Are Class 700’s really that bad?

[XAM2175]

I'd change the seat covers. The bland mid-blue contributes to the clinical feel - the bright red on the otherwise near-identical SWT 777s gave a totally different, much more welcoming feel. Perhaps change the pink oblique to red on the Thameslink brand, then you'd have an excuse to do red seats. (Pink seats would be like back to FirstGroup hell! )

707s , but yes, I take and agree with your point.

I'm reminded of units in Melbourne with a similar high-capacity interior that appear far less clinical through the use of 1) dark blue flooring, 2) multi-colour moquette, 3) dark-grey seat frames, and 4) warm-white lighting:

File:Empty X’Trapolis 100 carriage — July 2022.jpg - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Having been on a full-and-standing Northern 195 a few times now the thing that makes the difference is the standbacks and much less the width of the seats, so I am inclined to agree, particularly given than 20m stock is wider than 24m stock. Narrow seats are theoretically a good idea, but if two people are sat there there's invariably a person overhanging a bit on the aisle side so you don't *actually* get the width.

Yes, there are definitely learnings there. The wide aisles are still very helpful, but as passengers will generally only remain standing in them as a very last resort (in preference to the doorway areas) several inches of aisle could be given back to seating with no real trade-off.

 

[ComUtoR]

several inches of aisle could be given back to seating with no real trade-off.

Just those pesky wheelchairs and prams to consider.....

 

[JohnRegular]

Just those pesky wheelchairs and prams to consider.....

This is obviously a very important consideration, but do wheelchair and pram users need to navigate the aisles? Are the spaces not adjacent to the doors? Honest question, I don't travel on them frequently so I'm not sure, but that's how it is on every other class of train I'm familiar with.

 

[ComUtoR]

This is obviously a very important consideration, but do wheelchair and pram users need to navigate the aisles?

Of course they do. For every reason why anybody else wants to walk down the aisle.

These are walkthrough units and they allow all passengers to walk through the unit and decide where to sit and for whatever reasons.

If you apply safety reasons then it's even more important to allow passengers to access the entire train.

 

[JohnRegular]

Of course they do. For every reason why anybody else wants to walk down the aisle.

These are walkthrough units and they allow all passengers to walk through the unit and decide where to sit and for whatever reasons.

If you apply safety reasons then it's even more important to allow passengers to access the entire train.

It might be nice to have, and I'm all for improving conditions for wheelchair users in particular, but I can't see why it's a necessity. Wheelchair users have designated spaces (where they should have priority), from which they can access the toilets- is there any other reason they would need to access the whole of the train? Similar applies to pram users, and also to anyone bringing a bike on board- they can leave these items in the designated areas and walk elsewhere, should they wish. This might just be my own ignorance of course, so please enlighten me.

Safety is a reasonable point, it's not unfathomable that a wheelchair user would wish to move down the train in an emergency. But if it's so important, why is it not a requirement? Why are new trains ordered with 3+2 seating, which a wheelchair user couldn't hope to squeeze through? Again, I might be entirely ignorant here, but it doesn't seem like this is an essential feature.

 

[ComUtoR]

It might be nice to have, and I'm all for improving conditions for wheelchair users in particular, but I can't see why it's a necessity.

I'm not sure how disability access and overall good access for everyone is a 'nice to have'. Any new train design is in a position that we can address any and potentially all inequalities of the past and ensure travel is freely available for all and equally.

Wheelchair users have designated spaces (where they should have priority), from which they can access the toilets-

The space provided is very limited. It's still very much a communal space. What if you have multiple wheelchair users ? What if you have a conflict between 'Pram space' and 'wheelchair space" ? What if you have a wheelchair user that wants to go sit near friends ? What if the toilet is unavailable ? Just because the accessible toilet is there, doesn't mean its unoccupied or locked out of use. Being a wheelchair user also doesn't mean that someone is confined to their chair. Being able to freely move throughout the unit means they can access the other two toilets.

is there any other reason they would need to access the whole of the train?

Safety.

Similar applies to pram users, and also to anyone bringing a bike on board- they can leave these items in the designated areas and walk elsewhere, should they wish.

Would you leave a pram, probably overloaded with baby stuff, toys, shopping etc. in the middle of a train and just walk away from it ? If you had a decent bike, would you walk 8 coaches and leave it there for a few stations ?

Safety is a reasonable point, it's not unfathomable that a wheelchair user would wish to move down the train in an emergency.

Why should a wheelchair user be confined to a specific space? If everyone else can choose to sit where they want then why do we feel the need to specifically limit certain people in society ?

The safety aspect is also not limited to an emergency. There are places where you cannot load and unload wheelchairs because the ramp cannot be provided. By allowing full access to the entire train, it mean that you can board/alight at any point and then "walk-through" to the designated space if you wish to use it. You also might have situations where SDO is provided. A wheelchair/pram/anyone who needs to... Can access any door on the unit. SDO is not an issue because they can "walk-through" It is also not a 'wish' to move down the train. It may be essential.

But if it's so important, why is it not a requirement? Why are new trains ordered with 3+2 seating, which a wheelchair user couldn't hope to squeeze through?

I know a little, but not a lot. 700s are 'walk-through' so are different to the more traditional coach based units. There has also been a cubic metre space increase in the standards for each person, so that is part of the requirements. Fire regulations are also important and there is more than just 'door regs' to consider. Platform access needs to be checked and ramp access needs to be considered. If there are infrastructure constraints then passengers need to be able to access the next coach.

What is 'required' needs to be checked in the standards. There are numerous standards trains need to conform to.

Again, I might be entirely ignorant here, but it doesn't seem like this is an essential feature.

I find 'people' to be essential. We have an opportunity to provide accessibility for everyone. Ever since driving 700s I just find 3+2 seating an absolute abomination.

 

[jon0844]

Having used a 720 today to go to Stratford, I guess they've sorted the equality issues as nobody can easily walk through the train!

Wheelchair users should absolutely be able to move around, but the 700s can only have the ramp deployed at two doors - which is also something that might need to be addressed come refresh time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Having used a 720 today to go to Stratford, I guess they've sorted the equality issues as nobody can easily walk through the train!

Wheelchair users should absolutely be able to move around, but the 700s can only have the ramp deployed at two doors - which is also something that might need to be addressed come refresh time.

Not really, because the safe place to park wheelchairs and the accessible toilets are both by those doors.

 

[westcoaster]

Having used a 720 today to go to Stratford, I guess they've sorted the equality issues as nobody can easily walk through the train!

Wheelchair users should absolutely be able to move around, but the 700s can only have the ramp deployed at two doors - which is also something that might need to be addressed come refresh time.

Ramps can be deployed at all doors, not just in the accessable area's.

 

[jon0844]

Ramps can be deployed at all doors, not just in the accessable area's.

No they can't. They can on 717s but the 700s have notches only on the accessible doors.

 

[yorksrob]

Ultimately middle distance trains such as these will need to be designed to take account of comfort.

Having one person squased into the wall and the other with a buttock hanging off of the seat isn't conducive to that.

 

[choochoochoo]

I believe both the 700 and the 717 had the potential to be really nice pieces of kit.

However the bean counters at the DfT took away all the nice bits.

Like going to the car dealership and getting the basic model.

 

[AM9]

Not really, because the safe place to park wheelchairs and the accessible toilets are both by those doors.

But wasn't it mentioned just a few posts ago that there are circumstances where those in wheelchairs might want/need to park themselves elsewhere. Unlike most older rolling stock the 700s give that flexibility because the walk-through design is also a wheel-through one. It isn't just a safe place issue, as@ComUtoR says in post #306, "Why should a wheelchair user be confined to a specific space? If everyone else can choose to sit where they want then why do we feel the need to specifically limit certain people in society ?"

Ultimately middle distance trains such as these will need to be designed to take account of comfort.

Having one person squased into the wall and the other with a buttock hanging off of the seat isn't conducive to that.

Distance isn't the issue, it's time that the average passenger spends on them that matters. So the time that the passenger spends on them is about 25 minutes. That could be 6 miles from Kentish Town to Loughborough Junction or 25miles from St Pancras to Harpenden. Comfort is a function of time spent, the speed of the train is largely irrelevant.

 

[yorksrob]

Distance isn't the issue, it's time that the average passenger spends on them that matters. So the time that the passenger spends on them is about 25 minutes. That could be 6 miles from Kentish Town to Loughborough Junction or 25miles from St Pancras to Harpenden. Comfort is a function of time spent, the speed of the train is largely irrelevant.

And ultimately these trains are used for London - Cambridge and London - Coast journeys, so they are indeed medium distance trains that require comfort.

 

[AM9]

I believe both the 700 and the 717 had the potential to be really nice pieces of kit.

However the bean counters at the DfT took away all the nice bits.

Like going to the car dealership and getting the basic model.

You are right that the class 700s are a really nice piece of kit. The trains are spacious as in almost all of the volume within the cars is available for passenger use, they have smooth acceleration and a consistent top speed irrespective of gradients, and they have a good ride performance, even on poor track which is certainly traversed on the MML.
The internal layout and seat fit meet the customer's requirement specification that was drawn up when the trend was ever increasing peak loads. The fact that the pandemic (and likely the slump that the UK is now heading for) changes the pattern of demand of the Thameslink service is something that will probably be addressed at a future mid-life update. How far such an update goes towards some of the personal likes expressed here depend on the type of services being offered in the late '20s and of course the funding available in the railway when the economy recovers.

And ultimately these trains are used for London - Cambridge and London - Coast journeys, so they are indeed medium distance trains that require comfort.

If you use that argument, then the class 350s that ply from Euston to Crewe must be equipped to inter-city standards because they travel 158 miles and take over 2 1/4 hours. The Central line trains should also be equipped with toilets, 2+2 seating of regional train width and comfort and end doors to boot, - after all the passenger need to be able to survive the 1 hr 25 minutes from Epping to West Ruislip in comfort.
No, - the maximum journey time is irrelevant, even on a double-ended service like Cambridge-London-South-Coast. Public service trains cater for the public in general and there are normally compromises that mean that every personal wish cannot possibly be met.

 

[Bald Rick]

Let us not forget that the class 700s were specified 15-16 years ago.

 

[yorksrob]

If you use that argument, then the class 350s that ply from Euston to Crewe must be equipped to inter-city standards because they travel 158 miles and take over 2 1/4 hours.

Actually, you'll get a mixture of passengers travelling longer and shorter distances on the service, so you need a decent regional distance interior for such services. The 350's have an interior that is ideal for this and perfectly comfortable.

No, - the maximum journey time is irrelevant, even on a double-ended service like Cambridge-London-South-Coast. Public service trains cater for the public in general and there are normally compromises that mean that every personal wish cannot possibly be met.

These are not suburban trains, and it's pointless trying to convince the public travelling to the coast/cambridge that they are.

 

[ComUtoR]

Not really, because the safe place to park wheelchairs and the accessible toilets are both by those doors.

Not all wheelchair users require an accessible toilet and not all accessible toilets are always available.

 

[XAM2175]

Just those pesky wheelchairs and prams to consider.....

I said "several inches" meaning four or five at most. I'll admit that it's been four or five months now since I last rode a 700, but is that not roughly achievable while still leaving the aisle passable for wheelchairs and prams? I only wanted to move the seats out from the wall a touch, not close off the aisles completely

 

[Hadders]

I said "several inches" meaning four or five at most. I'll admit that it's been four or five months now since I last rode a 700, but is that not roughly achievable while still leaving the aisle passable for wheelchairs and prams? I only wanted to move the seats out from the wall a touch, not close off the aisles completely

Move the seats out an inch from the side of the wall, an an inch space between the seats in a pair. That takes four inches off the aisle width. Don't bother with arm rests - not needed and would take at least another two inches off the aisle width.

Incidentally this the basically the layout the 365s had.

 

[XAM2175]

Move the seats out an inch from the side of the wall, an an inch space between the seats in a pair. That takes four inches off the aisle width. Don't bother with arm rests - not needed and would take at least another two inches off the aisle width.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was picturing. The wide aisle is absolutely a key part of the layout, but I think that four inches is a fair trade for a noticeable improvement in the seat comfort.

 

[ComUtoR]

Move the seats out an inch from the side of the wall, an an inch space between the seats in a pair. That takes four inches off the aisle width. Don't bother with arm rests - not needed and would take at least another two inches off the aisle width.

Moving the seats is potentially going to force a change in how the seats are fitted and the fixings involved. There may also need to be consideration for onboard equipment. Would moving the seats change access to a BIC ? (Brake isolation cock)

As my Mum would say. "You're robbing Peter to pay Paul." It's ok to say you want more seating but you are then changing the standing room. Who takes priority for space ? Seating or standing ?

Again, it's worth reiterating that the space per person is calculated and there is a minimum requirement. Would taking 4 inches off the aisle change that space ?

What about crash worthiness ? Would there need to be testing if you changed the layout for the seats ? I know units have had seats added before so it's certainly possible but I couldn't say what happens behind the curtain or how many hoops need jumping through.

And then who pays ? That's potentially a big wedge of cash over a few measley inches.

 

[MikeWM]

I saw some people berating the walk-through nature of the carriages earlier up-thread and asking what the point was.

I understand the reasoning, but the problem with all of these walk-through trains is that they make noise pollution - already a significant problem nowadays - significantly worse. You can now clearly hear the crying baby/raucous hen party/singing football fans/teenagers playing music through tinny phone speakers/kids watching annoying kids programs on an iPad without headphones/person shouting into their phone/etc. from 3 or more carriages away. That doesn't happen when there are doors between the carriages.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Move the seats out an inch from the side of the wall, an an inch space between the seats in a pair. That takes four inches off the aisle width. Don't bother with arm rests - not needed and would take at least another two inches off the aisle width.

Incidentally this the basically the layout the 365s had.

And is what the WMR 196s do too. And probably the 730s but I haven't seen the interior yet.

 

[londonteacher]

I understand the reasoning, but the problem with all of these walk-through trains is that they make noise pollution - already a significant problem nowadays - significantly worse. You can now clearly hear the crying baby/raucous hen party/singing football fans/teenagers playing music through tinny phone speakers/kids watching annoying kids programs on an iPad without headphones/person shouting into their phone/etc. from 3 or more carriages away. That doesn't happen when there are doors between the carriages.

Whether it’s right or wrong there never will be consensus, but life in the 21st century is noisy. We have so many electrical devices and no real etiquette to using them has ever reached a consensus.

On topic, I think the 700s are decent trains. Maybe some could be reconfigured like the S7 stock I think on the Met line with two different seating positions.

 

[AM9]

I understand the reasoning, but the problem with all of these walk-through trains is that they make noise pollution - already a significant problem nowadays - significantly worse. You can now clearly hear the crying baby/raucous hen party/singing football fans/teenagers playing music through tinny phone speakers/kids watching annoying kids programs on an iPad without headphones/person shouting into their phone/etc. from 3 or more carriages away. That doesn't happen when there are doors between the carriages.

No, you get the continuous banging, swishing or whatever other noise the door makes instead. I have travelled extensively on the 700s and have never been distrubed by noises in the adjacent car. That it is a real problem is a myth, just like the one mentioned more than once here about through gangwayed stock being more dangerous in a head on collision, because passengers can be propelled the length of the train unlike on a conventional train where they get stopped by the bulkhead at the end of the car.

 

[bramling]

No, you get the continuous banging, swishing or whatever other noise the door makes instead. I have travelled extensively on the 700s and have never been distrubed by noises in the adjacent car. That it is a real problem is a myth, just like the one mentioned more than once here about through gangwayed stock being more dangerous in a head on collision, because passengers can be propelled the length of the train unlike on a conventional train where they get stopped by the bulkhead at the end of the car.

The issue raised about performance in collisions was that there is no means of containment within the vehicles at the bodyshell ends. This isn’t a myth, it’s entirely real, unless the gaping hole at each end of the vehicles is a figment of the imagination!

(I realise this isn’t an issue for you with your declared preference for declassified 1st!).

 

[AM9]

Moving the seats is potentially going to force a change in how the seats are fitted and the fixings involved. There may also need to be consideration for onboard equipment. Would moving the seats change access to a BIC ? (Brake isolation cock)

As my Mum would say. "You're robbing Peter to pay Paul." It's ok to say you want more seating but you are then changing the standing room. Who takes priority for space ? Seating or standing ?

Again, it's worth reiterating that the space per person is calculated and there is a minimum requirement. Would taking 4 inches off the aisle change that space ?

What about crash worthiness ? Would there need to be testing if you changed the layout for the seats ? I know units have had seats added before so it's certainly possible but I couldn't say what happens behind the curtain or how many hoops need jumping through.

And then who pays ? That's potentially a big wedge of cash over a few measley inches.

Interesting point actually. The seats are fully cantilevered from the sidewall reinforcement. So if they were lengthened in any way (wider seats, offset from the side, bigger gap between) and/or more weight added, (deeper upholstery, armrests, power sockets) the crashworthiness would need to be re-qualified. Of course those things could be done, but nothing of that nature would happen before a mid-life refresh (c.2035) so no point in holding your breaths.

The issue raised about performance in collisions was that there is no means of containment within the vehicles at the bodyshell ends. This isn’t a myth, it’s entirely real, unless the gaping hole at each end of the vehicles is a figment of the imagination!

(I realise this isn’t an issue for you with your declared preference for declassified 1st!).

A collision serious enough to keep passengers airborne for the entire length of one car, (20m) would have far more serious consequences that what you describe. Add to the the acceptance of through gangwayed stock by several railway systems in Europe because of the advantages that it offers your view seems to be in a minority and doesn't deter safety authorities from giving the practice full approval. Given your complaints about noise from adjacent cars in class 700s, I suspect that it is an argument of convenience.
Declassified 1st class is available to anybody who can be bothered to walk to the back of the train, (or even the front on a Metro service). Maybe you should try it your self rather than bang on about my choice to do so unless it is sour grapes.

 

[bramling]

A collision serious enough to keep passengers airborne for the entire length of one car, (20m) would have far more serious consequences that what you describe.

Who said anything about passengers being airborne for the entire length of a car? This isn’t the point which was being made at all. So you get a violent derailment, such as happened on the Thameslink route at Potters Bar, or of course more recently elsewhere at Carmont, and there are likely to be passengers present at the vehicle ends. As soon as the vehicles become separated, as happened in both the incidents described above, there is nothing to stop people being flung out of the vehicle ends. Remember that ejection from the vehicle structure is a leading cause of serious and fatal injury in a collision - indeed without re-reading the report I seem to remember this was responsible for one of the Carmont fatalities?

If, heaven forbid, such an accident occurs on a walk-through train, and the lack of containment at the vehicle ends leads to people being ejected and sustaining serious or fatal injuries which they wouldn’t have done on a non-walk-through train, this issue may well gain salience, in the same way that Mk1 crashworthiness did in the 90s following Clapham, Cannon Street and other accidents.

Given your complaints about noise from adjacent cars in class 700s, I suspect that it is an argument of convenience.

Why should it be an argument of convenience? Both points are entirely valid on their own.

Declassified 1st class is available to anybody who can be bothered to walk to the back of the train, (or even the front on a Metro service). Maybe you should try it your self rather than bang on about my choice to do so unless it is sour grapes.

The serious point is that you consistently advocate the suitability of the 700 interior, yet by your own admission make a bee-line where expedient for a specific part of it which contains a number of features which you claim aren’t necessary for the masses. Why do this if you feel the rest of the accommodation is perfectly good?

As you know, declassified first is only going to be available to a small proportion of fortunate individuals, and yes on the rare occasions I use Thameslink I make sure I am one of those!

(In fairness, you’re not the only one on this - there’s a couple of others here who advocate the 700 interior, yet it’s not exactly a secret that their favourite seat is the single one in first adjacent to the cab — they know who they are!).

 

[Mikey C]

It makes no sense for wheelchair users to use the wide aisles to enable them to go anywhere on the train, as to get on and off the 700s with a wheelchair in central London you use the specified part of the platform with a Harrington Hump, which is consistent across the core. And where the designated wheelchair spaces are, which is in the middle two carriages of the train.

So there's no accessibility reason for the carriages away from this area to have super wide aisles