in front though! I'm rather equal sized though.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

When did 700101 enter revenue-earning service please?

 

[jon0844]

Forgot to add from my earlier journey that we came into St Pancras, the PIS announced that doors would open automatically and they did instantly when we stopped. And we didn't wait long (we weren't late as far as I can tell) before the doors shut again and off we went, almost like a tube train stop.

This gave me some more confidence that we might cope in the peaks when all of the 700s are in service, and under automatic control.

It was also nice to see so many already in service. The (late) train that left just before ours was a 700, and there was one going the other way - and we passed a couple on our journey in and out of London. I could see the screens on inside them too - so I assume the new software is on all of them?

As we left St Albans to go back to the car, another one was going back into London. It almost seemed like they're outnumbering the others already (I know they're not).

 

[JonathanH]

When did 700101 enter revenue-earning service please?

1 November apparently http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2765015&postcount=5996

700115 was in service this week doing a Bedford starter on Thursday so presumably in service at least the day before too.

Where is 700106 and what is holding up its entry to service?

 

[Cundy66]

I can't find the post now from a month or so ago. But does anyone know the schedule for tomorrow for the 700s I'm aiming to leave Bedford between 0900 and 1030

Also returning after 2000 from STP so if anyone knows timing after then that would be a great help.

I'm still after a ride on one or two.

Thank you

 

[Bishopstone]

Are the single airline seats - the '1' of the '2+1' - near the accessible toilet popular? Other than declassified first, that's where I'd head if I was joining a 700 for a journey of any length.

 

[JonathanH]

I can't find the post now from a month or so ago. But does anyone know the schedule for tomorrow for the 700s I'm aiming to leave Bedford between 0900 and 1030

Also returning after 2000 from STP so if anyone knows timing after then that would be a great help.

I'm still after a ride on one or two.

Thank you

The most recent diagram posting was on 9 November, only a few pages back
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2769127&postcount=6033

 

[LBSCR Times]

Are the single airline seats - the '1' of the '2+1' - near the accessible toilet popular? Other than declassified first, that's where I'd head if I was joining a 700 for a journey of any length.

Only if you want to sit at an angle.....
There is that ducting along the bodywork that restricts you facing forward.
I usually sit on the aisle seat for that reason!

 

[sd0733]

Are the single airline seats - the '1' of the '2+1' - near the accessible toilet popular? Other than declassified first, that's where I'd head if I was joining a 700 for a journey of any length.

I tried the 2+1 seats the other day, the +1 bit must be the worst seats on the train. They seem to have the worst seat pitch on the train with minimal leg room and as someone else said you have to sit at an angle. I've always been ok with the 700s but didn't like it there, avoid if you can not head there!

 

[Cundy66]

The most recent diagram posting was on 9 November, only a few pages back
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2769127&postcount=6033

Cheers must have missed it as I went further back.

Thanks

 

[Bishopstone]

I tried the 2+1 seats the other day, the +1 bit must be the worst seats on the train. They seem to have the worst seat pitch on the train with minimal leg room and as someone else said you have to sit at an angle. I've always been ok with the 700s but didn't like it there, avoid if you can not head there!

Interesting. I assumed the advantage of not having someone sat next to you, restricting your knee and shoulder movement, would offset the disadvantages of ducting and (apparently) worse pitch.

 

[sd0733]

Interesting. I assumed the advantage of not having someone sat next to you, restricting your knee and shoulder movement, would offset the disadvantages of ducting and (apparently) worse pitch.

So did I! I sat on the single seat at the very back of the coach. That seat in particular seemed to have terrible leg room. Don't know why but Sat diagonally into the aisle seemed a bit weird! Other people may like it there I suppose ita all personal preference

 

[physics34]

Only if you want to sit at an angle.....
There is that ducting along the bodywork that restricts you facing forward.
I usually sit on the aisle seat for that reason!

all issues that were pointed out when the mock up was displayed before and production started.

shocking really and lack of foresight for passenger comfort. People must have mentioned it when the mock up was displayed..as i could tell from just the photos.!

Seats just need to be 2 inches away from the wall (the width of an armrest).

 

[jon0844]

2 inches on each side = 4 inches. That's what makes the aisles so wide. I personally think it's worth it as these trains just swallow up crowds.