Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

physics34 · 17 Mar 2017

AM9 said:
It doesn't matter if the few people who don't get over it, abandon rail and drive. The fact is that the 700s are designed to move the maximum number of passengers safely in the peak on routes where the train frequency is already near or at maximum that the infrastructure can reliably handle.
In order to achieve that, less than 7% of seats have been sacrificed to prevent the expected growth regularly leaving passengers unable to even board the trains.
That seems like a reasonable way ahead to me, but of course there are always some for whom the microclimate of their personal commute may not suit them in the future. The roads await them if they can't get over the sheer inhumanity of standing on a train. Their absence in the future will not even be detectable with the expected growth in rail travel but the worsening state of the roads may well cause them to rethink their change after a while.

im not sure standing in general is seen as inhumane...... i think its more the point that the service is getting worse. Having less seats and standing now when you previously could get a seat is regression, not progression ( i know there will possibly be a couple of extra TL trains than their are southern trains earlier and later in the morning thus actually an overall increase in seats, but this isnt the point)..

I can't see how when fares continue to rise that passengers should just accept regression.

It also needs to be asked how long should people expect to stand for?. The Littlehampton services will be a bigger issue on this.

RailUK Forums

absolutelymilk · 17 Mar 2017

physics34 said:
( i know there will possibly be a couple of extra TL trains than their are southern trains earlier and later in the morning thus actually an overall increase in seats, but this isnt the point)

Why is this not the point?

Roast Veg · 17 Mar 2017

The capacity to transport more passengers safely is progression. When you purchase a ticket, you purchase a right to travel - not a seat (unless you get a reservation). Increasing standing room to protect against great swathes of ticket purchasing passengers is an improvement to the service and strictly better than the alternative. The only reason seats exist at all in the 700s (disability regulations aside as well as all the inevitable political hoohah) is so that they can work outside the peaks.

SAPhil · 17 Mar 2017

Roast Veg said:
The only reason seats exist at all in the 700s (disability regulations aside as well as all the inevitable political hoohah) is so that they can work outside the peaks.

Don't understand!

Deepgreen · 17 Mar 2017

Bedpan said:
When I go to London and beyond I have the alternative of sitting in comfort in a 377 (or a 319 for that matter), or sitting on a seat that feels like a plank of wood, with no armrests, no table and insufficient legroom. Rarely travel when there is a need to stand. I suppose that the 700s do address the overcrowding problem if they drive people away from the railways. The 377s and 387 were a cruel tease.

I've had my rant but won't get over it - even the 4-LAVs on the Brighton line were more comfortable, and from what I remember they were pretty dire.

You have to choose your sub-classes there - the 377/6s and 7s are much the same as the 700s.

Deepgreen · 17 Mar 2017

Bald Rick said:
That's a rail lubricator.

Of course.

absolutelymilk · 17 Mar 2017

Roast Veg said:
Increasing standing room to protect against great swathes of ticket purchasing passengers is an improvement to the service and strictly better than the alternative. The only reason seats exist at all in the 700s (disability regulations aside as well as all the inevitable political hoohah) is so that they can work outside the peaks.

SAPhil said:
Don't understand!

Roast Veg is saying that if 700s were used only on the peaks, then they wouldn't have any seats at all or Tube train seating. I agree - they will be so full in the coming years that seats are less important than getting people on board.

Deepgreen · 17 Mar 2017

absolutelymilk said:
Roast Veg is saying that if 700s were used only on the peaks, then they wouldn't have any seats at all or Tube train seating. I agree - they will be so full in the coming years that seats are less important than getting people on board.

Possibly, but only if their routes were very much shorter. Of course, the concept of a type of rolling stock that is only used in the peaks is impractical anyway (or is it - 4DD units?). I think this is leading us down a hypothetical route!

physics34 · 17 Mar 2017

absolutelymilk said:
Why is this not the point?

because people what to travel on certain trains at a certain time, not 30 mins later cos they MIGHT find a seat.

physics34 · 17 Mar 2017

Roast Veg said:
The capacity to transport more passengers safely is progression. When you purchase a ticket, you purchase a right to travel - not a seat (unless you get a reservation). Increasing standing room to protect against great swathes of ticket purchasing passengers is an improvement to the service and strictly better than the alternative. The only reason seats exist at all in the 700s (disability regulations aside as well as all the inevitable political hoohah) is so that they can work outside the peaks.

Theres clear difference on what many of us on this forum count as acceptable travel. It sounds like youd be happy for all 700s to have no seats at all!!! Im sorry but i have the opposite views.

Make journeys comfortable and acceptable for OUR passengers so they have a REASONABLE stress free commute to work and start their day feeling better so they can work better......

...its bad enough that they have to pay MORE for a peak service.

AM9 · 17 Mar 2017

physics34 said:
Theres clear difference on what many of us on this forum count as acceptable travel. It sounds like youd be happy for all 700s to have no seats at all!!! Im sorry but i have the opposite views.

Make journeys comfortable and acceptable for OUR passengers so they have a REASONABLE stress free commute to work and start their day feeling better so they can work better......

...its bad enough that they have to pay MORE for a peak service.

I think that you are misreading the comments that I (and some others on the forum) have been making since the class 700s were introduced and the complaints about seat comfort started. In fact, the same sort of comments were raised about the 377/5s, 2+3 seating including the 319 seats, the firmness of the 387 seats, and many others. I myself having a spinal condition that makes travelling in some seats uncomfortable for long periods but such is life!
I am not unsympathetic to the complaints of some that the seats aren't best suited to 'their' preferences. Conversely, some posters have indicated that the modern trend of seating designed with the best posture for the majority of normal healthy passengers is a good thing, and it is good to see the demise of the soggy seating standard in MKI stock which was that way (only when new or just overhauled) because of the poor riding of bogies with cart springs over jointed track. The fact is that standard train seating has to be suitable for:

the health & fitness of the majority of passengers
the physical dimensions of the majority of passengers
safety of both standing and seated passengers in both normal use and collision conditions
durability, enough to remain usable and safe over a reasonable maintenance interval
affordability through life
ease of cleaning
integrating into the vehicle leaving sufficient space for standees/passenger ingress&egress/luggage/trolley access etc.

There are probably other considerations but even that is a pretty diverse set of conflicting requirements giving solutions that inevitably compromise some passengers' seating ideals. All passengers themselves have to compromise when travelling on busy routes, - even on congested roads. That is the deal with public transport or travelling on public roads.
My other point is that wonderful as it is, RailUK forums are social media groups for members with shared interests. A great deal of interesting and useful information is contained in threads about all sorts of topics. Unfortunately, repeated complaints about certain things on the railway sometimes just turn into the same old hackneyed conversations. Such dialogues won't actually resolve the problems being discussed. I don't think that the forums are intended to be substitutes for TOCs' customer service departments, Passenger Focus, BTP, Rail Unions, MPs or any other bodies whose official role is to take complaints on board.

physics34 · 17 Mar 2017

AM9 said:
I think that you are misreading the comments that I (and some others on the forum) have been making since the class 700s were introduced and the complaints about seat comfort started. In fact, the same sort of comments were raised about the 377/5s, 2+3 seating including the 319 seats, the firmness of the 387 seats, and many others. I myself having a spinal condition that makes travelling in some seats uncomfortable for long periods but such is life!
I am not unsympathetic to the complaints of some that the seats aren't best suited to 'their' preferences. Conversely, some posters have indicated that the modern trend of seating designed with the best posture for the majority of normal healthy passengers is a good thing, and it is good to see the demise of the soggy seating standard in MKI stock which was that way (only when new or just overhauled) because of the poor riding of bogies with cart springs over jointed track. The fact is that standard train seating has to be suitable for:

the health & fitness of the majority of passengers
the physical dimensions of the majority of passengers
safety of both standing and seated passengers in both normal use and collision conditions
durability, enough to remain usable and safe over a reasonable maintenance interval
affordability through life
ease of cleaning
integrating into the vehicle leaving sufficient space for standees/passenger ingress&egress/luggage/trolley access etc.
There are probably other considerations but even that is a pretty diverse set of conflicting requirements giving solutions that inevitably compromise some passengers' seating ideals. All passengers themselves have to compromise when travelling on busy routes, - even on congested roads. That is the deal with public transport or travelling on public roads.
My other point is that wonderful as it is, RailUK forums are social media groups for members with shared interests. A great deal of interesting and useful information is contained in threads about all sorts of topics. Unfortunately, repeated complaints about certain things on the railway sometimes just turn into the same old hackneyed conversations. Such dialogues won't actually resolve the problems being discussed. I don't think that the forums are intended to be substitutes for TOCs' customer service departments, Passenger Focus, BTP, Rail Unions, MPs or any other bodies whose official role is to take complaints on board.

I think we will always disagree because we come from different angles on this... and i have mentioned in the past that the 700s seating (and 377/387) is of a very good posture, with cushioning and lack of springs being the issue... (this infact affects my lower back issues... you literally feel every bump over every set of points). The Mk.1s that i remember being comfortable had coil springs rather that leaf springs (not sure if you are solely talking about your old class 302s).

Ironically all the things you list are EVERYTHING needed in an adequate seat except the only thing you haven't mentioned......comfort!

No one will be able to convince me that 700 seats and their dimensions (them being affixed to the side wall and close together with no space) are adequate for journeys of over 45mins....which is what many are intended for. There is no doubt that 2 different interiors shouldve been introduced..as was considered in the first place. Massive amounts of standing space is not welcome on longer distance services, but on the other hand it is ESSENTIAL on local services from sutton/sevenoaks and other suburban origins.

"Such is life" for someone like yourself who has a back problem surely isnt acceptable.. you should expect better, surely?

absolutelymilk · 17 Mar 2017

physics34 said:
I think we will always disagree because we come from different angles on this... and i have mentioned in the past that the 700s seating (and 377/387) is of a very good posture, with cushioning and lack of springs being the issue... (this infact affects my lower back issues... you literally feel every bump over every set of points). The Mk.1s that i remember being comfortable had coil springs rather that leaf springs (not sure if you are solely talking about your old class 302s).

Ironically all the things you list are EVERYTHING needed in an adequate seat except the only thing you haven't mentioned......comfort!

No one will be able to convince me that 700 seats and their dimensions (them being affixed to the side wall and close together with no space) are adequate for journeys of over 45mins....which is what many are intended for. There is no doubt that 2 different interiors shouldve been introduced..as was considered in the first place. Massive amounts of standing space is not welcome on longer distance services, but on the other hand it is ESSENTIAL on local services from sutton/sevenoaks and other suburban origins.

"Such is life" for someone like yourself who has a back problem surely isnt acceptable.. you should expect better, surely?

Can I ask whether if in the future, all the extra capacity given by the Thameslink Programme was used up and many people were unable to board, you would still be in favour of having more comfortable seats taking up more room?

physics34 · 17 Mar 2017

absolutelymilk said:
Can I ask whether if in the future, all the extra capacity given by the Thameslink Programme was used up and many people were unable to board, you would still be in favour of having more comfortable seats taking up more room?

if all the extra capacity was used up then they would have to sort out a way of running more trains. If we EVER get to a point where seats will become obsolete on trains that will serve stations that are nearly 2 hours away from london then there will be problems!

Iam talking about more cushioning and a couple of inches more space on the window side of the seats.

Peter Sarf · 17 Mar 2017

Roast Veg said:
The capacity to transport more passengers safely is progression. When you purchase a ticket, you purchase a right to travel - not a seat (unless you get a reservation). Increasing standing room to protect against great swathes of ticket purchasing passengers is an improvement to the service and strictly better than the alternative. The only reason seats exist at all in the 700s (disability regulations aside as well as all the inevitable political hoohah) is so that they can work outside the peaks.

Whaat !. For me East Croydon to Victoria takes 17 minutes. Off peak I do not always get a seat but I travel in the hope of getting a seat. BUT to expect travellers from as far away as Bedford or Brighton to travel without a seat is terrible. How about we remove all seats from any cars that get used for commuting ?.

Mind you I choose to avoid the hassle of commuting by working as close to home as possible anyway !. I earn less but spend as little as possible. Currently I drive about three miles which takes up to twenty minutes in Croydon. I would use a bus if I could rely on tem plus I would have to rely on a connection.

Realistically, of course, those commuting to central London have little chance of using their car so have to put up with whatever is offered. No one is going to improve services or build new lines just to make commuters happy. Just as long as enough people continue to travel and contribute to the economy of the country (including shareholders, directors etc) then there is not problem !.

The Box Photter · 17 Mar 2017

Well, my experience, as a daily commuter is that even though there's "more comfortable" standing room between the seats, the areas around the doors are STILL where most people choose to stand.

London-bound passengers at St Albans still push onto the non-stop trains and their gimlet little eyes bore into the backs of the heads of those already seated as they juggle their iPad/FT/mocca-frappucino when on the opposite platform, there's a stopping train leaving the station with empty seats. The stoppers take 10 minutes more to St Pancras.

In the evening peak, the opposite happens at St Pancras and the train half-empties at St Albans.

Passengers could be more evenly spread across all the available trains if ONLY the stoppers called at St Albans. Leave the semi-fasts and fast for those travelling the furthest.

AM9 · 17 Mar 2017

physics34 said:
I think we will always disagree because we come from different angles on this... and i have mentioned in the past that the 700s seating (and 377/387) is of a very good posture, with cushioning and lack of springs being the issue... (this infact affects my lower back issues... you literally feel every bump over every set of points). The Mk.1s that i remember being comfortable had coil springs rather that leaf springs (not sure if you are solely talking about your old class 302s).

A few of the MKIs used on express services (including the Clacton EMUs) had the better 100mph rated, (and much more expensive) Commonwealth bogies which had coil springs. Similarly, towards the end of the MKI vehicles' introduction, some were fitted with the B4 bogie that was developed for the next generation (MKII) and first seen on the XP64 demonstrator set. These fabricated bogies with coil springs were also used on the later MKI bodied SR EMUs (BIG/CIG/VEP). All the rest of the MKIs had the clunky BR1 bogies with their external leaf springs a bolsters that ran loose for most of their lives.
The MKI coaches were fitted with sprung seat squabs to allow the passengers to cope with the bounce that jointed track caused at 80mph. The B4 fitted SR EMUs had simpler construction seats with foam squabs on barely sprung bases, sometimes plywood. The cushion would get flatter with use and become very uncomfortable at the mid/lower thigh.

physics34 said:
Ironically all the things you list are EVERYTHING needed in an adequate seat except the only thing you haven't mentioned......comfort!

If the TOCs fit seats that address all of the requirements that I listed, they should be suitable for the greatest number of passengers. Comfort, unfortunately is a subjective issue which is difficult to define in a technical requirement.

physics34 said:
No one will be able to convince me that 700 seats and their dimensions (them being affixed to the side wall and close together with no space) are adequate for journeys of over 45mins....which is what many are intended for. There is no doubt that 2 different interiors shouldve been introduced..as was considered in the first place. Massive amounts of standing space is not welcome on longer distance services, but on the other hand it is ESSENTIAL on local services from sutton/sevenoaks and other suburban origins.

"Such is life" for someone like yourself who has a back problem surely isnt acceptable.. you should expect better, surely?

I find them a bit restrictive in knee room and yes they are tucked into the sides of the coach to maximise the standing capacity. That is the nature of the designer's compromise. The 700s' seats have not been in use very long, but the 377/5 and 387 seats are of similar firmness which seems to keep their designed comfort level for longer before the padding collapses.
They are designed to be suitable for the average passenger journey time, which we are told is less than 30 minutes. That means that the longer journeys may be uncomfortable to some.

AM9 · 17 Mar 2017

physics34 said:
if all the extra capacity was used up then they would have to sort out a way of running more trains. If we EVER get to a point where seats will become obsolete on trains that will serve stations that are nearly 2 hours away from london then there will be problems!

Iam talking about more cushioning and a couple of inches more space on the window side of the seats.

In the peak, I believe that saturation of the available capacity would have been reached within the next 10 years on Thameslink had we stayed with Electrostars, - especially the 387s which have less than 10 more seats than and a lot less standing room. There would be a double impact on capacity because the dwell times would get longer and the timetable would be cut back to improve reliability.
The 700s are designed to handle larger numbers from the outset and because of that, can operate a high frequency timetable with short headways and short dwells. The saturation point will come many years later (assuming the same growth curve).

As for the job to "sort out a way of running more trains", - they are doing the maximum possible with current signalling, traction control and passenger accommodation technologies/practice. There are posters here claiming that the system will fall down regularly reducing the service to less than before the programme started. They may be right in their fears.
In 10-20 years time when the trains are halfway through their service life, these design decisions will really be put to the test. I very much doubt that the funds to duplicate the core infrastructure would ever be available so they have to deliver the capacity that is expected.

AM9 · 17 Mar 2017

The Box Photter said:
Well, my experience, as a daily commuter is that even though there's "more comfortable" standing room between the seats, the areas around the doors are STILL where most people choose to stand.

London-bound passengers at St Albans still push onto the non-stop trains and their gimlet little eyes bore into the backs of the heads of those already seated as they juggle their iPad/FT/mocca-frappucino when on the opposite platform, there's a stopping train leaving the station with empty seats. The stoppers take 10 minutes more to St Pancras.

In the evening peak, the opposite happens at St Pancras and the train half-empties at St Albans.

It seems that you really do have a problem with St Albans commuters. The stopper trains are there for passengers like Elstree, Mill Hill etc.. If St Albans passengers were forced to use those trains, those passengers down the line would not be able to board.

The Box Photter said:
Passengers could be more evenly spread across all the available trains if ONLY the stoppers called at St Albans. Leave the semi-fasts and fast for those travelling the furthest.

I don't know where you travel from but did you realise that season tickets holders from Bedford, (i.e. the furthest) pay just over half the fare per mile that St Albans travellers do, BDM-STP is about 19p per mile whereas SAC-STP is over 35p per mile. I don't commute but I can't see why those getting a much better deal complain so much about about their bigger subsidy.

Bald Rick · 18 Mar 2017

The Box Photter said:
Well, my experience, as a daily commuter is that even though there's "more comfortable" standing room between the seats, the areas around the doors are STILL where most people choose to stand.

London-bound passengers at St Albans still push onto the non-stop trains and their gimlet little eyes bore into the backs of the heads of those already seated as they juggle their iPad/FT/mocca-frappucino when on the opposite platform, there's a stopping train leaving the station with empty seats. The stoppers take 10 minutes more to St Pancras.

In the evening peak, the opposite happens at St Pancras and the train half-empties at St Albans.

Passengers could be more evenly spread across all the available trains if ONLY the stoppers called at St Albans. Leave the semi-fasts and fast for those travelling the furthest.

Well of course people tend to stand around the doors, but generally there is a lot more space there.

Time for a few facts.

The stoppers from St Albans usually take 16 minutes longer than the fasts. Given that the fasts are 18 minutes, that's nearly double. Nevertheless many People in St Albans do indeed catch them to guarantee a seat.

If everyone who got a fast service at St Albans was forced onto stoppers, the stoppers wouldn't be picking anyone up from Elstree Southwards, as they would be crush loaded. This is exactly what happens during disruption.

Now about the train:

In my experience, the seats are softening with age, as with all new train seats. Mind you I still found them sufficiently comfortable when brand new.

In my opinion (and it is opinion, rather than fact) the seats are far more comfortable than on the 319s

The 700s have revolutionised station dwell times, both in the core and outside.

Now that the train reliability issues have largely been sorted, and combined with the dwell time improvement, reliability of the service is much improved, aside one or two regular issues with a handful of services because of the timetable at Croydon. (I certainly cannot assume any morning train being reliably a few minutes late, unlike with the 319s)

In my 8 months of almost exclusively travelling on 700s, and listening to passengers reactions on board and at stations, the ratio of 'nice train' to grumbles (of any type) is about 100:1

No lesser individual than Mr Chris Green thinks they are fantastic. I saw him on one, so I asked him. He was most enthusiastic.

W230 · 18 Mar 2017

I still don't get the issue with the seats. I spend plenty of time sitting on them as well as the more squidgy one up front and they seem perfectly comfortable to me and way, way better than the horrible 319 seat sinking feeling!

Incidentally, i'm not sure how some posters think we can increase capacity on the TL route further. New, faster trains, with a vastly superior ability to get people on and off, increased room inside, ATO (from next year) to help maximise performance in the core. The 700s are such an improvement on the old stock it's ridiculous.

They can't all be 12 cars (platfrom length constraints) so as far as I can see they are lengthening as many services as they realistically can. I'm not sure what more can be done?

As has already been mentioned, their brief is to get as many people from A to B safely and quickly. They fulfil this brief better than anything else on the railway. If a few people from closer stations have to stand then so be it. They would have to anyway as stations become busier and trains more full. I've never heard of anyone having to stand all the way from Bedford or Brighton to central London. Irrespective, if standing is an issue, get a later/earlier train. Outside the peak there is an absolute abundance of seats.

GodAtum · 18 Mar 2017

What 700s are running today?

Blindtraveler · 18 Mar 2017

A few obseevations from an irregular TL user. I dont like the seats and never will as they are just horrid with tube stock seating being nicer to me. I do like the 319s as a train and am fond of their seating. However, having taken a 4 car 319 from Bromley to STP on Thursday I accept they have had their day on Thameslink as the interior, door width and train length, not to mention performance does not meet the needs of the service and the new 700s will fix all this. If a several times a year can see this then perhaps the regulars should too. ATO will be interesting but I still doubt they'll shuv 24tph through the system so the 700s will be even more important earlier to keep things moving.

bramling · 18 Mar 2017

AM9 said:
In the peak, I believe that saturation of the available capacity would have been reached within the next 10 years on Thameslink had we stayed with Electrostars, - especially the 387s which have less than 10 more seats than and a lot less standing room. There would be a double impact on capacity because the dwell times would get longer and the timetable would be cut back to improve reliability.
The 700s are designed to handle larger numbers from the outset and because of that, can operate a high frequency timetable with short headways and short dwells. The saturation point will come many years later (assuming the same growth curve).

As for the job to "sort out a way of running more trains", - they are doing the maximum possible with current signalling, traction control and passenger accommodation technologies/practice. There are posters here claiming that the system will fall down regularly reducing the service to less than before the programme started. They may be right in their fears.
In 10-20 years time when the trains are halfway through their service life, these design decisions will really be put to the test. I very much doubt that the funds to duplicate the core infrastructure would ever be available so they have to deliver the capacity that is expected.

The elephant in the room is of course the total failure to control population growth in London, and the associated massive effect this has had on London's housing market, with a ripple effect now extending further and further outwards from London. Maybe Brexit will ease things a little, but one way or the other I don't remember mass population growth being on any electoral manifesto. There has to come a point where we say enough is enough and we can't keep providing infrastructure only for it to be immediately used up. We are coming to the point where we can't do that anyway, as the London area is physically running out of space, and even where interventions are physically possible the costs are becoming immense.

Hadders · 18 Mar 2017

W230 said:
I still don't get the issue with the seats. I spend plenty of time sitting on them as well as the more squidgy one up front and they seem perfectly comfortable to me and way, way better than the horrible 319 seat sinking feeling!

Incidentally, i'm not sure how some posters think we can increase capacity on the TL route further. New, faster trains, with a vastly superior ability to get people on and off, increased room inside, ATO (from next year) to help maximise performance in the core. The 700s are such an improvement on the old stock it's ridiculous.

They can't all be 12 cars (platfrom length constraints) so as far as I can see they are lengthening as many services as they realistically can. I'm not sure what more can be done?

As has already been mentioned, their brief is to get as many people from A to B safely and quickly. They fulfil this brief better than anything else on the railway. If a few people from closer stations have to stand then so be it. They would have to anyway as stations become busier and trains more full. I've never heard of anyone having to stand all the way from Bedford or Brighton to central London. Irrespective, if standing is an issue, get a later/earlier train. Outside the peak there is an absolute abundance of seats.

The issue is that they appear to have gone for the bargain basement interior. I've no problem with the walk through carriages, wide doors, parge standing areas etc. But why not use seats similar to those on, say, a 455, why no seat back tables (small ones will do as on the 365s). Why no tables for the bay seats (again they don't need to be full tables the triangular ones as per the 365s will do). There's also insufficient litter bins inside the 700s, the few I've been on have had litter strewn inside them.

I'm sure the trains mechanically are great and will do a superb job of moving large numbers of people. What I don't get is the lack of attention to detail in the interior design.

AM9 · 18 Mar 2017

Hadders said:
The issue is that they appear to have gone for the bargain basement interior. I've no problem with the walk through carriages, wide doors, parge standing areas etc. But why not use seats similar to those on, say, a 455, why no seat back tables (small ones will do as on the 365s). Why no tables for the bay seats (again they don't need to be full tables the triangular ones as per the 365s will do). There's also insufficient litter bins inside the 700s, the few I've been on have had litter strewn inside them.

According to a member who is connected with GTR, the interior design was designed to minimise dwell times, including omitting tables that can block prompt egress from seats. This has been discussed many times before. On the litter bin front, I agree that there could be more but first GTR really must take the cleaners to task and stop them deliberately littering the floor.

Hadders said:
I'm sure the trains mechanically are great and will do a superb job of moving large numbers of people. What I don't get is the lack of attention to detail in the interior design.

In the grand scheme of things, fuctionally, as you say, they do what was required of them. As for interior cosmetics, that may take until the mid-life refurb.

Supercoss · 18 Mar 2017

Hadders said:
The issue is that they appear to have gone for the bargain basement interior. I've no problem with the walk through carriages, wide doors, parge standing areas etc. But why not use seats similar to those on, say, a 455, why no seat back tables (small ones will do as on the 365s). Why no tables for the bay seats (again they don't need to be full tables the triangular ones as per the 365s will do). There's also insufficient litter bins inside the 700s, the few I've been on have had litter strewn inside them.

I'm sure the trains mechanically are great and will do a superb job of moving large numbers of people. What I don't get is the lack of attention to detail in the interior design.

Don't forget though the interior is designed to meet OWG= Open Wide Gangway fire regulations for rolling stock operating sub surface
You can not compare to any other stock as no other current stock has open wide gangway in 12 car length.
In the most simplest of terminology, little to 'burn' and add fuel on the fire should an incident occur sub surface.
The stringent fire regulations and operating standards for tunnel use includes a fire hydrant main through the 'core' area, enhanced radio coverage,lighting etc in addition to the on train equipment.
If Class 455 has a fire in 'cabin space' move to the next car and close gangway doors - can't do that on a 700 (although front or rear 3 cars have gangway shutters to lock off front 3/rear 3 coaches.

jon0844 · 18 Mar 2017

The interior might be quite sparse, but when you look at things close up (including under the seats) it is very impressive to see just how well built the trains are. Everything looks solid and very well engineered (a world apart to when the Victoria Line trains came in, and within months there were rubber seals hanging down that had worked lose when panels were removed and refitted). Or 377/5s that had accessible toilet doors stuck when they still had the 'new train' smell.

There are already some signs of wear on a few 700s (seat coverings wise) but otherwise they still look pretty much new. The 387s seem to be showing many more signs of wear, especially the arm rests. Loads of paint coming off those, and other marks on the walls. I was surprised that they don't have LED lights (beyond the spot lights) either, although that's another issue.

southern442 · 18 Mar 2017

AM9 said:
According to a member who is connected with GTR, the interior design was designed to minimise dwell times, including omitting tables that can block prompt egress from seats.

That seems ridiculous to me. You should be out of your seat before the train stops, as the majority of people are. And tables don't really make too much of a difference, especially not on a crowded train. You are literally saving about a second, maybe two seconds of time by omitting tables. Not enough to warrant them not being there in my opinion.

Peter Sarf · 18 Mar 2017

southern442 said:
That seems ridiculous to me. You should be out of your seat before the train stops, as the majority of people are. And tables don't really make too much of a difference, especially not on a crowded train. You are literally saving about a second, maybe two seconds of time by omitting tables. Not enough to warrant them not being there in my opinion.

Omitting table or not, the main constraint on a heavily loaded train is not being able to stand up from your seat until others have started disembarking. You then have to rush to fill any gap in the queue before those wishing to board start to squeeze trough the doors !.

Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member