Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[asylumxl]

Hitchin to London for a start. Northern Line from High Barnet, Edgware or Mill Hill East is proving a more attractive option. Today in fact I achieved a faster door-to-door journey time by this means.

Indeed, at weekends, presently it's the *only* decent option, such is the current unreliability and unpredictability of the weekend GTR service.

Living in the first area you mentioned, I guarantee driving is not a more attractive option. Driving to Luton or Luton Airport Parkway and using TL is though.

 

[bramling]

Living in the first area you mentioned, I guarantee driving is not a more attractive option. Driving to Luton or Luton Airport Parkway and using TL is though.

Depends on timings. Maybe at high peak it's not so attractive, but I've been driving in at weekends since the GTR weekend cancellations farce started and the journey has proved just as quick, more recently I've been doing it at other times and have generally been leaving home at the same time. Indeed, despite preferring rail I've decided I won't be renewing my season ticket this November, and that's at PRIV rate too so the tipping point is that much in favour of rail. I may continue buying daily tickets for a while, but once the class 700s come in then that's it as far as I'm concerned. A regrettable state of affairs.

The Thameslink Programme may impose its inferior package of uncomfortable trains and inherent unreliability on peak commuters where there is less choice, thankfully I don't normally travel at peak times so have other, better, options available.

Today we are seeing the predicted dissatisfaction with the seating, come 2018 let's see how many times the GN side goes up the wall thanks to a problem outside its own area before serious questions start being asked of the people who have specified this flawed and inadequate project.

 

[asylumxl]

Depends on timings. Maybe at high peak it's not so attractive, but I've been driving in at weekends since the GTR weekend cancellations farce started and the journey has proved just as quick, more recently I've been doing it at other times and have generally been leaving home at the same time. Indeed, despite preferring rail I've decided I won't be renewing my season ticket this November, and that's at PRIV rate too so the tipping point is that much in favour of rail. I may continue buying daily tickets for a while, but once the class 700s come in then that's it as far as I'm concerned. A regrettable state of affairs.

The Thameslink Programme may impose its inferior package of uncomfortable trains and inherent unreliability on peak commuters where there is less choice, thankfully I don't normally travel at peak times so have other, better, options available.

Today we are seeing the predicted dissatisfaction with the seating, come 2018 let's see how many times the GN side goes up the wall thanks to a problem outside its own area before serious questions start being asked of the people who have specified this flawed and inadequate project.

I suppose the driving option will vary in attractiveness depending on your destination in London. For me personally, driving in to the centre is not at all attractive.

As for the last part of your post, I agree entirely. I've expressed my opinion regarding this on here many times. Even as it is, services on the MML suffer as a result of problems on the BML or Sutton Loop and will only get worse as more trains are introduced through the core. The project is not really for the benefit of us to the north of London. It's best to think of the MML and ECML as long turn back sidings for the BML :P.

 

[bramling]

I suppose the driving option will vary in attractiveness depending on your destination in London. For me personally, driving in to the centre is not at all attractive.

As for the last part of your post, I agree entirely. I've expressed my opinion regarding this on here many times. Even as it is, services on the MML suffer as a result of problems on the BML or Sutton Loop and will only get worse as more trains are introduced through the core. The project is not really for the benefit of us to the north of London. It's best to think of the MML and ECML as long turn back sidings for the BML :P.

Regarding driving, I wouldn't drive into central London, but the Northern Line offers a highly reliably and reasonably comfortable means of railheading via High Barnet, Mill Hill East or Edgware. As I say, it may not be an option at the height of the peak, but at other times it's proving better. I'm finding I can do door-to-door in basically the same time at most times of day.

Once again the GN side is showing a massive list of cancellations today, so once again the car is having to be used despite having paid for a season ticket. Under National Express, WAGN was a railway which you could set your watch by. It's disgusting how things have been allowed to slip so badly.

Agree totally with your second paragraph. Any benefits delivered by the Thameslink Programme for GN are completely overshadowed by the inferior trains (look in this month's Modern Railways where there's a table showing how the seat pitch is massively inferior to the class 365 - not opinion but fact), and the *guaranteed* worse reliability that will result from four fragile and complex service groups mixing together.

Despite the assurances given by certain people on here, it's already apparent that people are findings the seating on the trains unsatisfactory.

This failing project should be re-thought *now*, whilst most of the unacceptably uncomfortable trains remain unbuilt and the 2018 timetable can still be changed to something more workable. The two things go together - reduce the required throughput through the core and the trains can have a more outer-suburban layout rather than metro.

 

[Class377/5]

Once again the GN side is showing a massive list of cancellations today, so once again the car is having to be used despite having paid for a season ticket. Under National Express, WAGN was a railway which you could set your watch by. It's disgusting how things have been allowed to slip so badly.

Agree totally with your second paragraph. Any benefits delivered by the Thameslink Programme for GN are completely overshadowed by the inferior trains (look in this month's Modern Railways where there's a table showing how the seat pitch is massively inferior to the class 365 - not opinion but fact), and the *guaranteed* worse reliability that will result from four fragile and complex service groups mixing together.

Despite the assurances given by certain people on here, it's already apparent that people are findings the seating on the trains unsatisfactory.

This failing project should be re-thought *now*, whilst most of the unacceptably uncomfortable trains remain unbuilt and the 2018 timetable can still be changed to something more workable.

Perhaps start your own thread over the TLP rather than continue to derail the thread about the units, not the issues of the TLP?

We know you hate the 700s (and are repeating yourself over and over again) on the same basis as you did before you had even experienced one, meaning you were never going to change your mind.

Perhaps write down your case and present it in the up coming Thameslink consultation that is there is listen to people like yourself? Just be sure to include some facts rather than opinions to strengthen your case. And I honest think its important that you have your say despite my feeling over what you write.

Be please try and keep your posts on topic please?

 

[GodAtum]

Don't confuse a declassified area with a declassified service, which is especially important if you've travelled in the wrong end of the train from the booked first class. Currently there are only declassified areas on the 700s. Its worth mentioning there are trains booked around the Wimbledon Loop with first class. Hint its the services to/from Bedford.

It would be very annoying if I was standing at the wrong position from say a train from East Croydon - Bedford.

 

[Class377/5]

It would be very annoying if I was standing at the wrong position from say a train from East Croydon - Bedford.

True, especially with a 12 car train. Would be good idea to suggest using first class data in the app. Perhaps propose it in the upcoming consulation?

 

[43074]

Perhaps write down your case and present it in the up coming Thameslink consultation that is there is listen to people like yourself?

Out of interest, what is the consultation actually consulting on and when does it start? It seems to me that many of the 'big' decisions affecting the TLP have already been made and are more or less set in stone, and given the complexity of the timetable (which will affect South London, Kent, Sussex, the MML & ECML) surely there is limited scope to change anything in the first place?

 

[Class 170101]

A 700 is electrically speaking two separate half units, it has previously been posted that it runs with both pans up at all times, the two half units are not electrically connected.

Or to put it another way it is not the same as a Pendolino, there is no on train 25 kV bus line.

What happens if one half fails? Is there no crossfeeding between the two halves of the train then?

 

[bramling]

Perhaps start your own thread over the TLP rather than continue to derail the thread about the units, not the issues of the TLP?

We know you hate the 700s (and are repeating yourself over and over again) on the same basis as you did before you had even experienced one, meaning you were never going to change your mind.

Perhaps write down your case and present it in the up coming Thameslink consultation that is there is listen to people like yourself? Just be sure to include some facts rather than opinions to strengthen your case. And I honest think its important that you have your say despite my feeling over what you write.

Be please try and keep your posts on topic please?

No, the trains and timetable go together. It's hardly derailing a thread about the units to post my views on the seating pitch and how it's, frankly, unacceptable. As you like to deal in facts, there are plenty of *facts* which are inadequate or inferior about these trains. There are fewer seats than a comparable formation today, they are harder, they have less legroom, they have no tables, and they are squashed against the windows. Also many of them are only 8 cars not 12 so no increase in length over today.

Whilst unfortunately I predicted this, I was prepared to give them a go and change my mind. What I wasn't expecting was the legroom to be so unacceptably bad. Not a bad achievement for them to be even worse than expected?

If we didn't have the timetable sending so many trains through the core, we wouldn't need these inferior, uncomfortable, trains.

Bit late having a consultation now, when the trains have already been ordered and work has been done like the new depots. I don't recall any consultations during the planning stage.

The whole thing is already unravelling. GTR as a franchise is a joke, they can't even deliver their most basic fundamental deliverable which is their advertised timetable. If they can't run it reliably now, what hope is there for 2018? If it wasn't for the Thameslink Programme there would be no GTR, so already it's disrupting journeys daily. Some achievement when the worst changes (trains and timetable) haven't even happened yet?!

 

[Class377/5]

Out of interest, what is the consultation actually consulting on and when does it start? It seems to me that many of the 'big' decisions affecting the TLP have already been made and are more or less set in stone, and given the complexity of the timetable (which will affect South London, Kent, Sussex, the MML & ECML) surely there is limited scope to change anything in the first place?

Suppose to be July-ish. Given GTR/SE has just given a major alteration to Sussex and Kent, there is still time from things to change significantly. Remember the latest proposal still hasn't been fully checked over by NR/DfT so isn't confirmed yet.

MML wise, the plan is for 16tph with 8tph to Bedford it pretty much sees the line at capacity with the long distance paths as well. ECML wise, things can still change as they have the alternative of Kings Cross. However with a max of 16tph to MML means that 8tph have go to the GN. Where on the GN is more up for grabs however the train length dictates that a fair bit too.

What happens if one half fails? Is there no crossfeeding between the two halves of the train then?

Its different. On a (off topic) 171 the generator feeds power through to the train for motors, lighting etc. On a 377/700 the electric from the unit at various points (where the shoes are) so you don't need to crossfeed as the system has various links anyway.

For the record a 700 with one set of motors (vs 6 normally) can move the entire 12 car up to 30mph. A 377/387 would be nearer walking pace with 1 motor out of 6 working on a 12 car. The 700s are that much more powerful.

With one half power out the unit doesn't really stop it getting to 100mph (seen it myself in testing).

No, the trains and timetable go together.

No they don't. Perhaps read the thread title?

It's hardly derailing a thread about the units to post my views on the seating pitch and how it's, frankly, unacceptable.

I said your comments over future service plan is derailing a thread in the Traction & Rolling Stock thread are derailing the thread. Note the sub forum is not timetabling, did you miss that important point?

As you like to deal in facts, there are plenty of *facts* which are inadequate or inferior about these trains.

Facts are facts. They are only inadequate or inferor depending on a persons point of view.

There are fewer seats than a comparable formation today, they are harder, they have less legroom, they have no tables, and they are squashed against the windows. Also many of them are only 8 cars not 12 so no increase in length over today.

Didn't you say the GN didn't need train lengthening at present?

Also your confusing individual train capacity with over all train capacity. Especially when you forget that those 8 cars are also replacing some 4 car trains while allowing more 12 cars instead of 8 cars of other stock too. Again you only look at one train versus another and not the overall increase in capacity. Not to mention how do you dead with the crowds of the future which you seem to believe will never happen!

Whilst unfortunately I predicted this, I was prepared to give them a go and change my mind. What I wasn't expecting was the legroom to be so unacceptably bad. Not a bad achievement for them to be even worse than expected?

No you weren't. It was pointed out before that you were attacking the train before trying one. You expected to hate the trains, you even posted that and now your surprised that you found the issues you went looking for?

If we didn't have the timetable sending so many trains through the core, we wouldn't need these inferior, uncomfortable, trains.

That is your opinion not shared by many on here. Is the reason you've stopped posting recently because quite a few people have used the trains and found them better than doom mongers like your self proclaimed the units to be?

Bit late having a consultation now, when the trains have already been ordered and work has been done like the new depots. I don't recall any consultations during the planning stage.

There were consultations with passengers groups back in 2007/2008. That where the request to lower capacity (compared to the 319s and 377s) were made by the commuter groups!

As the service plan is still at the planning stage, here's a consultation now. Things are not set in stone so why not make a robust case for your view point and submit it rather than posting endlessly on here that will not make a difference.

The whole thing is already unravelling. GTR as a franchise is a joke, they can't even deliver their most basic fundamental deliverable which is their advertised timetable. If they can't run it reliably now, what hope is there for 2018? If it wasn't for the Thameslink Programme there would be no GTR, so already it's disrupting journeys daily. Some achievement when the worst changes (trains and timetable) haven't even happened yet?!

Worst changes? Personal opinion presented as fact again by yourself.

Things are not right but don't tell me you don't actually have an idea what's going on do you?

You do have a valid point in the bit I've highlighted. You do underestimate the desire of people to make this work. Currently they cannot do this because of various issues on going. Don't count those who will actually deliver TLP KO2 because of the current problems.

 

[bramling]

I said your comments over future service plan is derailing a thread in the Traction & Rolling Stock thread are derailing the thread. Note the sub forum is not timetabling, did you miss that important point?

Anything to try and deflect from anything which criticises these trains (or TLP in general), isn't it?

Facts are facts. They are only inadequate or inferor depending on a persons point of view.

Or whether they can physically fit in a class 700 airline seat bay without rubbish their knees on the seat back in front, or sit in a facing bay with someone sitting opposite and have enough legroom, or sit in a window seat and be squashed up against the window by someone sitting next to them? None of this is about point of view, it's about reality.

Didn't you say the GN didn't need train lengthening at present?

No. Here we go, once again, with your usual straw-man behaviour. You come up with something different to what was said, and then attempt to produce an argument against the point that you manufactured.

What I said was that today's GN outer-suburban timetable and diagrams more-or-less cater for today's demand without massive amounts of standing, and certainly not regular crush-loading. Of course I'd like to see longer trains, and in particular elimination of 4-car working, but this desire doesn't have to be achieved by means of class 700s and Thameslink Programme. I'd be quite happy to have a timetable formed of class 377/5s, 387s and/or 365s, perhaps supplemented by *some* running into the core - with a more comfortable class 700 design.

Also your confusing individual train capacity with over all train capacity. Especially when you forget that those 8 cars are also replacing some 4 car trains while allowing more 12 cars instead of 8 cars of other stock too.

I'm not "forgetting" anything. Why can't you make an argument without feeling the need to embellish your sentences with unfounded accusations?

There aren't many 4-car trains in the peaks, and I'm fully aware that there will be an increase in 12-car trains. I'm also aware that there are guaranteed to be 8-car trains running around in the peaks too.

No you weren't. It was pointed out before that you were attacking the train before trying one. You expected to hate the trains, you even posted that and now your surprised that you found the issues you went looking for?

I thought you liked to deal in fact not assumptions. Yes I *expected* the trains to be horrible. But 20 years ago I also *expected* Electrostars to be horrible, in fact the first time I boarded one I was very pleasantly surprised and impressed. In contrast, boarding a class 700 I was immediately unimpressed, and frankly horrified when I tried out the seating. Bad enough that the seats are uncomfortable and have no tables, which was expected, but worse to unexpectedly find the legroom, sideroom and pitch is awful.

That is your opinion not shared by many on here. Is the reason you've stopped posting recently because quite a few people have used the trains and found them better than doom mongers like your self proclaimed the units to be?

More rubbish from you. The reason I haven't been posting much on here is because it happens to be summer and I've been on holiday. Reading through this thread, I'd say the balance of opinion is negative, especially about the seating - which happens to be a pretty fundamentally important part of the journey experience. I picked up the same from this month's Modern Railways article on the trains, and to be honest this is also the impression I picked up from seeing people's behaviour on board the trains in reality. I saw several people sitting in an airline seat, wriggling around for a few moments, then getting up and going to find a bay of facing seats.

There were consultations with passengers groups back in 2007/2008. That where the request to lower capacity (compared to the 319s and 377s) were made by the commuter groups!

Did any of this include the GN side?

As the service plan is still at the planning stage, here's a consultation now. Things are not set in stone so why not make a robust case for your view point and submit it rather than posting endlessly on here that will not make a difference.

Yes let's hope the powers that be see sense and make some fundamental changes to this failing programme *now* before too much is set in stone.

Worst changes? Personal opinion presented as fact again by yourself.

We'll revisit this in a few years. I hope I'll be proved wrong. I don't want to be in the position of saying "I told you so". Sadly we're already at the latter position with the trains.

Things are not right but don't tell me you don't actually have an idea what's going on do you?

Yes I'm fully aware of the issues. But whatever way one looks at it, ten years ago the Great Northern had a highly reliable service, and an operator which was capable of reliably delivering their published timetable. Now we don't, simple as.

 

[Class377/5]

Anything to try and deflect from anything which criticises these trains (or TLP in general), isn't it?

Or is it asking you stick to topic and make off topic comments in the correct sub forum? Seems your intend on attacking something that the thread is not discussing! Is it a bad thing to do so in the correct forums? Why we have so many after all!

Or whether they can physically fit in a class 700 airline seat bay without rubbish their knees on the seat back in front, or sit in a facing bay with someone sitting opposite and have enough legroom, or sit in a window seat and be squashed up against the window by someone sitting next to them? None of this is about point of view, it's about reality.

I fit fine personally. And that's all I can talk about, it my opinion. Considering I prefer a window seat over a isle seat, I'm very happy with my commute.

No. Here we go, once again, with your usual straw-man behaviour. You come up with something different to what was said, and then attempt to produce an argument against the point that you manufactured.

Wait so what you've previous point about not needed train lengthening has no bearing when your complaining about trains not being lengthened?

What I said was that today's GN outer-suburban timetable and diagrams more-or-less cater for today's demand without massive amounts of standing, and certainly not regular crush-loading. Of course I'd like to see longer trains, and in particular elimination of 4-car working, but this desire doesn't have to be achieved by means of class 700s and Thameslink Programme. I'd be quite happy to have a timetable formed of class 377/5s, 387s and/or 365s, perhaps supplemented by *some* running into the core - with a more comfortable class 700 design.

But do you not understand the TLP is about providing capacity for 30 years so of growth?

What is a more comfortable class 700 design in your eyes please?

I'm not "forgetting" anything. Why can't you make an argument without feeling the need to embellish your sentences with unfounded accusations?

Where have I embellish please?

There aren't many 4-car trains in the peaks, and I'm fully aware that there will be an increase in 12-car trains. I'm also aware that there are guaranteed to be 8-car trains running around in the peaks too.

But there are 4 cars in the peak (on TL too). Increase in capacity is a good thing.

I thought you liked to deal in fact not assumptions. Yes I *expected* the trains to be horrible. But 20 years ago I also *expected* Electrostars to be horrible, in fact the first time I boarded one I was very pleasantly surprised and impressed. In contrast, boarding a class 700 I was immediately unimpressed, and frankly horrified when I tried out the seating. Bad enough that the seats are uncomfortable and have no tables, which was expected, but worse to unexpectedly find the legroom, sideroom and pitch is awful.[/quote

Why is your view of the 700s so different from everyone else's? You were very adamant against the 700s before you tried. The points you had against the trains prior to boarding are the same as afterwards.

Again your views seem out of step with pretty much everyone else on this thread and from what I've seen in person.

More rubbish from you. The reason I haven't been posting much on here is because it happens to be summer and I've been on holiday.

Didn't realise that holidays had been going on for the last few months. Oh well.

Reading through this thread, I'd say the balance of opinion is negative, especially about the seating - which happens to be a pretty fundamentally important part of the journey experience.

Indeed it is a balanced view from many on here. However I do not believe its overly negative. I feel this point will be lost on you.

I picked up the same from this month's Modern Railways article on the trains, and to be honest this is also the impression I picked up from seeing people's behaviour on board the trains in reality. I saw several people sitting in an airline seat, wriggling around for a few moments, then getting up and going to find a bay of facing seats.

"Best Siemens interior yet, giving impression of being machine out of solid plastic"

"Particular impressed given the seats are cantilevered"

Doesn't sound like negative comments. I will point that not every seat has the same pitch. Mr For picked up on the smallest.

As for what you viewed people doing, well that's normal least where I travel. I do the same on a 442 or 377.

Did any of this include the GN side?

South East groups like Travelwatch so yes I believe that would include GN commuters as all GN services come under that.

Yes let's hope the powers that be see sense and make some fundamental changes to this failing programme *now* before too much is set in stone.

Failing programme? How can something be a failing project when its not yet started? You mean failing existing railway unconnected to the TLP (well on ECML).

We'll revisit this in a few years. I hope I'll be proved wrong. I don't want to be in the position of saying "I told you so". Sadly we're already at the latter position with the trains.

Trains can be altered. The whole point of the 700s is the interior can be changed. Its more about the will to change faced with the set contracts the units have been ordered like.

It will be interesting to see what differences the TOC versions of the Desiro Cities will have. We already know the GN Moorgate class 717 will come with power sockets and wifi as standard. The later is coming to the 700s but former is significantly more difficult to achieve as it requires major works on every coach for a fleet half way through build.

Yes I'm fully aware of the issues. But whatever way one looks at it, ten years ago the Great Northern had a highly reliable service, and an operator which was capable of reliably delivering their published timetable. Now we don't, simple as.

The issues facing the GN are not TLP created. The highly reliable service a few years ago wasn't that far from TL (looking at the daily real time figures). The big different is currently the GN is a little isolated railway (bit like c2c in a way). But it cannot continue to be this way forever. Especially with the required capacity tomorrow and there is no further capacity to be made without building another new station to terminate services at. Don't forget the GN isn't the only user of the ECML and other passengers from further out count too.

 

[43074]

Suppose to be July-ish. Given GTR/SE has just given a major alteration to Sussex and Kent, there is still time from things to change significantly. Remember the latest proposal still hasn't been fully checked over by NR/DfT so isn't confirmed yet.

MML wise, the plan is for 16tph with 8tph to Bedford it pretty much sees the line at capacity with the long distance paths as well. ECML wise, things can still change as they have the alternative of Kings Cross. However with a max of 16tph to MML means that 8tph have go to the GN. Where on the GN is more up for grabs however the train length dictates that a fair bit too.

Thanks for the reply, so if I'm reading this right it's the finer details which could alter depending on the results of the consultation.

On the GN side there's presumably the limitations posed by the Welywn viaduct and 3 track sections North of Huntingdon, so it can't be all that much up for grabs anyway?

[Mod note, it might be worth splitting the comments about the timetable into a new/existing thread in the timetabling sub-forum, especially with the upcoming consultation.]

 

[Class377/5]

Thanks for the reply, so if I'm reading this right it's the finer details which could alter depending on the results of the consultation.

On the GN side there's presumably the limitations posed by the Welywn viaduct and 3 track sections North of Huntingdon, so it can't be all that much up for grabs anyway?

[Mod note, it might be worth splitting the comments about the timetable into a new/existing thread in the timetabling sub-forum, especially with the upcoming consultation.]

GN needs to receive 2 12 car and 2x 8 car services. Where these are suitable is being discussed. I'd suggest the use of 2tph 8 car 700/0 on the Cambridge stoppers is a sensible allocation compared to today's four car service.

There is already an existing thread for this with the recent announcement of alterations meaning more Kent TL and less Sussex TL services.

Keeping on track, the increased acceleration of the 700s mean they are about to service Welwyn North and get out of the way of other services much better than anything else on the ECML and that includes the soon to be introduced 387s.

 

[bramling]

GN needs to receive 2 12 car and 2x 8 car services. Where these are suitable is being discussed. I'd suggest the use of 2tph 8 car 700/0 on the Cambridge stoppers is a sensible allocation compared to today's four car service.

There is already an existing thread for this with the recent announcement of alterations meaning more Kent TL and less Sussex TL services.

Keeping on track, the increased acceleration of the 700s mean they are about to service Welwyn North and get out of the way of other services much better than anything else on the ECML and that includes the soon to be introduced 387s.

Well in my view the 2tph Cambridge service is the worst choice. The capacity simply isn't needed further north (even with the growth you love to talk about), and any late running off Thameslink will cause chaos with the other 4tph using the branch.

I'd prefer to see 2tph Peterborough-TL, with a further 2tph fast Peterborough-TL in peak times (drop the Peterborough-KX service so all Peterborough services serve the same route, just with extra and faster services in the peak). Concentrating the TL service on Peterborough means they will utilise the less heavily used 4-track route north of Hitchin minimising the impact of any out-of-course running.

Run all Cambridge trains to King's Cross, with 2tph fast as now (I'd think about stopping one of the fasts at Letchworth and one at Royston maybe). For the 2tph semi-fast I'd run one calling Royston, Baldock, Letchworth, Hitchin, Stevenage, FP and KX, and one calling at all stations to Stevenage then fast. This would give the village stations a fast service to London for the first time.

Finally I'd run 2tph Letchworth-TL, stopping as now. This avoids these trains getting in the way north of Letchworth.

The remaining TL service I'd concentrate on all-stations (off peak) and semi-fast (peak) Welwyn Garden City trains, allowing the Moorgate service to be more concentrated on frequency increases to Hertford North, which currently is severely overcrowded during the peaks, and can't have extra length due to the tunnel platforms.

For the peaks some extra trips to Royston would probably be required in one form or another.

If Cambridge wants a Thameslink service then they can pay to 4-track their branch line.

 

[The Box Photter]

Class 377/5 said:

"There were consultations with passengers groups back in 2007/2008. That where the request to lower capacity (compared to the 319s and 377s) were made by the commuter groups!"

I think you're being more than a little disingenuous here, what the passenger groups didn't like about 319s and 377/5s was the 2+3 seating. In particular, the middle seat in the three, once the other two were occupied by average-sized people, was not a comfortable squeeze.

The request, plainly, was for 2+2 seating and for those seats to be wider.

What the 700 offers is the same space for EVERY passenger (except 1st class) as the middle seat of three in the previous units deemed unsatisfactory for the job.

Frankly I'm incredulous at the poor design of these trains, from the passenger standpoint (I choose my words carefully).

There will be little opportunity for passengers to trek the entire length of a 12 car train in the rush hour to find the carriage with the elusive available capacity. Money should have been spent on providing platform displays showing where the space is on the next incoming train. Once you're on the train, its too late. I welcome the provision of TfL information on London-bound trains, but it's meaningless once you've passed through the Core either side.

My experience so far shows that the drivers haven't been instructed on how to use the PA correctly, nor on the correct stopping positions at St Pancras, Farringdon or Blackfriars. This means that the train enters the platform at a reasonable speed, then crawls (and I mean crawls) the last 10 metres or so. This is presumably to position the trains to the on-board computer can check with the track-side equipment that it's safe to release the doors. What a technological over-complication. Until ATO, what's wrong with a well-positioned and visible stop board?

Mention has been made of window passengers resting their feet on the metal trunking. How long before this becomes a dirt trap ready to soil unwary passengers' clothing, or a place to discard unwanted chewing-gum. Why couldn't the electrical gubbins be placed flush with the carriage side or floor, behind removable panels? Once again, cheapness of manufacture, operational convenience and inability of designers to understand the real needs of passengers has delivered a train of myriad annoyances for passengers.

I know those who love these trains because they're made by Siemens and because they're new and make interesting noises will accuse me of irrational hate. They'll trot out "we need more room and wider doors for 24 tph through the Core". Why do we need 24 tph through the Core?

You've turned Thameslink into a tube line. Why do I and other long-distance commuters with no alternative, deserve to have to put up with tube train levels of comfort for a 45 mile journey? Last week when the fatality at West Hampstead happened, I was sitting on a northbound train at Farringdon, going nowhere, with people around me complaining that they needed to get to St Pancras. They were very surprised when I pointed out that they could get there more quickly by using the Met, H&C and Circle lines on one of the opposite platforms. WTF?

You can take the 700s and put them to better use on the Circle line. Give us back proper trains, with proper seats and tables.

 

[Class2ldn]

My experience so far shows that the drivers haven't been instructed on how to use the PA correctly, nor on the correct stopping positions at St Pancras, Farringdon or Blackfriars. This means that the train enters the platform at a reasonable speed, then crawls (and I mean crawls) the last 10 metres or so. This is presumably to position the trains to the on-board computer can check with the track-side equipment that it's safe to release the doors. What a technological over-complication. Until ATO, what's wrong with a well-positioned and visible stop board?

That's not how the system works. The boards have a set tolerance on them. At Farringdon for example it's so low that you only have to go about a foot past and it needs a manual override on the doors.
It's a complicated system which is why we don't race up to the boards as we can't just stop where we like, at the moment you don't have to be so exact on the older stock.
In regards to the PA I don't really know what more we can be instructed on. You press the button, it lights up and we speak.
The downside is that the cab door is extremely heavy and we can't really hear the pis or pa through the saloon so it makes it difficult to know if the message has come through or not without opening the cab door.
Personally from a drivers point of view I think they are really good.
They have niggles like every train but once they are sorted they will be great.
The option for tables and plug sockets is there so I'm sure if enough fuss is kicked up they will do something.
The seats however you're stuck with.
People always moan about congestion on the trains and that's what they are designed to relieve.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Why do we need 24 tph through the Core?

There was a pdf linked to in a thread which showed about 6 or 7 routes passing through what I believe is the section classed as the core. Divided that between the 24 tph and you've got about 3-4tph per route

 

[168lover]

I'm going up to London on Tuesday and as part of my trip I want to travel on a 700 from Gatwick Airport to either West Hampstead Thameslink or London Bridge, on either of these trips would first class still be declassified?

 

[Mordac]

If you don't want them in London send them up north, and you can have the 319s back.

 

[The Box Photter]

That's not how the system works. The boards have a set tolerance on them. At Farringdon for example it's so low that you only have to go about a foot past and it needs a manual override on the doors.
It's a complicated system which is why we don't race up to the boards as we can't just stop where we like, at the moment you don't have to be so exact on the older stock.
In regards to the PA I don't really know what more we can be instructed on. You press the button, it lights up and we speak.
The downside is that the cab door is extremely heavy and we can't really hear the pis or pa through the saloon so it makes it difficult to know if the message has come through or not without opening the cab door.
Personally from a drivers point of view I think they are really good.
They have niggles like every train but once they are sorted they will be great.
The option for tables and plug sockets is there so I'm sure if enough fuss is kicked up they will do something.
The seats however you're stuck with.
People always moan about congestion on the trains and that's what they are designed to relieve.

Well this just proves the point that the "system" is overcomplicated.

 

[Class2ldn]

To a degree yes it is overcomplicated but once people get used to it then it will be fine.

 

[physics34]

I fit fine personally. And that's all I can talk about, it my opinion. Considering I prefer a window seat over a isle seat, I'm very happy with my commute.

I obviously cannot change your opinion, nor put words in your mouth, but i really doubt you would be happy with your commute with someone sitting next to you while you are at your window seat on a 700 because of the cramped-ness.

Someone here mentioned that the seats are wider than old seats. That is totally runied by the fact that there are no armrests and they are too close together, shoulder to shoulder or shoulder to side wall... (although they are obviosuly better than 3+2 seating, for example in 377s)

Before the 12 car build is complete they should do passenger surveys and then maybe alter somethings before the build is complete and then on a pro-rata bases if indeed the opinion demands that (such as seating).

It seems to be a roughly 50/50 split between people on here happy with the interiors and people who are not. There are a couple of letters in this weeks Railnews complaining about them. Opinion really is mixed.

 

[43074]

Possibly. I will say however, that those with access to "the numbers" specified it as they did, and for all we like to portray them as brainless idiots - they probably aren't. Therefore we have to assume that they have been specified with the interior they have been because that is what will generate the best return. By maximising the space for core hoppers, you can fit vastly more of them on, so financially it'd bring more in, even though there may be fewer maximum fares.

As an aside, I do wonder if within the 30 year design life of this train, we'll end up seeing journeys from Brighton and other longer distance destinations becoming something more akin to a Metro in terms of loading.

I'm not suggesting the people who specified them were idiots - the general opinion seems to be they are technically speaking excellent trains but let down by the interior design. I can understand that operationally it's best to have every train identical but equally that doesn't necessarily produce the best outcome for the passenger.

I think you're spot on with your last point though, with 12-car trains the norm and with little scope to extend beyond that I'd suggest we're already approaching that point with the 700s, the problem is how do you run the frequency of service required to cope with that.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

The general issue is the completely new design of stop board that requires the train window to be lined up with stop mark rather than the rough guide so far. It's very different to the existing stock and drivers are still getting used to this. Its hard to do full stop training on a live network without sucking up staff.

Give it a few months and drivers will be doing it second nature, which right now its still a bit alien to them. Your trying to change a life time of training here.

Do these stop boards work in the same way as those for the S Stock on the Underground?

 

[168lover]

What time would 700s stop at Gatwick Airport going south between 10:00 and 11:00 tomorrow? Thanks

 

[Domh245]

What time would 700s stop at Gatwick Airport going south between 10:00 and 11:00 tomorrow? Thanks

Looking at this post, The 0942 from London Bridge would fit, arriving at Gatwick for 1011.

 

[swt_passenger]

Do these stop boards work in the same way as those for the S Stock on the Underground?

Those colourful chevron things? No, these are fairly similar in size to the usual main line stop boards. The differences are that they are diamond shaped and a different colour to the existing "car stop" boards, and use FLU and RLU to denote length, rather than 12 or 8. They are also positioned for viewing from the central driving position on a 700; and so at some stations are not at exactly the same places as the 12 car boards.

FLU or RLU = Full or Reduced Length Unit, if you weren't already aware.

The railsigns website includes them at the bottom of this page: http://www.railsigns.uk/sect21page7/sect21page7.html

 

[168lover]

Looking at this post, The 0942 from London Bridge would fit, arriving at Gatwick for 1011.

I'm really sorry but I actually meant going north