Which trains were best suited for the Thameslink route?

[dorsetdesiro]

It's a train, not a hotel room.

Fair enough, what if the 700 is a forerunner of what's to come by giving the DfT more ideas to continue treating rail users badly?

If we don't complain too much then more class 700s or new trains of the same basic comfort could in the future be introduced for much longer distances such as the ICWC and ICEC, not impossible to think about as we're happy to fly with budget airlines and FirstGroup will be introducing a cattle class only open-access rival on ICEC.

It's preposterous that we're paying so much to travel on trains like Thameslink's, it's imperative for the more comfortable options like intercity/HS2/Javelin etc to be kept or we could lose these as the DfT for example are keen for first class to be stripped back (this is happening on SWR) or removed outright. We've seen comfort quality reduced on some TOCs such as seating on GWR 800s being worse than the old HSTs. I wouldn't be surprised if SWR's refurbished 442/444/450s feel less comfortable than before.

It is good the Thameslink seating issue is being highlighted in the media and more people become aware about this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And it's not supposed to be a glorified cattle truck either

It's a high density, high capacity commuter train. That's essentially what it *is*.

 

[Steve Harris]

The 365s were built for the GN and SE routes, with an eye to future use on Thameslink Express services; this is when Thameslink 2000 was going to be 18tph (and a very different project). They were not built specifically for Thameslink.

Yes, they were built for the GN and SE routes which were supposed to be joined up (Thameslink 2000 project).

Bearing in mind that they were put on these routes so that when they were joined up the drivers would already have traction knowledge etc.

And BR had invested in the dual voltage concept in these units i cant really see how you can say that they weren't built specifically for use on Thameslink (when the expansion arrived (which it did not)). Otherwise why build a dual voltage unit (bearing in mind that the only other BREL units built before this were used on Thameslink and the next dual voltage units built after the 365's were the postal units) when you could save money and just build a AC or DC unit.

I totally agree Thameslink now is nothing like what was envisaged in the 90's though.

 

[Mikey C]

The best train rather depends on where you are going and when. For example, if going on a Saturday day out to Brighton, the 377s were lovely, I'm not looking forward to going on a 700 all that way

 

[physics34]

Why bother with seats and not just instal a wooden plank ? That's much harder and will never need "refurbishment".

There are many people who find the seats very uncomfortable. It's a common complaint by passengers on the route.

yep, the fainsa seats are just clearly a monumental error made by people who hardly travel by train for more than a few minutes. Its is simple...they are not suitable for long journeys which 700s are used on.

I ve changed my view over recent months, that the 3 outer cars of each FLU shouldve been delivered with seating similar to that of the first class section, and the middle 6 cars should either just have tip up seating or minimal longitudinal. Would solve the issue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I ve changed my view over recent months, that the 3 outer cars of each FLU shouldve been delivered with seating similar to that of the first class section, and the middle 6 cars should either just have tip up seating or minimal longitudinal. Would solve the issue.

Yes, I am leaning towards that idea too - no actual First Class, but 2+2 seating with tables in about half the train (outer ends), and longitudinal in the other half (inner section) with the intention that people will use the former for longer journeys and the latter for shorter ones.

The other option would be to have it as First Class but set the fares such that it's a negligible uplift for a long journey (perhaps even £1 on the Standard fare from Bedford to Gatwick or Brighton, say) but increasingly hefty for a shorter one.

 

[muddythefish]

It's a high density, high capacity commuter train. That's essentially what it *is*.

...... but not suitable for long distance commuting.

 

[AM9]

Yes, I am leaning towards that idea too - no actual First Class, but 2+2 seating with tables in about half the train (outer ends), and longitudinal in the other half (inner section) with the intention that people will use the former for longer journeys and the latter for shorter ones. ...

Unlikely to work in the evening peak as the St Albans riff-raff (who represent about half of the MML branch commuting population) are just as capable of grabbing the more spacious seating in the core as those who travel further. So the longer-distance travellers would be subjected to less suitable accommodation than they currently enjoy. The short trippers would also speculatively stand in between the more spacious seating just in case some became available. Commuters won't just obey some idea of some seats being for others, - it's first come first served.

 

[MML]

700's are definitely nice trains in terms of acceleration, air conditioning, luggage space, toilet facilities and interior space.
The main gripes are comfort related. 319 seats had lots of padding but my they were uncomfortable as they were far too low.

Relatively cheap and quick fixes could be accomplished by:
(a) adjusting the standard class seats so they are located 2-3cm further away from the window. Giving better foot clearance from the ground level coving with little or no impact to the gangway usability.
(b) adjusting some of the airline style standard class seats so there is greater legroom. Either by losing a seat row or by turning them round to make a quad.

Longer term, all 700/0 should be lengthened to 12 car formations, with the additional 4 carriages having standard class seating with greater padding and legroom, so these seats would be occupied by those travelling the longest distances (Bedford, Peterborough, Brighton, Gatwick etc). Remaining seats would then be available for those travelling shorter distances such as East Croydon, St Albans, who would at least have a seat for the 20 minute commute to London.
Original 700/1 should then be used on inner-suburban routes from Luton, St. Albans, Cricklewood, Welwyn, Stevenage.

Obviously routes south of the Thames would need to be adjusted to take the full benefit of the 12 car units. Sutton services which currently limit use of 8 car units could be switched to Southern 8-car units, while other routes where 12 car capacity can be fully utilised would switch to Thameslink. Increasing available capacity south of the river too.

 

[JonathanH]

The big problem with taking away services that people have become accustomed to is that it causes them to complain.

Take away Sutton to Thameslink trains and the people on the Sutton loop will complain that they no longer have the trains to get them to work, that allow them to get back at the time they have planned their life around.

As a result Thameslink is set up to link 8-car routes north and south of London and 12-car routes north and south of London.

60 8-car 700s might well remain like that for exactly this reason.

Most travellers are just getting on with the 700s and their interior layout despite the comments made about them.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, they were built for the GN and SE routes which were supposed to be joined up (Thameslink 2000 project).

Bearing in mind that they were put on these routes so that when they were joined up the drivers would already have traction knowledge etc.

And BR had invested in the dual voltage concept in these units i cant really see how you can say that they weren't built specifically for use on Thameslink (when the expansion arrived (which it did not)). Otherwise why build a dual voltage unit (bearing in mind that the only other BREL units built before this were used on Thameslink and the next dual voltage units built after the 365's were the postal units) when you could save money and just build a AC or DC unit.

I totally agree Thameslink now is nothing like what was envisaged in the 90's though.

Dual voltage units were built because it was just one design, and yes with an eye to the future, but not necessarily Thameslink. It was more about residual value, and they were go anywhere unit - these were the first units to be leased rather than bought by BR. (I was involved on the fringes of the deal.)

 

[Bald Rick]

.

Longer term, all 700/0 should be lengthened to 12 car formations, with the additional 4 carriages having standard class seating with greater padding and legroom, so these seats would be occupied by those travelling the longest distances (Bedford, Peterborough, Brighton, Gatwick etc). Remaining seats would then be available for those travelling shorter distances such as East Croydon, St Albans, who would at least have a seat for the 20 minute commute to London.
Original 700/1 should then be used on inner-suburban routes from Luton, St. Albans, Cricklewood, Welwyn, Stevenage.

Obviously routes south of the Thames would need to be adjusted to take the full benefit of the 12 car units. Sutton services which currently limit use of 8 car units could be switched to Southern 8-car units, while other routes where 12 car capacity can be fully utilised would switch to Thameslink. Increasing available capacity south of the river too.

Which other routes do you suggest?

Include in your answer how it might be that the strategy / timetable planning people in the industry have spent the best part of a decade trying to find the best solution, and come up with the compromise we have, when there is a better answer.

Note that St Albans commuters can already guarantee themselves a seat into London today, simply by catching an all stations (8 car) service. However a significant majority of them, including me, choose to stand on the fast (usually 12 car) services, because it saves roughly half the journey time to London. Extending the 8 car 700s to 12 simply won’t help Albanistas (or Croydonistas) get a seat.

 

[bramling]

Dual voltage units were built because it was just one design, and yes with an eye to the future, but not necessarily Thameslink. It was more about residual value, and they were go anywhere unit - these were the first units to be leased rather than bought by BR. (I was involved on the fringes of the deal.)

At what point was it decided to put some units on GN? I’ve heard it said that they were originally intended to directly replace slam-door trains (again I’ve heard variously on LTS or South eastern). However at some point a decision was taken to deploy a proportion on GN to better make use of their 100mph capability, and to stimulate growth on this profitable route. But I’ve also heard it said that some were always intended for GN. Both can’t be true!

 

[Bald Rick]

At what point was it decided to put some units on GN? I’ve heard it said that they were originally intended to directly replace slam-door trains (again I’ve heard variously on LTS or South eastern). However at some point a decision was taken to deploy a proportion on GN to better make use of their 100mph capability, and to stimulate growth on this profitable route. But I’ve also heard it said that some were always intended for GN. Both can’t be true!

I’ll have to check back in the archives, but my recollection is that they were a Political / DfT initiative to relieve NSE overcrowding. They were leased to avoid being on BRs books during the run up to privatisation, and also to test the water with the banks for the future ROSCOs. We nearly scuppered them with an order for IC225s for the WCML (we even did demo runs to help persuade a few people), but NSE won it. I’m reasonably sure it was NSEs decision where they went, and they needed extra units to run the newly electrified Lynn line, and get the Cambridge flyers truly flying.

 

[bramling]

I’ll have to check back in the archives, but my recollection is that they were a Political / DfT initiative to relieve NSE overcrowding. They were leased to avoid being on BRs books during the run up to privatisation, and also to test the water with the banks for the future ROSCOs. We nearly scuppered them with an order for IC225s for the WCML (we even did demo runs to help persuade a few people), but NSE won it. I’m reasonably sure it was NSEs decision where they went, and they needed extra units to run the newly electrified Lynn line, and get the Cambridge flyers truly flying.

Presumably the number ordered was more to do with how much money was authorised rather than how many units were actually wanted or needed? (at that time the number of new units ideally desired in a perfect world would presumably have been more or less open ended to replace the 302s and CEPs as a minimum?)

If all the 365s has gone south of the river then the 302s would likely have been around for another 5 years. How urgent was their replacement?

 

[Bald Rick]

Presumably the number ordered was more to do with how much money was authorised rather than how many units were actually wanted or needed? (at that time the number of new units ideally desired in a perfect world would presumably have been more or less open ended to replace the 302s and CEPs as a minimum?)

If all the 365s has gone south of the river then the 302s would likely have been around for another 5 years. How urgent was their replacement?

Yep it was £150m. Enough for 41 365s, or 14 IC225s.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Note that St Albans commuters can already guarantee themselves a seat into London today, simply by catching an all stations (8 car) service. However a significant majority of them, including me, choose to stand on the fast (usually 12 car) services, because it saves roughly half the journey time to London. Extending the 8 car 700s to 12 simply won’t help Albanistas (or Croydonistas) get a seat.

It's interesting how people do that. I choose the 0713 Bletchley to Euston because I get first choice of the seats, and let the 0700 go (normally there in time for it) because while that mostly gives me a seat it won't be my preference for one (mostly won't be window or priority). Maybe more people should prioritise comfort and get up a little earlier and be happier on their commute?

I have a near 100% record of a seat on the south WCML simply by taking slower trains from further out and by arriving at Euston 15-20 minutes before departure of the train I intend to catch (going for a later one if necessary).

 

[Bald Rick]

Presumably the number ordered was more to do with how much money was authorised rather than how many units were actually wanted or needed? (at that time the number of new units ideally desired in a perfect world would presumably have been more or less open ended to replace the 302s and CEPs as a minimum?)

If all the 365s has gone south of the river then the 302s would likely have been around for another 5 years. How urgent was their replacement?

Checked through the archives now.

The NSE proposal for the £150m was, right from the off, for 25 units for the GN, and the rest for the
Kent Coast (Vic to Ramsgate). There was never any proposal for them to go to the LTS, but a key plank of it was that the 25 x 365s would cause the same number of 317s to be cascaded to the LTS, which would then have modern (at that time!) stock for all off peak services.

Reading through the gestation of the proposal, it was purely political, a) to provide some much needed new / cascaded trains on key routes, and b) keep York Works open for another year. The politics both with the DfT and within BR were incredible!

The archives also confirm that they were not ordered (or specified) with any specific Thameslink duty in mind. They were ordered as dual voltage as electric traction control systems had developed sufficiently that the extra cost of dual voltage kit was relatively small, and made it cheaper to do a single unit for the order.

 

[greyman42]

And it's not supposed to be a glorified cattle truck either

That's a very good point. The 700 is a good train apart from the seating which is rubbish. I did not mind the 319 which I found had comfortable seats and was also nice and warm in winter.

 

[jon0844]

That's a very good point. The 700 is a good train apart from the seating which is rubbish. I did not mind the 319 which I found had comfortable seats and was also nice and warm in winter.

Having come back from Paris earlier this week on an unrefurbished 373, I forgot how the window seats have equipment sticking out and hitting your leg/ankle - as well as a bin that stops you being able to sit comfortably. Worse than a 700 IMO.

 

[hexagon789]

Class 319 in my opinion but in original layout. The 700s are so sterile.

 

[Supercoss]

The important thing to remember with the seating is that the class 700 is the first 'Open Wide Gangway /OWG/ stock to be used in 8 or 12 car formation and the fire safety regulations for the cross London tunnels stipulate the least material possible to burn should a fire break out. With older stock with end doors you could try and isolate the fire to one coach by shutting door behind you - you can't do that on 700s - so metal waste bins with flaps and minimum seat cushioning is a design feature love it or hate it
Ideally though with a 12 car FLU set the front and rear 3 coaches could have been laid out with tables and group of 4 seats leaving centre 6 coaches for urban high density layout with shock horror traverse bench seating

 

[Hadders]

Bit the fire regs don’t state that the seats must be so close to the side of the train that it makes them unusable. They also don’t require the width of the seats to be so narrow that you have to sit half on, half off them.

 

[fusionblue]

That's a very good point. The 700 is a good train apart from the seating which is rubbish. I did not mind the 319 which I found had comfortable seats and was also nice and warm in winter.

I remember being seated on a 319 in winter a few years ago on the stretch to Elephant. The wind chill leaking through the panelling, by the seats either side of the doors, was so strong that I was more cold than when I boarded. The heating was frequently cancelled out by that particular flaw.

If I had to choose, the 376 is the perfect unit for the job (for shorter routes) and even features 700-style terrible seating.

 

[Bald Rick]

Bit the fire regs don’t state that the seats must be so close to the side of the train that it makes them unusable. They also don’t require the width of the seats to be so narrow that you have to sit half on, half off them.

Indeed, so unusuable that every single one of them is occupied on every peak train.

 

[JonathanH]

If I had to choose, the 376 is the perfect unit for the job (for shorter routes) and even features 700-style terrible seating.

376s are terribly claustrophobic inside - the 700 is a much more pleasant train to ride in.

 

[bramling]

Checked through the archives now.

The NSE proposal for the £150m was, right from the off, for 25 units for the GN, and the rest for the
Kent Coast (Vic to Ramsgate). There was never any proposal for them to go to the LTS, but a key plank of it was that the 25 x 365s would cause the same number of 317s to be cascaded to the LTS, which would then have modern (at that time!) stock for all off peak services.

Reading through the gestation of the proposal, it was purely political, a) to provide some much needed new / cascaded trains on key routes, and b) keep York Works open for another year. The politics both with the DfT and within BR were incredible!

The archives also confirm that they were not ordered (or specified) with any specific Thameslink duty in mind. They were ordered as dual voltage as electric traction control systems had developed sufficiently that the extra cost of dual voltage kit was relatively small, and made it cheaper to do a single unit for the order.

Interesting post - thanks for taking the time to get the info on this.

I presume the rationale for putting 365s on GN was likely to have been making full use of their 100 mph capability, and perhaps some element of new train effect in driving growth on this profitable route? A typically neat NSE plan, right down to the LTS cascade.

 

[bramling]

Indeed, so unusuable that every single one of them is occupied on every peak train.

... how many of these users spreading either their body or legs into the space of the adjacent aisle seat, in turn leading to the user of the aisle seat spreading out into the aisle?

 

[class387]

376s are terribly claustrophobic inside - the 700 is a much more pleasant train to ride in.

Agreed. Despite its many faults, the 700 is quite spacious, while the 376 is dark and dingy. No aircon on the 376s wouldn't be popular either.

 

[Bald Rick]

Interesting post - thanks for taking the time to get the info on this.

I presume the rationale for putting 365s on GN was likely to have been making full use of their 100 mph capability, and perhaps some element of new train effect in driving growth on this profitable route? A typically neat NSE plan, right down to the LTS cascade.

There wasn’t much mention of the use of the 100mph, however the principle of it being a new train and better environment was the main gain. The better acceleration was also a big win, particularly for north of Cambridge and on the semis.

... how many of these users spreading either their body or legs into the space of the adjacent aisle seat, in turn leading to the user of the aisle seat spreading out into the aisle?

I walk through these trains every working day, and I’d say somewhere between 10 and 20% of punters in the aisle seat are ‘hanging out’. But this is no different to how it was on the 319s - I always had to do so, as there wasn’t the leg room.