So no other train in the UK is suitable.....?
So no other train in the UK is suitable.....?
I would imagine the Crossrail trains will be exactly like the class 378's with either a styled nose at the front or such that they can be Gangwayed between units when they are attached together when they are running as ten car trains.
The reason I think that the trains will be like 378's is that makes them more in line with the disability act such that wheelchair users can get on the trains with ease.
Coincidence. The graphic designers will have no part in choosing the trains. There was a Blackfriars artists impression that had a hover-HST.
There was an extremely long post I came up with on it before, basically came up with a 10 car formation with an avarage of 40 seats per carriage.
They've actually stated 450 seats in the 10 car train, so 45 on average. I think that's marginally too many for 378 style longitudinal seating throughout as Robbies suggests. I'd expect mainly 2+2 but with plenty of standing areas near the doors, and a few general purpose areas for wheelchairs and prams etc.
Also, I wonder if Crossrail will allow bikes in the central tunnelled section?
I'd expect mainly 2+2 but with plenty of standing areas near the doors, and a few general purpose areas for wheelchairs and prams etc
They won't have end gangways. They will be fixed formationed 10 car units (with ability to go to 12 car built in). Another reason why the Thameslink and Crossrail units are generally silmar in requirements.
Hopefully you are incorrect but the planners at the DfT will probably go with that.
Crossrail is a short distance High Capacity Metro Service in London. Thameslink is long distance outer-suburban trains that happen to go through central London and hence seating requirement is completely different.
Sitting on Longitudinal or narrow seats for a hour long journey from Brighton or Peterborough to London on Thameslink would be completely wrong.
Crossrail being a metro service is another reason not to extend beyond Maidenhead or up to Milton Keynes as many have suggested because this will result in the wrong type of stock being used on outer suburban services. Extra services to Heathrow and other "inner" destinations is more sense.
I came up with basically having half and half of each seating type with a modular layout and disabled seating toward the centre and cycle space towards the ends, so that even in reverse formation it comes out correct. If you do a search of my posts, it's about 500 posts back I think...
Hopefully you are incorrect but the planners at the DfT will probably go with that.
Crossrail is a short distance High Capacity Metro Service in London. Thameslink is long distance outer-suburban trains that happen to go through central London and hence seating requirement is completely different.
Sitting on Longitudinal or narrow seats for a hour long journey from Brighton or Peterborough to London on Thameslink would be completely wrong.
You mis-understand what I meant, Crossrail will take some hints from Thameslink, not the other way around.
I can say for sure that Thameslink won't have longitudinal seating for sure. As for narrow seats, well that's abstract as what's narrow? Or do you mean 3+2? Think the final seating won't be minded by most on here.
Personally I don't agree with this desire for metro seating on Crossrail. I can't see why an version of 2+2 with larger stand back areas wouldn't work great. After all the Thameslink stock is design to let people on/off upto 1,000 people with 45 seconds of the doors being open. Crossrail is very similar in need to this. Considering the complaints with the S stock having part longitudinal, I don't see it being popluar with people travelling from the outer edges.
My post was trying to firm up what you put. It seems about right.