And the Thameslink winner is...

[tbtc]

Well, I don't understand what the point of the 380s is. Why didn't they just order more 350s?

People say its the crash-worthyness of the front ends (but then also suggest that LM will be getting more 350s to replace their 321s etc), so I could be wrong

 

[asylumxl]

Well the changes from the 350 to 360 were supposedly due to visibility (or lack of it) with regards to the corridor connection. I'm imaging the 380 is the fix to the issue that meant 360s were built without corridor connections.

 

[klewer]

Well the changes from the 350 to 360 were supposedly due to visibility (or lack of it) with regards to the corridor connection. I'm imaging the 380 is the fix to the issue that meant 360s were built without corridor connections.

That wasn't the case at all! The 360/1's were ordered by First Great Eastern long time before the 350's - there wasn't a need for corridor connections so they simply weren't ordered with them.

Heathrow Connect's follow-on order also didn't require corridor connections (as the units weren't intended to work in multiple) so they're the same design as the 360/1.

 

[Lampshade]

I don't like trains with 2+2 and 3+2 seating, as you're always annoyed when you get the 3+2 carriage! When will TOC's (and the DfT) understand - PEOPLE DON'T LIKE 3+2 SEATING!!!

Well... last time I looked I come under the category of 'People' and give me the 3+2 seating on a 458 any day.

 

[thefab444]

Heathrow Connect's follow-on order also didn't require corridor connections (as the units weren't intended to work in multiple) so they're the same design as the 360/1.

I think the majority of the Heathrow Connect units (except 360205) were built as demonstration units before the Class 350s were ordered.

 

[tbtc]

I think the majority of the Heathrow Connect units (except 360205) were built as demonstration units before the Class 350s were ordered.

I didn't know that; I thought the only "demonstrator" stock (post privatisation) were the Porterbrook 170s - shows what I know

 

[GospelOak117]

Well... last time I looked I come under the category of 'People' and give me the 3+2 seating on a 458 any day.

Another vote for 3+2 here! Especially when it comes down to a choice between 3+2 facing or 2+2 unidirectional

That wasn't the case at all! The 360/1's were ordered by First Great Eastern long time before the 350's - there wasn't a need for corridor connections so they simply weren't ordered with them.

I seem to remember the FGE Class 360 mock-up featured a corridor connection and looked alot like a 444; and it was omitted on the production units due to DOO visibility issues.

 

[j0hn0]

Another vote for 3+2 here! Especially when it comes down to a choice between 3+2 facing or 2+2 unidirectional

wow, you don't obviously commute on a 3+2 train every day then

 

[Minstral25]

wow, you don't obviously commute on a 3+2 train every day then

Someone who is size zero probably wouldn't mind them much and it is personal preference.

Personally at 6'3" and quite broad (in an athletic way of course), I find 3+2 very uncomfortable. It's that the seat width is too narrow and not the style of seating. A lot of FCC 319's have 2+2 and are just as bad because they have gone for very wide aisles and narrow seats which mean you are squeezed into the person next to you. I'm desperately hoping that the new Siemens Thameslink trains won't take the 2+2 wide aisle option.

2+2 with tables as per Southern 377's is the way to go!

 

[sprinterguy]

Well, I don't understand what the point of the 380s is. Why didn't they just order more 350s?

Scotrail must have wanted 23 metre stock for whatever reason. Which is odd when the rest of its' EMU fleet consists of 20m carriages. Plus the revised crashworthiness/safety standards for the front ends apparently.

 

[j0hn0]

Someone who is size zero probably wouldn't mind them much and it is personal preference.

Personally at 6'3" and quite broad (in an athletic way of course), I find 3+2 very uncomfortable. It's that the seat width is too narrow and not the style of seating. A lot of FCC 319's have 2+2 and are just as bad because they have gone for very wide aisles and narrow seats which mean you are squeezed into the person next to you. I'm desperately hoping that the new Siemens Thameslink trains won't take the 2+2 wide aisle option.

2+2 with tables as per Southern 377's is the way to go!

amen brother!

 

[Nym]

Well, I don't understand what the point of the 380s is. Why didn't they just order more 350s?

As for 350s, I suppose SWT's fleet is helped by the fact it is maintained by Siemens rather than in-house, but I thought the same was true of London Midland?

The 380s have a number of changes compared with the 350s, not just in carrage length and door end configuration, but there have been a lot of both cost saving and weight saving changes.

The main one being a 'fly by wire' system for the control systems, saves a tonne of wiring if I'm remembering right, a lot of the new technology that is to be fitted to the Thameslink stock is effectivly being trialed on the 380s. Such as the 'fly by wire' systems. (Ask if you want an explanation like the DEMU DMU EMU EDMU explanation a while back).

If I'm thinking right, theres also new bogies, traction motors, door mechs (I beleive the're electric but stand to be corrected), and a fair few other modifications.

Also, another vote for 19" seating in 2+2 here.

Because of the mixture of long and short distance routes, and a desire for stock standardisation, I'd say whats needed is an interior layout similar to the 185s with larger 'milling around' areas near the doors, and a damn site more grab points, somthing I think is missing from the 185 interior.

Everything else works reasonably well, the Disabled area at the end of the 1st class coach works IMO, as does the bike storage area, although because of the LSE style of commuting it may be better to have this as a segrigated area at one end of the unit, perhaps intergrated with the disabled seating area.

What kind of 1st class provision is being made? As I understand the're to be 4 car units being ordered so that they can be formed into 4, 8 or 12 car formations, would a layout with disabled / bikes - 1st - std work, and what ratios would it need? (I've never travelled down on thameslink so don't know)

 

[jon0844]

I don't know what the interiors will look like, but I'd like to know if the system that measures passenger numbers and then tells people ahead where to board will be part of the final offering, or just a feature that won't have its boxed ticked on the order sheet because of the cost.

Part of me actually hopes people won't be told to move along to board an emptier coach, as I can usually guarantee a seat on a train where the first few coaches are almost crush loaded!

 

[swt_passenger]

What kind of 1st class provision is being made? As I understand the're to be 4 car units being ordered so that they can be formed into 4, 8 or 12 car formations, would a layout with disabled / bikes - 1st - std work, and what ratios would it need? (I've never travelled down on thameslink so don't know)

But they are not 4 car, the order was for fixed formation 8 and 12 car units. The single set of DDA facilites are to be positioned in the middle of the unit such that both lengths of train will stop with the wheelchair area alongside the same part of the platform.

There are supposed to be three layouts, as I posted earlier in this thread:

'Outer' 240m train 638S 48F
'Outer' 160m train 398S 48F
'Inner' 160m train 460S

Standard capacity works out to an average of about 58 per carriage, which is easily achieved in a 20m 2+2 layout, given the reduced number of cabs overall and the inclusion of only one area of DDA facilities in the centre of each unit.

 

[thefab444]

2+2 with tables as per Southern 377's is the way to go!

Quite a sizeable proportion of vehicles in the 377 fleet actually have 3+2 seating with no tables, except for a handful of flip-down tables.

I prefer 2+2 with a mixture of airline and tables (weighted toward airline) personally. Not everybody wants a table.

 

[WestCoast]

I prefer 2+2 with a mixture of airline and tables (weighted toward airline) personally. Not everybody wants a table.

Yes, I quite like the balance on the 185s. I've also noted many on here have expressed a preference for tables, well I would say a significant proportion of lone travellers prefer airline seating.

 

[Nym]

But they are not 4 car, the order was for fixed formation 8 and 12 car units. The single set of DDA facilites are to be positioned in the middle of the unit such that both lengths of train will stop with the wheelchair area alongside the same part of the platform.

There are supposed to be three layouts, as I posted earlier in this thread:

'Outer' 240m train 638S 48F
'Outer' 160m train 398S 48F
'Inner' 160m train 460S

Standard capacity works out to an average of about 58 per carriage, which is easily achieved in a 20m 2+2 layout, given the reduced number of cabs overall and the inclusion of only one area of DDA facilities in the centre of each unit.

Ta muchly, they going to be 8 car forever or eventually become 12 car?

Presumably cycle storage in the same place on each unit, with a similar situation as the wheelchair boarding point?

 

[swt_passenger]

Ta muchly, they going to be 8 car forever or eventually become 12 car?

The various RUSs suggest that certain routes will always be constrained to 8 car length due to infrastructure limitiations. The most recently published info, (in the London and SE draft RUS), suggests that of the 24 tph in the peaks 10 tph will be 8 car and 14 tph will be 12 car. This is a reduction since the earlier South London RUS, which had it as 6 tph at 8 and 18 tph at 12 car, so it is a changeable figure. Without looking the technical spec up again I think they did ask for the capability to easily extend trains - but it shouldn't be too difficult as there'd be no more cabs needed.

Presumably cycle storage in the same place on each unit, with a similar situation as the wheelchair boarding point?

So I understand. The idea is that everyone knows exactly where to wait on the platforms - I've read somewhere that there will probably be platform humps alongside the wheelchair vehicle positions on stations where necessary.

 

[87015]

Conversely the reliability figures on the 350s have gone downhill

the new MTIN measure which is replacing MPC has the 395s as best 'new EMU' as all the Desiro door faults which were not previously being counted are now...

 

[NXEA!]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2d4LplxNiXg

fast forward to 3:49. utter electric bliss

I never used them that much on the AC - lived in Bedford and chose the Valenta every time. It was a while ago now obviously. I can't imagine a finer combination to bash than valenta HST, or the motor car of a 319 on the same line. great times. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woaqJxkLfAA

I also was fascinated by the power change at Farringdon.

Now thats what the 319's are about, insane acceleration and a beasty traction motor scream!

 

[Malderon]

Just chipping in to the 3+2 debate from a page or so ago.

I commute daily on a 377 and (sorry I am not an expert on the 377/1 etc categories) the units I travel on almost always have 2+2 seating in the front and back of 4 coaches most having tables, and then horrible 3+2 seating in the middle two carriages.

Naturally I always travel in 1,4,5,8,9 or 12!. Sometimes you get the "blue interior" 377s which I assume are the former SouthEastern stock and these are 2+2 throughout.

My problem with 3+2 on the 377s isnt necessarily the seating. Although I think very often the middle seat of 3 is ignored with people preferring to stand. My problem is mainly that moving down inside the carriages becomes much slower, and there is no room really for people to stand in the aisles, which they are often forced to do at least in the 2+2 carriages.

So while you may be providing more seats - when the trains are less busy in the off peak you have pointless 3+2 seating that is far less comfortable than the 2+2 and less practical with no tables etc. AND in the peak there still wont be a seat for everyone but you have increased dwell times as people struggle to move down inside the 3+2 coaches and reduced standing room to make the inevitable standers more cramped.

Just my 2c!

 

[class377man]

I agree there isn't a great deal of standing space on 377s. I remember once standing in the corridor connection between units because it was the only space I could find! if I stretched my right leg out slightly I was on on two units at once

 

[lewisf]

Sometimes you get the "blue interior" 377s which I assume are the former SouthEastern stock and these are 2+2 throughout

The blue interior stock are units ordered by Connex before they lost the franchise. I also commute on 377's and always aim for the rear coach but some 'blue interior' stock (377120 - 377149 I think) has 3+2 in all cars between the doors and 2+2 at the car ends. That confuses some of the regulars!

I find the seats in SWT's 455's much more comfortable than 377's, which I believe is the same seating as 450's but just in a 2+2 layout. If the new TL stock has the same seating I'd be happy.

I see that wiki is saying the new TL stock will be designated class 345.

 

[swt_passenger]

I see that wiki is saying the new TL stock will be designated class 345.

Class 345 was announced recently as reserved for the Crossrail units - so it seems suspect to me...

http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/crossrail-issues-rolling-stock-shortlist.html

 

[Skimble19]

Crossrail has always been class 345, even in NSE days..

 

[Minstral25]

Just chipping in to the 3+2 debate from a page or so ago.

I commute daily on a 377 and (sorry I am not an expert on the 377/1 etc categories) the units I travel on almost always have 2+2 seating in the front and back of 4 coaches most having tables, and then horrible 3+2 seating in the middle two carriages.

Naturally I always travel in 1,4,5,8,9 or 12!. Sometimes you get the "blue interior" 377s which I assume are the former SouthEastern stock and these are 2+2 throughout.

My problem with 3+2 on the 377s isnt necessarily the seating. Although I think very often the middle seat of 3 is ignored with people preferring to stand. My problem is mainly that moving down inside the carriages becomes much slower, and there is no room really for people to stand in the aisles, which they are often forced to do at least in the 2+2 carriages.

So while you may be providing more seats - when the trains are less busy in the off peak you have pointless 3+2 seating that is far less comfortable than the 2+2 and less practical with no tables etc. AND in the peak there still wont be a seat for everyone but you have increased dwell times as people struggle to move down inside the 3+2 coaches and reduced standing room to make the inevitable standers more cramped.

Just my 2c!

As far as I can tell the new stock will be 3+2 style seating but with the 3rd seat of the 3 taken out and a very wide corridor. It will also be around 90% airline style seating.

To my mind totally unsuitable to the routes they are running except the core. Many families and groups travel on these trains and lots of burly commuters for whom the seats will be too small.

That's what you get for getting cost cutting accountants to design the trains - more people in less space like the 378's but at least the longest likely journey on a 378 is 40 minutes not 2/3 hours like this stock.

 

[thefab444]

"More people in less space"? How did you figure that out r.e. 378s, the 313s they replaced were only three coaches!

Crossrail has always been class 345, even in NSE days..

I think it was originally intended to be Class 341.

 

[jopsuk]

"More people in less space"? How did you figure that out r.e. 378s, the 313s they replaced were only three coaches!

And A-stock carriages are 16m versus 20m for 378- a 378 is effectively a carriage longer than a four car A-Stock.

 

[Richardr]

The Moorgate branch is a bit of a probem, in that it is quite short and outside of Mon-Fri, doesn't attract much custom.

It is shut late night and weekends, which doesn't help.

 

[A0wen]

It is shut late night and weekends, which doesn't help.

I believe this was due to customer feedback where passengers travelling back from the West End particularly late at night preferred to use Kings Cross, which given KX has better facilities and connections than Moorgate, Old St, H&I or Drayton Park is understandable.