but you always seem to be happy for trains to have minimal facilities for everyone. Agreed it would be daft if you were actually gonna travel that whole line rather than change at Paddington for a fast one to Reading, but seeing as their will be still pretty long journeys (non metro) on these, toilets are surely a must. Its got to be quite common for a long distance traveller to maybe have a bad stomach or something, or an elderly person to have a weak bladder. If the train breaks down for a long time that also can be a good reason to have a loo. If all stations on the route have a toilet avaliable then that softens the blow...a bit. ...
Much criticism has been aired on here about the comfort levels (usually expresses in terms of personal preferences) offered in new rolling stock. Similarly, it would seem that many lament the passing of a publically owned and operated railway whose role is to provide a public transport service, - to a degree without direct reference to absolute cost.
The position that the railway is now in is somewhat different where through political ambition, rail services are operated at an ever reducing cost to the public purse, the burden now being borne by the passenger's purses. Excluding Network Rail, the operators of the service are now commercial businesses, often blessed with their underlying cynical approach to milking the customer whilst spending as little cash as possible, - they call that profitability. There are sweeteners across the system, sometimes to grab or secure an additional part of the market, or sometimes to ensure that they get buggin's turn at the next round of franchise awards. There are also large parts of the market where the passengers will come whatever rolling stock is running as rail often offers the only practical option for travel. Actual provision of equipment lies somewhere between these two extremes, but is currently drifting towards the austere end of the scale like much of the country's universal public services.
OK, so that's how
I personally see the position on rail investment.
Whilst there is the frequent complaint that London gets all the new trains, we all know that London would be seriously crippled if the system failed to provide the service that is needed, so the investment is there to meet that
need. This is why the class 345s are the way they are, (just like the class 700s) i.e. mass transport systems. Their prime role is to get the maximum number of passengers safely from their travel origins to their destinations, and of course at the minimum commercial cost
for the next three or four decades. Issues such as comfort (which is very subjective anyway) are rightly placed secondary to safety, and for legal equality reasons must also address accessibility, - and for all passengers, established comfort/convenience levels relative to the journeys that the majority of the journeys justify.
So here is the rub. Whilst it will be possible to travel on Crossrail from Shenfield to Reading (c.1 hr 30 mins but may not be a single train), very few passengers are likely to do that. Just as very few passengers ever travel from Epping to West Ruislip on the Central Line (1 hr 26 mins). However, every day millions of commuters make journeys of 30-40 minutes every week into London on tube trains with longtitudonal seats, maximum standing room, no toilets, no charging points and no tables. Most of them just do it, safely and reasonably quickly, so from the top of the government to the passengers who pay for their travel, there is no widespread demand for changes that would inevitably raise costs to the public purse or the user.
In this scenario, the class 345s are designed to be:
safe - no criticism here it seems
fast(er) - than their class 315/165 predecessors
greater capacity - here it starts eating into some people's personal wishes because it involves wide gangways and sliding doors, lontitudonal seating, no toilets and no tables. Air conditioning however improves passenger comfort when the trains crush-loaded.
This I believe is the way that a fully loaded metro/suburban railway of the future will operate in the UK political and commercial environment. It may not seem good but the alternative mode will get worse in some respects.
