Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[bramling]

Let's not forget that they spent two million quid on the consultation alone regarding the layout inside the train. This included train crew, controllers, signallers, managers and even cleaners were asked and this, the 700 we are seeing now, is what everyone agreed with in the final design so this moral outrage and harumping regarding tables/plugs is a bit too much considering it was the public who decided on it!!

Does anyone know any users who were consulted?

I don't remember any publicity at my local station at any time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Average journey time on Thameslink? 25 minutes.

Number of tables and cup holders in standard class on the trains that ran Thameslink for the first 20 years? 0

That might be so for the current Thameslink route, however on the proposed Cambridge and Peterborough routes, 25 minutes covers Finsbury Park to Stevenage, and not much more.

Huntington to London is around an hour, for example.

Needless to say these routes have enjoyed class 365s since around 1997, which of course entered service with tables.

It's ironic that St Neots passengers will get the choice of a non-stop class 365 to London, or a slower Thameslink train. So those on the train for the shortest time get the best train. It's unfortunate that some other stations won't have this choice.

 

[tsr]

Er half of the 377s carriages don't have tables ither so highest common denominator is no tables!

All 377 variants have seat back tables and/or small window tables for the airline seats in all coaches (and of course the main table seats too).

Source: I sign them...

 

[bramling]

The 2 + 2 coaches on the older 377s fill up first. The airline seats are also priority seats, so have a large pitch. They fill up as quickly as the tables, but there are fewer seats of this type. On SWT 455s the facing seats fill up faster than the airline seats, but again there are fewer seats like this...

Same on the 365s. It is very noticeable how the tables are taken first, especially so since the numbers were reduced.

Since the refresh, it's not uncommon for the occasional squabble to happen.

 

[A-driver]

Er half of the 377s carriages don't have tables ither so highest common denominator is no tables!

Yes they do. All 377s have seat back tables and small tables by Windows big enough for coffees etc. Same with 365s.

 

[Minstral25]

Does anyone know any users who were consulted?

I don't remember any publicity at my local station at any time.

Passenger Focus ran the survey - questions were carefully asked like "Do you prefer 2+2 or 3+2" or "Do you want more spacious standing room" and carefully avoiding questions like - "Do you want somewhere to put your coffee" or "Do you want enough room for your big backside without pressing heavily into the person sitting next to you" or even "Do you want somewhere to put your Knees".

Saw my first 700 tonight, parked outside the shed at Three Bridges - looked very impressive from the outside. Still not looking forward to my first rush hour Journey though.

 

[Dr Iver]

The new Desiro City trains have been developed to incorporate the needs and requirements, gained through feedback, of UK train operators, passenger focus groups, train crew, cleaners and maintainers. A focus to select UK suppliers where possible has been prioritised in order to develop and create existing employment. It is thought 2,000 jobs will be created in support of the new trains, across the UK supply chain.

From here http://www.europeanrailwayreview.co...city-trains-on-course-for-thameslink-service/

It's also quoted on other various press releases which came out after the first delivery.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The new Desiro City trains have been developed to incorporate the needs and requirements, gained through feedback, of UK train operators, passenger focus groups, train crew, cleaners and maintainers. A focus to select UK suppliers where possible has been prioritised in order to develop and create existing employment. It is thought 2,000 jobs will be created in support of the new trains, across the UK supply chain.

From here http://www.europeanrailwayreview.co...city-trains-on-course-for-thameslink-service/

It's also quoted on other various press releases which came out after the first delivery.

 

[acg5324]

Average journey time on Thameslink? 25 minutes.

Number of tables and cup holders in standard class on the trains that ran Thameslink for the first 20 years? 0

Not correct I,m afraid. Class 319's had fold down tables from new. The design however was crap and the hinge could be forced through so that they collapsed. They were removed on refurb.

 

[physics34]

Not correct I,m afraid. Class 319's had fold down tables from new. The design however was crap and the hinge could be forced through so that they collapsed. They were removed on refurb.

Wow, Yeh forgot about them..and the little coffee table things at the bay seats, like a tray.

It's like some posters on here dont understand the concept of a table, the usefulness of them,and they sound like they would rather NOT have a table,which I do not understand!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Rail today is a means to an end:

profit for the TOCs (even if the franchise actually needs public funds to subsidise it to cover the costs).
a method to convey large numbers of people safely from A to B
a greener (and safer) way of doing the above compared with individual road vehicles.​

I wonder how many passengers have any real enthusiasm for an 'increase in the experience' that doesn't involve a reduction in the cost to them or a faster or more frequent journey. That is excepting the unfortunate Woldingham woman who doesn't allow enough time to do things in a way yhat doesn't inconvenience others.

The fact that passengers make a beeline for the table seats just means that they will take them if they are there. Would they stop travelling by train if they weren't there, - maybe a very few, but I doubt if any of them would stop for that reason alone, they would just manage with their coffee and/or media device without, - or read a book. The TOCs and the DfT know that and remember, the railway is a device to generate profit.

That woman in question is very well known, on the certain train she gets on. She literally lays all her make up out on the table, taking up all the space, peeing off all the others around her, ha ha.

I'm just wondering at what angle you are trying to come from, as surely you can see tables/seat back table are a benefit, and you surely would prefer them at your seat? If you really are not fussed or you rather the company save money by not installing them I respect that, but surely having tables for an hour plus journey shouldn't be seen as a "luxury" as you seem to suggest! Even the smallest tables on 377/3s are better than nothing.

 

[AM9]

I'm just wondering at what angle you are trying to come from, as surely you can see tables/seat back table are a benefit, and you surely would prefer them at your seat? If you really are not fussed or you rather the company save money by not installing them I respect that, but surely having tables for an hour plus journey shouldn't be seen as a "luxury" as you seem to suggest! Even the smallest tables on 377/3s are better than nothing.

They are designed to carry (when needed), over 1700 passengers in safety, in a maximum length (12-car) configuration that the infrastructure can handle. The trains are also optimised for the average journey time, which Bald Rick says is 25mins. Furthermore, they are designed to run through the core at very short headways with critical dwells. Like all trains, they will be procured from a limited budget and operated under cost sensitive conditions for up to 30 years, so I suspect that with a captive custom base, they fit the bill as well as can be determined before deployment.
As far as table et al, they are way down the list and have dropped off.

 

[A-driver]

They are designed to carry (when needed), over 1700 passengers in safety, in a maximum length (12-car) configuration that the infrastructure can handle. The trains are also optimised for the average journey time, which Bald Rick says is 25mins. Furthermore, they are designed to run through the core at very short headways with critical dwells. Like all trains, they will be procured from a limited budget and operated under cost sensitive conditions for up to 30 years, so I suspect that with a captive custom base, they fit the bill as well as can be determined before deployment.

As far as table et al, they are way down the list and have dropped off.

When rail staff come on here and say stuff like that we get accused of being anti passenger. But it's absolutely correct what you say.

Basically the new trains are a cheaper option and designed to improve capacity in the cheapest way (Thameslink is too busy, ideally a new cross London core would be built but obviously no money for that). So instead of building new lines etc they are coming up with ways of saving seconds to run as close together, reducing dwells, reducing head ways etc and squeezing as many people on as possible.

Yes, they have a very captive market. Those paying 5k PA for a ticket and then complaining about the rubbish service at present will still pay 5k (well more by then) PA for a ticket and continue to complain about the poor service and complain more about the removal of tables and less comfortable seats. But they have no choice but to continue paying for it. The TOC could send a load of old open top coal trucks on a rainy day and people would still cram into them as they can't get to work any other way.

It's obviously not how it should be morally but our railways are run as a buisness to generate as much money as possible for private shareholders. They don't exist to give the best possible passenger experience-I'm talking commuter lines here, not long distance and rural routes which do have a certain degree of competition from outside. The TOC, DfT nor train manufacturer couldn't care less weather people have anywhere to put their coffee or laptop, they don't really care if they get a seat, certainly not if it's comfortable. They know full well that they'll continue to pay them and be back tomorrow complaining about the same thing as they are a captive audience.

Not anti passenger, just the honest truth of the situation. Of course I may be proved wrong and everyone may be so up in arms when the 700s come in that they run completely empty every day and the ticket revenue makes a huge nose dive results in the TOC going broke etc but I can't really see that happening.

 

[bramling]

They are designed to carry (when needed), over 1700 passengers in safety, in a maximum length (12-car) configuration that the infrastructure can handle. The trains are also optimised for the average journey time, which Bald Rick says is 25mins. Furthermore, they are designed to run through the core at very short headways with critical dwells. Like all trains, they will be procured from a limited budget and operated under cost sensitive conditions for up to 30 years, so I suspect that with a captive custom base, they fit the bill as well as can be determined before deployment.
As far as table et al, they are way down the list and have dropped off.

The average time figure is misleading as ever.

On the Great Northern side, the only stations that are within 25 minutes of King's Cross are Finsbury Park, Potters Bar, Hatfield and Stevenage.

This leaves Welwyn GC, Welwyn North, Knebworth, Hitchin, Arlesey, Biggleswade, Sandy, St Neots, Huntingdon, Letchworth, Baldock, Ashwell, Royston, Meldreth, Shepreth and Foxton - all of which will be served solely by class 700s at certain times of day.

The likes of Huntingdon or Royston are nearer to an hour.

Same applies to many of the southern routes.

I can't see the relevance of the 25 minutes figure. If anything it suggests the trains are *not* suitable for some of the duties they will be performing.

The main reason for the layout of these trains seems to be maintaining the 24tph headway through the core. It doesn't seem to be about standing space, as otherwise how do we cope with 8-car 319s and 377s today? Notwithstanding the point that another cheap-and-nasty element of the Thameslink Programme is that many of the 700s are 8-cars only - no increase in length over today.

Reduce the 24tph requirement and have an interior at least as well laid-out as the 365.

 

[jon0844]

There are of course far more things to be worried about that tables, namely the knock on effects of delays through the core and onto the ECML, and indeed delays through Welwyn that will impact the transfer through the core.

I do think one solution could have been tip down tables on window seats only, which would stop people getting tangled up when wishing to alight or sit down when dwell times will be at a minimum.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Basically the new trains are a cheaper option and designed to improve capacity in the cheapest way (Thameslink is too busy, ideally a new cross London core would be built but obviously no money for that). So instead of building new lines etc they are coming up with ways of saving seconds to run as close together, reducing dwells, reducing head ways etc and squeezing as many people on as possible.

Presumably when Crossrail 2 happens then those who stay on Thameslink will be those travelling further and therefore will want tables, seats etc.

 

[Bald Rick]

Presumably when Crossrail 2 happens then those who stay on Thameslink will be those travelling further and therefore will want tables, seats etc.

Not at all.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The average time figure is misleading as ever.

On the Great Northern side, the only stations that are within 25 minutes of King's Cross are Finsbury Park, Potters Bar, Hatfield and Stevenage.

That assumes everyone is going to London.

The average journey time on the current Thameslink services is because there are an awful lot of people doing short trips in the core. The biggest single flow is however St Albans to London (18-30 mins depending on your London station). And there's lots of shorter hops south of the river, not least East Croydon to London Bridge.

So yes, there are some longer journeys. But there are more shorter ones.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Not correct I,m afraid. Class 319's had fold down tables from new. The design however was crap and the hinge could be forced through so that they collapsed. They were removed on refurb.

I stand corrected; I don't remember them.

 

[AM9]

I can't see the relevance of the 25 minutes figure. If anything it suggests the trains are *not* suitable for some of the duties they will be performing.

The main reason for the layout of these trains seems to be maintaining the 24tph headway through the core. It doesn't seem to be about standing space, as otherwise how do we cope with 8-car 319s and 377s today? Notwithstanding the point that another cheap-and-nasty element of the Thameslink Programme is that many of the 700s are 8-cars only - no increase in length over today.

Reduce the 24tph requirement and have an interior at least as well laid-out as the 365.

These are new trains. Short of a total engineering design failure, they will be in continuous service for at least 30 years. Now of course nobody knows just how passenger growth will pan out but several posters here insist that 'it's OK now so why change anything'. The DfT and everybody else involved in the planning, financing, design, manufacturing and deployment of these trains could all be wrong assuming growth, but if they are, then Crossrail 2 will be a white elephant along with HS2, Norwich in 90, Bakerloo extension and so on.

Maybe some here think that the whole nation will convert to a traditionalist Christian church and all live like the Amish, so they won't need mechanised transport anymore. (Smiley just in case any Amish lurkers object to my proposition.)

 

[The Box Photter]

I'm not getting drawn into the thin seats/no tables argument again. Its been done to death.

The reality is that living at the northern extremity of the St Pancras - Bedford axis, I'll probably still get a seat in the morning. Can't say the same thing for Luton passengers though.

The big swindle/lie being pandered by GTR is the phrase "x-thousand more seats during the peak" or similar such disingenuous bull****.

The passengers who currently cram themselves onto each London-bound train in the morning peak aren't suddenly going to choose to get onto a different (later or earlier) train. The reason they catch the trains they currently catch is because their boss expects them at their desk in a London office before 9.00 am.

Throwing 12-car trains at services between 05.30 and 06.30 or 08.30 and 09.30 won't improve the journey experience for the majority of travellers. In fact, they'll be less likely to get a seat and have to stand for longer than before.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The fact that passengers make a beeline for the table seats just means that they will take them if they are there. Would they stop travelling by train if they weren't there, - maybe a very few, but I doubt if any of them would stop for that reason alone, they would just manage with their coffee and/or media device without, - or read a book. The TOCs and the DfT know that and remember, the railway is a device to generate profit.

You just made me have a thought. What if the the lack of tables led to a lack of productivity ?. I see many examples of people doing work on their train journey (on Thameslink from Croydon). I suppose there are others keeping their social media up to date. What if these activities had to wait until the people arrived at their place of work ?. I can see the Dft getting a prod from other government departments then !.

Honestly how much does a wee table cost if it does not actually take up any space that results in a reduction in seating capacity ?.

As for ratios and average journey times. In the shoulder off peak I don't even bother looking for a seat but then I would not expect longer distance services (from the South coast) to not have seats.

However we can see which way it is all heading. Table ! you want a Table do you ? - shut up and get on that 378 !. :cry:.

 

[bramling]

These are new trains. Short of a total engineering design failure, they will be in continuous service for at least 30 years. Now of course nobody knows just how passenger growth will pan out but several posters here insist that 'it's OK now so why change anything'. The DfT and everybody else involved in the planning, financing, design, manufacturing and deployment of these trains could all be wrong assuming growth, but if they are, then Crossrail 2 will be a white elephant along with HS2, Norwich in 90, Bakerloo extension and so on.

Maybe some here think that the whole nation will convert to a traditionalist Christian church and all live like the Amish, so they won't need mechanised transport anymore. (Smiley just in case any Amish lurkers object to my proposition.)

Nobody has said let's not plan for growth.

On the GN side, at least, lengthening the remaining peak-time (and shoulder peak) 8-car trains to 12-car would provide masses of extra capacity.

For example, at Hitchin there are currently 20 services which give an arrival in London before 0900. Of these, just two are 12-car.

Some of these would be constrained by platform lengths at certain stations, something Thameslink is NOT dealing with.

It's a shame the opportunity was not taken to extend platforms 9 to 11 at King's Cross during all the recent work.

Despite the above demonstrating that Great Northern is still largely an 8-car railway, mass standing only happens if there's disruption. The worst crowding on the GN side is on the Hertford-Moorgate route.

 

[southern442]

I'm not getting drawn into the thin seats/no tables argument again. Its been done to death.

The reality is that living at the northern extremity of the St Pancras - Bedford axis, I'll probably still get a seat in the morning. Can't say the same thing for Luton passengers though.

The big swindle/lie being pandered by GTR is the phrase "x-thousand more seats during the peak" or similar such disingenuous bull****.

The passengers who currently cram themselves onto each London-bound train in the morning peak aren't suddenly going to choose to get onto a different (later or earlier) train. The reason they catch the trains they currently catch is because their boss expects them at their desk in a London office before 9.00 am.

Throwing 12-car trains at services between 05.30 and 06.30 or 08.30 and 09.30 won't improve the journey experience for the majority of travellers. In fact, they'll be less likely to get a seat and have to stand for longer than before.

Well said. I could go one step further than this and bring out my inner lefty by blaming privatisation for the seat problem first it was sticking loads of less comfortable but more seats in, to increase the seating capacity, then extending trains to reduce overcrowding (granted, not a bad thing) and now, they are removing the seats to encourage overcrowding to fit more people in.

When these trains come out, you will not hear positive feedback about how many more seats there are, or how less overcrowded it is. More people will be able to squeeze into the trains, so there will be more ticket sales and more profit, which is all the railway is run for nowadays. Just to make a profit, whilst still reinvesting into the railway to allow themselves to make more profit. And these new trains are no exception, and nothing will change, there will be no service improvements.

 

[physics34]

They are designed to carry (when needed), over 1700 passengers in safety, in a maximum length (12-car) configuration that the infrastructure can handle. The trains are also optimised for the average journey time, which Bald Rick says is 25mins. Furthermore, they are designed to run through the core at very short headways with critical dwells. Like all trains, they will be procured from a limited budget and operated under cost sensitive conditions for up to 30 years, so I suspect that with a captive custom base, they fit the bill as well as can be determined before deployment.
As far as table et al, they are way down the list and have dropped off.

Maybe im sounding too generous, but surely the trains should be built to suit passengers who are on the train the LONGEST not just the average, because basically that means they are ignoring the needs of those passengers who are travelling for longer.

With the increased journey opportunities i can now see many people (off peak) travelling directly on journeys such as Cambridge to Brighton..... Peterborough to Gatwick Airport etc etc

 

[A-driver]

Maybe im sounding too generous, but surely the trains should be built to suit passengers who are on the train the LONGEST not just the average, because basically that means they are ignoring the needs of those passengers who are travelling for longer.



With the increased journey opportunities i can now see many people (off peak) travelling directly on journeys such as Cambridge to Brighton..... Peterborough to Gatwick Airport etc etc

But as I said earlier, no one really cares how comfortable anyone is when you have a garunteed captive customer. They can state they the trains are solving overcrowding and speed yo boarding. The actual comfort of the user isn't a priority.

Remember, this is a business designed to generate cash, not a public service designed to please the user.

 

[urpert]

I stand corrected; I don't remember them.

Though to be fair the only airline seats in the 319s as built were the four right behind the cab wall. So it's entirely possible you never would have seen one of the folding tables.

 

[The Box Photter]

But as I said earlier, no one really cares how comfortable anyone is when you have a garunteed captive customer. They can state they the trains are solving overcrowding and speed yo boarding. The actual comfort of the user isn't a priority.

Remember, this is a business designed to generate cash, not a public service designed to please the user.

This is the problem. GTR has bought a virtual monopoly in the current management contract. It doesn't have to do anything to improve passengers' journey experience. In the 12 years I've been using the route, the timetable has barely changed, and we've seen three franchises. Speeding up the boarding time adds nothing to my journey experience.

There wouldn't be the need to design the 700s as psuedo-underground stock if they hadn't taken the ludicrous decision to cram the GN trains through the Core as well.

Can anyone explain to me what benefit this railway business model offers to the fare-paying passenger? Oh, and before anyone chips in with "the idea is to make the passengers pay more towards the cost of running the railway than the taxpayer" I'd like to point out that I'm both a fare-payer AND a tax-payer.

 

[AM9]

This is the problem. GTR has bought a virtual monopoly in the current management contract. It doesn't have to do anything to improve passengers' journey experience. In the 12 years I've been using the route, the timetable has barely changed, and we've seen three franchises. Speeding up the boarding time adds nothing to my journey experience.

There wouldn't be the need to design the 700s as psuedo-underground stock if they hadn't taken the ludicrous decision to cram the GN trains through the Core as well.

Can anyone explain to me what benefit this railway business model offers to the fare-paying passenger? Oh, and before anyone chips in with "the idea is to make the passengers pay more towards the cost of running the railway than the taxpayer" I'd like to point out that I'm both a fare-payer AND a tax-payer.

Nobody here has suggested that the current business model for the railway is ideal, good, or even delivers halfway what is expected in universal passenger creature comforts. It's just that some live in the (vain) hope that one day politicians will somehow make it all better. What we have is a Conservative alternative to the decay and decline that many passenger rail services decended to in the US in the '70s and '80s with their crumbling infrastructure and zero support. The push to privatise with this rigged model was the political alternative to paying directly from public funds or just complete abandonment.
It's not all bad news however. The modern railway attempts to deliver on increased capacity because that is what the Government regards as the yardstick that will protect their votes. I think any railway would be a great political risk if it failed to cope with passenger levels less than 10 years after completion of a large scale upgrade (as with Thameslink), taking 15 years and costing public funds over £6bn.
There are definite advantages in running high capacity commuter routes 'double ended' through the centre of a city like London. In the case of Thameslink, St Pancras in its original state could not have coped with even the original 1990 Thameslink service. The CTRL upgrade was only justified on the back of international traffic needs, and what domestic capacity is left still can't cope with the increasing Thameslink MML traffic. Kings Cross is nearing saturation and has no viable expansion options so there has to be a solution for its traffic growth. The double ended approach has also been adopted for that.
The situation is the same south of the river with London Bridge, Cannon St, Blackfriars and Charing Cross all struggling to cope with turning current traffic round. There had to be a path to improve capacity in the forthcomoing decades and Thameslink offered that increase.
The future of outer suburban capacity increases lies with similar services. Crossrail will be with us soon, CR2 should happen. Eventually the pattern will resemble the RER in Paris where despite the appetite there for massive public transport infrastructure, where the fabric of the inner city is either too precious of the land costs are prohibitive, double ended routes are seen as an effective way to maximise the main rail pathways' capacity into the city.

 

[absolutelymilk]

This is the problem. GTR has bought a virtual monopoly in the current management contract. It doesn't have to do anything to improve passengers' journey experience. In the 12 years I've been using the route, the timetable has barely changed, and we've seen three franchises. Speeding up the boarding time adds nothing to my journey experience.

There wouldn't be the need to design the 700s as psuedo-underground stock if they hadn't taken the ludicrous decision to cram the GN trains through the Core as well.

Can anyone explain to me what benefit this railway business model offers to the fare-paying passenger? Oh, and before anyone chips in with "the idea is to make the passengers pay more towards the cost of running the railway than the taxpayer" I'd like to point out that I'm both a fare-payer AND a tax-payer.

Well from the governments perspective, getting many more people into work is a lot more important than giving a better customer experience to fewer people.

As others have pointed out, improving the customer experience is only worthwhile if those customers would otherwise drive (or be unemployed!). As few people would want to commute by car into London along the Thameslink route, that doesn't really give them an incentive to improve the experience. On routes like West Coast however, where people can easily choose to drive instead, customer experience is more important, hence the large numbers of tables and seats, non-rattling crockery (see the thread: Virgin Trains' bizarre priorities - "quiet crockery") etc.

Note that your taxpayer contributions to the railway are in the low hundreds (5 billion /30 million taxpayers = £167) maybe increase it a bit because you work in London and therefore probably pay more tax than the average taxpayer but still not much compared to the cost of your season ticket.

 

[bramling]

Nobody here has suggested that the current business model for the railway is ideal, good, or even delivers halfway what is expected in universal passenger creature comforts. It's just that some live in the (vain) hope that one day politicians will somehow make it all better. What we have is a Conservative alternative to the decay and decline that many passenger rail services decended to in the US in the '70s and '80s with their crumbling infrastructure and zero support. The push to privatise with this rigged model was the political alternative to paying directly from public funds or just complete abandonment.
It's not all bad news however. The modern railway attempts to deliver on increased capacity because that is what the Government regards as the yardstick that will protect their votes. I think any railway would be a great political risk if it failed to cope with passenger levels less than 10 years after completion of a large scale upgrade (as with Thameslink), taking 15 years and costing public funds over £6bn.
There are definite advantages in running high capacity commuter routes 'double ended' through the centre of a city like London. In the case of Thameslink, St Pancras in its original state could not have coped with even the original 1990 Thameslink service. The CTRL upgrade was only justified on the back of international traffic needs, and what domestic capacity is left still can't cope with the increasing Thameslink MML traffic. Kings Cross is nearing saturation and has no viable expansion options so there has to be a solution for its traffic growth. The double ended approach has also been adopted for that.
The situation is the same south of the river with London Bridge, Cannon St, Blackfriars and Charing Cross all struggling to cope with turning current traffic round. There had to be a path to improve capacity in the forthcomoing decades and Thameslink offered that increase.
The future of outer suburban capacity increases lies with similar services. Crossrail will be with us soon, CR2 should happen. Eventually the pattern will resemble the RER in Paris where despite the appetite there for massive public transport infrastructure, where the fabric of the inner city is either too precious of the land costs are prohibitive, double ended routes are seen as an effective way to maximise the main rail pathways' capacity into the city.

Replacing the terminus arrangement will likely just replace one set of issues with another.

On the GN the biggest constraint is not KX, but constraints on the rest of the route. Importing late-running from the southern region will absolutely not help this.

It can be enough of a problem on the current Thameslink route when a late-running Thameslink train needs to be found a clear path to turn out to the fast line at Kentish Town, then back in to the slow line somewhere north of Elstree. The effect on the GN will be hurrendous, with the bigger mix of stopping patterns, and constraints like the long 2-track Hitchin to Cambridge section, and the single-line sections north of Littleport, not to mention the more familiar pinchpoints like Potters Bar-Welwyn, Digswell-Woolmer Green and the Hitchin area, all of which are places where GN trains will already encounter strings of yellow/red signals if things are running out-of-course.

 

[Dr Iver]

So anyway, table talk is boring the **** out of me. When is the next one due to be delivered?

 

[The Box Photter]

Replacing the terminus arrangement will likely just replace one set of issues with another.

On the GN the biggest constraint is not KX, but constraints on the rest of the route. Importing late-running from the southern region will absolutely not help this.

It can be enough of a problem on the current Thameslink route when a late-running Thameslink train needs to be found a clear path to turn out to the fast line at Kentish Town, then back in to the slow line somewhere north of Elstree. The effect on the GN will be hurrendous, with the bigger mix of stopping patterns, and constraints like the long 2-track Hitchin to Cambridge section, and the single-line sections north of Littleport, not to mention the more familiar pinchpoints like Potters Bar-Welwyn, Digswell-Woolmer Green and the Hitchin area, all of which are places where GN trains will already encounter strings of yellow/red signals if things are running out-of-course.

I agree entirely. Even with ATO through the Core, it only takes one train to have a technical issue, or have a passenger pull the emergency signal and the whole job will fall to bits. Where will the operators put a failed 12-car train between St Pancras and Blackfriars?

At present, a train delayed on its inward journey to Brighton causes delays on its later northbound trip to Bedford. Signalling problems at Three Bridges causes delays to passengers 70 miles away at Luton. Add in the GN services and trains going to far-flung places in 3rd rail land and the opportunities for delay are massive.

Although running services through London gives operational savings on the number of drivers needed and increased stock utilisation, having such a complex arrangement of interworked trains and drivers' turns means that it only takes one unit failure or driver no-show to screw up the whole shooting match.

Given that the infrastructure the Class 700s will be using (for the most part) is formed of the same clapped out signalling/track and fragile OHLE, even the introduction of the new trains is no guarantee of trouble-free running.

Still, at least there'll be more standing room for the passengers to stretch out in when the job goes tits up and their train gets stuck in the tunnel going north from St Pancras.

 

[Rick1984]

a 24 car train must be one of the longest to have run on network?

 

[D365]

a 24 car train must be one of the longest to have run on network?

Try this for size.