Are Class 700’s really that bad?

[Hadders]

1st class in the 365s wan't that great but the standard class layout was hard to beat.

The ability of the 700s to hoover up passengers is great at busy times or when there is disruption. For example the LNR issues out of Euston on Saturday I mentioned in another thread wouldn't have been anywhere near as bad if 700s were in use there. That said the standard class layout of the 700s isn't great, particurlarly if you're doing a longer distance journey.

I don't think two varients of the 700 is the answer. Thankfully declassified 1st effectively provides a better seat if doing an end-to end journey but it would have been far better if the 700s had a 365 style layout in standard class.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The ability of the 700s to hoover up passengers is great at busy times or when there is disruption. For example the LNR issues out of Euston on Saturday I mentioned in another thread wouldn't have been anywhere near as bad if 700s were in use there. That said the standard class layout of the 700s isn't great, particurlarly if you're doing a longer distance journey.

They're certainly veritable people-eaters, but my observation of large crowds on 2-car 195s is that the narrow seats aren't needed for that - it's the wide doors and standbacks that do it. Thus I'd space the seats as if there were armrests but not fit any, as per the 196 (which I've also observed with a very high loading).

 

[XAM2175]

They're certainly veritable people-eaters, but my observation of large crowds on 2-car 195s is that the narrow seats aren't needed for that - it's the wide doors and standbacks that do it. Thus I'd space the seats as if there were armrests but not fit any, as per the 196 (which I've also observed with a very high loading).

Yeah, this is a something that I've noticed too. It doesn't mean that the 700's layout is actively bad, though; just that we now know a bit more about how other options perform.

 

[jon0844]

1st class in the 365s wan't that great but the standard class layout was hard to beat.

The ability of the 700s to hoover up passengers is great at busy times or when there is disruption. For example the LNR issues out of Euston on Saturday I mentioned in another thread wouldn't have been anywhere near as bad if 700s were in use there. That said the standard class layout of the 700s isn't great, particurlarly if you're doing a longer distance journey.

I don't think two varients of the 700 is the answer. Thankfully declassified 1st effectively provides a better seat if doing an end-to end journey but it would have been far better if the 700s had a 365 style layout in standard class.

Yesterday, a train cancelled out of King's Cross (387) and the next train 30 minutes later a 700. Sure it was cosy, but everyone from the previous train and those wanting the train that ran all fitted on and the carriages still only showed yellow (standing room only) and not red - and people can still (just about) move through the train if they want to stand where it's quieter, or get to one of the toilets.

This is why people like the 700s. They don't want to be left on a platform or concourse. They can also move around and get off the train without bother despite being packed - which in turn reduces dwell times.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yeah, this is a something that I've noticed too. It doesn't mean that the 700's layout is actively bad, though; just that we now know a bit more about how other options perform.

And thus that that other option is probably better, because it provides higher comfort without noticeably affecting capacity or access. The reason it does is probably that in the 196 people fit in their seat, whereas in the 700 most people hang over the edge, so the available width is about the same, the comfort is just much lower as the aisle passenger can't have a full seat and the window passenger is pushed against the wall.

I fear Merseyrail are just about to make a similar error.

 

[Mikey C]

Yesterday, a train cancelled out of King's Cross (387) and the next train 30 minutes later a 700. Sure it was cosy, but everyone from the previous train and those wanting the train that ran all fitted on and the carriages still only showed yellow (standing room only) and not red - and people can still (just about) move through the train if they want to stand where it's quieter, or get to one of the toilets.

This is why people like the 700s. They don't want to be left on a platform or concourse. They can also move around and get off the train without bother despite being packed - which in turn reduces dwell times.

Using that logic why not remove all the seats, then in case of a problem, even more people than then fit in, plus you'll have even more space to move around...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Using that logic why not remove all the seats, then in case of a problem, even more people than then fit in, plus you'll have even more space to move around...

That would be extreme but would be an argument for going to 2+1, which some of the interior of them already is.

 

[43066]

Using that logic why not remove all the seats, then in case of a problem, even more people than then fit in, plus you'll have even more space to move around...

Or just design a train with fewer seats, and which is much better optimised to deal with large crowds, than what went before.

Something almost like the 700s, in fact.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Or just design a train with fewer seats, and much better optimised to deal with large crowds, than what went before.

Something almost like the 700s, in fact.

Indeed, though as I've said from experiencing crush loads on various alternative layouts (i.e. Classes 195 and 196) there is room for a bit of comfort improvement without affecting that ability, i.e. adding spacers between the seats so two average adult males can sit fully within one pair without hanging their backside in the aisle. The 195 and 196 prove that 8" or so off the aisle (2" by the window, 2" between the seats, no need for armrests) wouldn't significantly negatively affect that ability and may indeed improve it (because you can move down the aisle without banging into people if they're fully within their seat).

 

[AM9]

The 195 and 196 prove that 8" or so off the aisle (2" by the window, 2" between the seats, no need for armrests) wouldn't significantly negatively affect that ability and may indeed improve it (because you can move down the aisle without banging into people if they're fully within their seat).

Provided there isn't anybody standing between the seats. That's why movement is easier on '700s because the point where moving along becomes too difficult (or impossible) is reached when many more are standing between the seats. Don't forget, most people are much narrower at knee level than shoulder level.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Provided there isn't anybody standing between the seats. That's why movement is easier on '700s because the point where moving along becomes too difficult (or impossible) is reached when many more are standing between the seats. Don't forget, most people are much narrower at knee level than shoulder level.

This demonstrably doesn't work, because 700 seats are too narrow for two average middle aged males (most commuters are this) to sit side by side without sticking out into the aisle. Shoulders are the issue, but that's by the by. Hence why the 196 layout works better.

If at most rows someone sticks out about 2" into the aisle (which they do), it's better to have that space between the seats so they fit wholly within the seat.

 

[Steve Harris]

The classes listed are all Mk3 MUs and no Networker stock has ever been used on 'thameslink' services. A few 377/2 units were loaned from Southern in the late noughties, and apart from slightly softer (but tired) seat squabs, they had the poor riding characteristics of all Electrostars over the MML's poorer sections of track. They also struggled to cope with the busiest loads in the peaks.

But as Great Northern services (Peterborough - Finsbury Park (operated by 365's)) got transfered to thameslink, it's only natural that 700's will be compared to 365's.

And if I wanted to be pedantic, I could say that 365's did operate on 'thameslink' services, as they operated on GTR services... that's Govia THAMESLINK Railway (which is the parent company of GN) if you handed twigged

 

[bramling]

But as Great Northern services (Peterborough - Finsbury Park (operated by 365's)) got transfered to thameslink, it's only natural that 700's will be compared to 365's.

And if I wanted to be pedantic, I could say that 365's did operate on 'thameslink' services, as they operated on GTR services... that's Govia THAMESLINK Railway (which is the parent company of GN) if you handed twigged

King’s Cross to Peterborough and Cambridge certainly are “Thameslink” services. 365s could handle large numbers of passengers too, without having the ambience of a Travelodge bathroom.

 

[AM9]

King’s Cross to Peterborough and Cambridge certainly are “Thameslink” services. 365s could handle large numbers of passengers too, without having the ambience of a Travelodge bathroom.

In the days when GTR first took over, the 365s were labled 'Great Northern' whereas genuine TL services labled Thameslink. In addition, the ECML GTR service is a smaller operation than that on the MML where it represents the only local and outer suburban service inside Bedford. Thus it was necessary to provide traqins that could handle the highest demand. There is no way that trains with a 365 ish interior could handle the 1750 passenger capacity of the '700/1s

 

[jon0844]

Using that logic why not remove all the seats, then in case of a problem, even more people than then fit in, plus you'll have even more space to move around...

I am sure they could have had a London Overground style layout, but with 8 and 12 car trains there was clearly a compromise made so as not to make the trains ridiculously short of seats in the off-peak periods. There may also be some issues of weight if you had a 12 car train with no seats and other issues on how they could have anything to hold on to...

It's hard to stress just how good wide aisles are, as people won't move down if they think they're going to get stuck - and just block the doors. If you feel confident you can get to a door, you'll use more of the available space. It's also nice to know you might be able to get to the toilet if you needed to go.

While some people may slightly overhang the aisle seating, in reality it's still a lot easier to get by than a large solid object (seat) or something to bang your leg on (arm rest) - as anyone walking through a 387 will know. Most of what overhangs (and in my experience of walking through there's not a lot of that anyway) is likely clothing, like a jacket, which doesn't pose any more issue than moving through standees with bulky clothing.

 

[Mikey C]

Or just design a train with fewer seats, and which is much better optimised to deal with large crowds, than what went before.

Something almost like the 700s, in fact.

But where does that stop? Why not have more standing space on the 390s and 80Xs, just in case there are problems on the line, or a major event in London?

There does have to be a balance between standing space, circulation space AND seat comfort and legroom, so that people aren't travelling in fairly unattractive conditions for the 95% of time when you don't need to cram 1000 extra people on board.

 

[nw1]

Brighton is about 80 km from the City, Bedford the same distance as well. On the SWR network, these are served by class 450 which has the dreadful 3+2 seating. I'd prefer a 700 way over a 450!

Brighton though was historically served by CIGs (on the fast services), which were the previous-generation equivalent to the 444; 2+2 seating and a "fast train" ambience. So arguably the most appropriate stock on fast Brighton services, in theory, would be a 444-like unit.

However I take the point about efficiently running units through the central section, and something like a 444 might be difficult for that.

 

[jon0844]

There does have to be a balance between standing space, circulation space AND seat comfort and legroom, so that people aren't travelling in fairly unattractive conditions for the 95% of time when you don't need to cram 1000 extra people on board.

And I think the 700s have a good mix.

• You have 2+2 seating throughout, so there are still a good number of seats (and plenty off-peak).
• You have wide aisles that encourage people to move down inside the coaches (and the walk-through ability to help further, as well as screens showing where is busy or not).
• You have large areas for wheelchairs, with plenty of circulation space by the accessible toilet. These areas can also be used by buggy users and cyclists when not needed by a wheelchair user.
• You have two areas for bikes at the front and back. Sure, not enough for everyone, but folding bikes are increasingly popular these days.
• You have a first class section for those who want better seating, table, and power.
• You have a section that is declassified to allow more standard class users (and in some cases, standard at both ends) and gives the same perks to those who are lucky.
• You have large doorways to speed up boarding and alighting.
• The trains are pretty smooth and comfortable.

The only real issues are that some trains have no tables to hold a coffee mug or Wi-Fi, and no power in standard class at all (almost certainly one or all of these things will be addressed come refresh time).

They're also very hospital-like in look, although seeing what they look like at times the easy to wash surfaces have to be appreciated. If only the graffiti would be more efficiently removed, especially in the toilets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The only real issues are that some trains have no tables to hold a coffee mug or Wi-Fi, and no power in standard class at all (almost certainly one or all of these things will be addressed come refresh time).

Plus that the seats are too narrow. This doesn't give you a wider aisle (unless all the seats are unoccupied, but then the wider aisle doesn't matter), it gives you a protrusion of backsides and shoulders into the aisle.

If 6-8" was taken off the aisle to space the seats more from the windows and between them, then it would be easier, not harder, to move down the train, as it would be possible to do so without knocking into seated passengers.

Again, I've experienced crush loaded 700s, 195s and a 196. It was mostly the wide door standbacks that made the difference, not 6" on the aisle (which is wider on 20m vehicles anyway).

They're also very hospital-like in look, although seeing what they look like at times the easy to wash surfaces have to be appreciated.

That's just laziness/cheapness. There was no particular need to go for such a boring look. You could, at minimal extra cost, have vinylled the floor in a "fake wood" design instead of NHS fleck, used a deeper colour of seats (the almost-identical Class 707 looks so much more welcoming with red or deep blue), and vinylled art onto the vehicle ends (NSE style; Tyne and Wear Metro are also going to do it) and inside the toilet cubicles to add some interest.

If only the graffiti would be more efficiently removed, especially in the toilets.

Vinylling the toilet walls makes it both less likely (as there's no big clear surface to do it on) and makes it easier to fix (easy to clean, and if it won't come off pull the vinyl and replace). Quite a few TOCs have done it, some with scenery and some (Eurostar I think) with fake tiling and a picture of one of Mr Crapper's venerable finest!

 

[jon0844]

I disagree about the aisles being easier to get down if they were narrower. I've never, ever, had problems getting by people seated. You must have some very large passengers on your trains!

The wide aisles make it possible to get through where you just cannot, at all, on a train with narrow aisles and fixed seating you can't brush past.

As for fake wood lino, that's popular now on buses but the spec was probably signed off before that became a thing. It certainly could make a big difference to the ambience, along with different coloured walls and seats. Also totally agree with changing the interior of the toilets to make it harder to deface them.

However, I think people just want to fit on a train and get to work/home/seaside without fuss and these do that just fine.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As for fake wood lino, that's popular now on buses but the spec was probably signed off before that became a thing.

It's been a thing for years. Trentbarton were doing it 10-15 years ago.

 

[AM9]

It's been a thing for years. Trentbarton were doing it 10-15 years ago.

The trains were specified 15 years ago, - maybe those doing that were busy determining important functional details rather than cosmetic niceties.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The trains were specified 15 years ago, - maybe those doing that were busy determining important functional details rather than cosmetic niceties.

You can of course do both! The Class 196 looks to do it pretty well.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

365s could handle large numbers of passengers too, without having the ambience of a Travelodge bathroom.

No, I'm sorry; after their last refurbishment that's exactly what the ambience was like.

 

[Hadders]

There's no doubt that after their last refurbishment the 365s were dumbed down, although the internal layout remained the same except for the removal of two bays of facing seats per carriage which were turned into airline seats.

I suspect this dumbing down was to prepare regular users for the 700s.

 

[AM9]

You can of course do both! The Class 196 looks to do it pretty well.

The requirement for 700s to run through the the core with self recovery features are a bit more serious than arranging the furniture in a basic 2/3/4-car DMU. I've only been on 195s but they didn't even get the basics right on the suspension there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The requirement for 700s to run through the the core with self recovery features are a bit more serious than arranging the furniture in a basic 2/3/4-car DMU. I've only been on 195s but they didn't even get the basics right on the suspension there.

The basics of dealing with overcrowding are the same.

 

[Bald Rick]

This demonstrably doesn't work, because 700 seats are too narrow for two average middle aged males (most commuters are this) to sit side by side without sticking out into the aisle.

Not on the MML! Us average middle aged males are very much a minority, (and we generally stand to let ladies sit down anyway )

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

(and we generally stand to let ladies sit down anyway )

While that's a kind thing to do, I'd be careful as many ladies these days might take offence at that.

In my opinion, the endless Julie Berry announcements (which have a slower, more falsely enthusiastic tone than her far less patronising Southern announcements) and Matt Streeton (absurd choice for a voice over, really awful to listen to) announcements are what make the 700s particularly grating.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Cannot help but noticing , that off peak on moderately busy trains - the 4 seater bays tend to be almost occupied first as the seat of choice.

Said before - but tight air line seats , the over narrow seats and the annoying conduit really don't help. See Ian Walmsley's writings in Modern Railways passim.