Are Class 700’s really that bad?

[Bald Rick]

Rather have a 170, 180 or a 313 any day

Good grief! I’d rather have a 700 than any of these!

 

[Wolfie]

I have severe spinal issues (that is no exaggeration) and I find the class 700's medically correct posture of the seats (both standard and first) fine - even for journeys from St Albans to Brighton. Conversely, the poor posture that so many 'comfortable' trains offer give me problems.
I was offering a personal opinion based on experience but it is like your post, just an opinion.

I have spinal issues too and completely agree.

 

[py_megapixel]

Good grief! I’d rather have a 700 than any of these!

313s feel like they're falling apart, so no thanks.

170s are fine, as are 180s when they're not catching fire, but I'm not sure I'd want diesel through the Thameslink core

 

[AM9]

Apart from the seats there are other issues that I and many other agree on.

One mans junk heap is another mans happy train.

Rather have a 170, 180 or a 313 any day

And there are plenty of posts here acknowledging that the 700s are good, safe, reliable trains,- the facilities on them work and they are fit for the services on which they are deployed. As Bald Rick implies, they aren't even in the same lower division as the three types that you would rather have. A train with less than optimal seats but plenty of romm turning up is infinitely better than a worn out or unreliable train that doesn't always run.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Epping to West Ruislip (1:20ish) is a nightmare on 92 tube stock, but hardly anybody does it (another one I can speak from experience on ).

Thameslink (and 700s) makes sense when viewed as a more extreme example of that. People just aren’t used to trains running through London rather than terminating there.

Yes, this. You'll get something similar if Merseyrail gets extended from Hunts Cross to Warrington, or if the work is ever done to move the "City Line" locals e.g. the Wigan to being joined to services terminating at Central. Southport to Warrington or Ormskirk to Wigan would be quite long runs, but there would be very few passengers across Liverpool.

Gatwick is the exception, but a 700 is probably more comfortable than Ryanair.

And there are plenty of posts here acknowledging that the 700s are good, safe, reliable trains,- the facilities on them work and they are fit for the services on which they are deployed. As Bald Rick implies, they aren't even in the same lower division as the three types that you would rather have. A train with less than optimal seats but plenty of romm turning up is infinitely better than a worn out or unreliable train that doesn't always run.

While I think the seats could viably be replaced with ones with armrests based on my experience of large loads in 195s, the main thing I'd change about them is the colour scheme which is horribly drab (a deeper seat colour would make it feel more welcoming, see LNER 80x vs GWR 80x), and perhaps replace the lighting with a diffused indirect setup (but keep the brightness, which is appropriate for a commuter train). But not a lot.

 

[Mikey C]

It'll be an interesting comparison at London Bridge when all the 455s are withdrawn, and the stopping services in south London presumably use 377/6s...

 

[hooverboy]

I have severe spinal issues (that is no exaggeration) and I find the class 700's medically correct posture of the seats (both standard and first) fine - even for journeys from St Albans to Brighton. Conversely, the poor posture that so many 'comfortable' trains offer give me problems.
I was offering a personal opinion based on experience but it is like your post, just an opinion.

Opinions are subjective.
The vast majority of people who use these trains find the seating as such not just uncomfortable,but actually quite painful on a long distance haul.

I will do end to end bedford-brighton occasionally,and those seats leave you with pains in your lower back and shoulders.It is not a pleasant experience at all.
I think for a commute of 30-40 minutes it does not constitute an issue,but any longer than an hour and you will start getting problems.

How they can say medically correct is abit of a misnomer.All back profiles are different.
Some people can live with a near perpendicular pitch,others cannot.
Some people can live without lumbar support, others cannot

There is no flexibility in the seating at all to accomodate some kind of "memory foam" which can shape according to eveybody's needs.
Actually there is no foam at all, Every bump gets transmitted straight up your back,and 3 hours sitting in one of those leaves your posterior as sore as a trip to the headmasters office in the good old days of corporal punishment!

 

[hooverboy]

313s feel like they're falling apart, so no thanks.

170s are fine, as are 180s when they're not catching fire, but I'm not sure I'd want diesel through the Thameslink core

I would have issues with some 170's too,as far as seating is concerned.

the WMT 172's I find too hard and upright,whereas the ex GA 170's(and to a degree crosscountry) I find the seat profile quite decent,even if the legroom come up a little short.

 

[guilbert]

Aside from the hard seats, the lack of seats is my major issue with them - I think it's around 12 fewer per car than a 365. That makes sense in the core but for a typical outer suburban service which is busy but not crush loaded, with a 365 you might have all the seats taken plus a handful of people in the vestibules but swap it for a 700 and you have an extra 6 people in each door area which makes things significantly less comfortable. They do have many plus points though, ride quality is decent, the windows are large, acceleration is good etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Aside from the hard seats, the lack of seats is my major issue with them - I think it's around 12 fewer per car than a 365. That makes sense in the core but for a typical outer suburban service which is busy but not crush loaded, with a 365 you might have all the seats taken plus a handful of people in the vestibules but swap it for a 700 and you have an extra 6 people in each door area which makes things significantly less comfortable. They do have many plus points though, ride quality is decent, the windows are large, acceleration is good etc.

Interestingly the otherwise very similar 717s have a side facing seat in every other standback - I guess they expect less overcrowding, though it only adds 4 seats per coach.

 

[SolomonSouth]

The 700s are decent. Hard seats, but fairly well shaped. Spacious aisles, though the legroom is limited - someone with long legs would be having a bit of a hard time. Saying that, I'm just over 6ft tall and it is only a little short legroom-wise. Not as bad as a Class 376.

The 700s accelerate more quickly than 360s, and ride far more smoothly than either 377s or 387s on the BML. On the ECML, they ride smoother than IETs and 387s, and were perhaps on par (more or less) with the 365. Not to mention they have 3 toilets whilst most units have just 1, and they have far more standing room than 2*387 or 2*365.

Objectively, they are pretty good if you look at it.

 

[Steve Harris]

Opinions are subjective.
The vast majority of people who use these trains find the seating as such not just uncomfortable,but actually quite painful on a long distance haul.

I will do end to end bedford-brighton occasionally,and those seats leave you with pains in your lower back and shoulders.It is not a pleasant experience at all.
I think for a commute of 30-40 minutes it does not constitute an issue,but any longer than an hour and you will start getting problems.

How they can say medically correct is abit of a misnomer.All back profiles are different.
Some people can live with a near perpendicular pitch,others cannot.
Some people can live without lumbar support, others cannot

There is no flexibility in the seating at all to accomodate some kind of "memory foam" which can shape according to eveybody's needs.
Actually there is no foam at all, Every bump gets transmitted straight up your back,and 3 hours sitting in one of those leaves your posterior as sore as a trip to the headmasters office in the good old days of corporal punishment!

When I travel on a 700 my journey is just over an hour and to be honest I'm glad to get off. As by that time my backside has firmly gone to sleep (pardon the pun). Yes they are reliable and quick but as already pointed out (and well documented) the seats are to hard and the interior is like being in a hospital, far to harsh/clinical.

So my answer to the OP's question is yes (but hopefully that answer will change if the interior gets sorted out when they have a refresh/refurb in the future).

 

[mmh]

So my answer to the OP's question is yes (but hopefully that answer will change if the interior gets sorted out when they have a refresh/refurb in the future).

That feels like wishful thinking I'm afraid. I'd be entirely unsurprised if they make it to the scrap yard without the interior being changed - that is what happened to the 319s (other than the "Brighton Express" units) they replaced, after all.

 

[Bald Rick]

Opinions are subjective.

absolutely correct.

The vast majority of people who use these trains find the seating as such not just uncomfortable,but actually quite painful on a long distance haul.

I refer you to your previous sentence.

 

[Mikey C]

The 700s are decent. Hard seats, but fairly well shaped. Spacious aisles, though the legroom is limited - someone with long legs would be having a bit of a hard time. Saying that, I'm just over 6ft tall and it is only a little short legroom-wise. Not as bad as a Class 376.

The 700s accelerate more quickly than 360s, and ride far more smoothly than either 377s or 387s on the BML. On the ECML, they ride smoother than IETs and 387s, and were perhaps on par (more or less) with the 365. Not to mention they have 3 toilets whilst most units have just 1, and they have far more standing room than 2*387 or 2*365.

Objectively, they are pretty good if you look at it.

Slightly confused by that, as the 376s have plenty of legroom? Indeed the airline seats have "too much" legroom, it feels like a waste of space

 

[AM9]

absolutely correct.



I refer you to your previous sentence.

Yup, there goes somebody who knows what "the vast majority think", psychic maybe? Strangely, it's replyingto my post and informs me: "but any longer than an hour and you will start getting problems". Well, every time I've travelled for over an hour I've actually been there and didn't start getting problems, so if Hooverboy was there to witness me having problems, it's being misreported in that post.
In reality, whinging about Desiro City trains has become a bandwagon matter.

 

[43066]

Yup, there goes somebody who knows what "the vast majority think", psychic maybe? Strangely, it's replyingto my post and informs me: "but any longer than an hour and you will start getting problems". Well, every time I've travelled for over an hour I've actually been there and didn't start getting problems, so if Hooverboy was there to witness me having problems, it's being misreported in that post.
In reality, whinging about Desiro City trains has become a bandwagon matter.

There’s probably some truth in this.

I think the 700 interiors could be better, don’t get me wrong. They are drab and depressingly utilitarian, in stark contrast with the 707s which look fantastic, as noted above. Perhaps the drab colours psychosomatically contribute to people feeling uncomfortable!

However I suspect the audience on here generally favours mk1 and 2 loco hauled coaching stock with horsehair stuffed seats, so any modern train will get a tough reception.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There’s probably some truth in this.

I think the 700 interiors could be better, don’t get me wrong. They are drab and depressingly utilitarian, in stark contrast with the 707s which look fantastic, as noted above. Perhaps the drab colours psychosomatically contribute to people feeling uncomfortable

That clearly does work, as there is no shortage of "LNER 80x are lovely, GWR ones are horrid" when they are, buffet aside, exactly the same.

 

[bramling]

That clearly does work, as there is no shortage of "LNER 80x are lovely, GWR ones are horrid" when they are, buffet aside, exactly the same.

I'm not sure that's necessarily the case. I'd put it more "LNER 80x are horrible, GWR ones are absolutely vile"!

Agree the 700 decor doesn't help - it's utterly depressing. But that's only half the story, as there's still the seats pressed up against the sides, the ducting, the hardness, the lack of legroom, the funny smell, the sound of the screaming baby in the next carriage, the annoying buzz from the auxiliaries, to name but a few things.

 

[Steve Harris]

That feels like wishful thinking I'm afraid. I'd be entirely unsurprised if they make it to the scrap yard without the interior being changed - that is what happened to the 319s (other than the "Brighton Express" units) they replaced, after all.

Well, if they don't do anything with the seats I can see the taxpayer paying the cash to the NHS to sort a lot of people's backs out. So whatever way you look at it the customer will be paying one way or other !

 

[JonathanH]

Well, if they don't do anything with the seats I can see the taxpayer paying the cash to the NHS to sort a lot of people's backs out.

People do their back (and spine) more damage by slouching and by straining it than they do sitting properly in train seats. It is not at all clear how sitting in a train seat can put someone's back out.

 

[QSK19]

Just got off a 700 after a 1 hour journey. Seats as uncomfortable as hell - it’s like a plank of wood is more comfortable to lay your back against! But, as others have said, it’s a subjective view and I can appreciate that others find them just fine.

 

[Steve Harris]

People do their back (and spine) more damage by slouching and by straining it than they do sitting properly in train seats. It is not at all clear how sitting in a train seat can put someone's back out.

Well. My bad back is not through "slouching" but as a child I strained it through lifting something heavy with my dad (pre H&S training in the workplace) and the seats in a 700 don't do it any good what so ever. However, my car (built in the same year as the first Class 700) is fine and doesn't give me any problems (and that's with it set on full lumber and non lumber settings).

It also isn't clear if sitting in a train seat doesn't put out/inflame a person's already damaged back/spine.
Bearing in mind I've personally seen a work colleagues spine lock by them just turning around !!

It's a shame basic manual handling wasn't taught in school or in the workplace when I was a child. I then might of not aggravated my back and I'd be saying the 700 seats are the best thing since slice bread !! But I'm sure I'm not the only person who is glad to get off them after an hour.

 

[maniacmartin]

I am unfortunate enough to have to commute by these trains, and I hate them.
Yes, they soak up passengers very effectively due to wide doors and lots of standing space, dwell times are low and the PIS is decent.

Now for the bad points:
- The seats give me backache in a matter of minutes. Even travelling from St Pancras to Blackfriars will give me backache. It's not the lack of padding, but the shape of the seats just doesn't agree with my back. I have no back problems with any others seats and I have no back issues in any other part of my life.
- The window seats have that massive heating duct, and unlike all other trains I've been on, the duct top is sloping not flat, so you can't rest your feet on it. Therefore, you have to encroach on the footwell of the neighbouring seat
- The aisle seats have reduced footroom too, because they decided to make the seat supports diagonal instead of vertical, presumably to make cleaning easier.
- There are no armrests. By backup plan for trains with no armrests is to use the windowsill as an armrest, but you can't on these as the window is too high. Failing that I use the tray table as an armrest, but not all seats on this stock have them.

The train might as well have zero seats as far as I'm concerned, because none of them are usable for me. I always stand for the entire journey, usually in the place where two carriages join, as that is the least busy place. I notice that quite a few people opt to stand for the entire journey too.

Since Covid, I've started driving into the City now at weekends, despite living near near East Croydon station. It is comfier and can be cheaper if you know where to park

 

[AM9]

Well. My bad back is not through "slouching" but as a child I strained it through lifting something heavy with my dad (pre H&S training in the workplace) and the seats in a 700 don't do it any good what so ever. However, my car (built in the same year as the first Class 700) is fine and doesn't give me any problems (and that's with it set on full lumber and non lumber settings).

It also isn't clear if sitting in a train seat doesn't put out/inflame a person's already damaged back/spine.
Bearing in mind I've personally seen a work colleagues spine lock by them just turning around !!

It's a shame basic manual handling wasn't taught in school or in the workplace when I was a child. I then might of not aggravated my back and I'd be saying the 700 seats are the best thing since slice bread !! But I'm sure I'm not the only person who is glad to get off them after an hour.

So much of this thread is personal preferences supported by well crafted anecdotes. The seats are of a profile recommended for good posture by most orthopedic and musculo-skeletal professionals for normal healthy individuals. There are more normal healthy adults than those with specific spinal issues, however even for that group, many would benefit from better posture, even if they imagined that a soggy seat with poor support wfely more comfortable at the time therefore must be better in the long term. Well, so be it but they are in the minority of passengers and of necessity, the railway caters for the majority.
Much the same about colour schemes in passenger accommodation, - to some a train, and specifically a fast high turnover train is where lighting and clarity of destination, and signage is a high priority, whereas to others, a subdued cosy atmosphere is their choice more like a travelling lounge.is preferred.
Trains ar just another demonstration that you can't please all the people all the time.
If the recent downturn in passenger numbers become more permanent, I suspect to hat the Desiro City's will gets slight change of interiors at their mid-life refit, - in about 10-15 years time.

 

[maniacmartin]

There'll be more adults with specific spinal issues soon though, if they keep travelling on class 700s

 

[AM9]

There'll be more adults with specific spinal issues soon though, if they keep travelling on class 700s

Do you have evidence that the seats in the class 700 actually causes chronic back problems in many people and are the sole cause (or even just the main cause)?

 

[maniacmartin]

It was a joke, hence the emoticon at the end.

 

[Steve Harris]

So much of this thread is personal preferences supported by well crafted anecdotes. The seats are of a profile recommended for good posture by most orthopedic and musculo-skeletal professionals for normal healthy individuals. There are more normal healthy adults than those with specific spinal issues, however even for that group, many would benefit from better posture, even if they imagined that a soggy seat with poor support wfely more comfortable at the time therefore must be better in the long term. Well, so be it but they are in the minority of passengers and of necessity, the railway caters for the majority.
Much the same about colour schemes in passenger accommodation, - to some a train, and specifically a fast high turnover train is where lighting and clarity of destination, and signage is a high priority, whereas to others, a subdued cosy atmosphere is their choice more like a travelling lounge.is preferred.
Trains ar just another demonstration that you can't please all the people all the time.
If the recent downturn in passenger numbers become more permanent, I suspect to hat the Desiro City's will gets slight change of interiors at their mid-life refit, - in about 10-15 years time.

Can you actually name these "most orthopedic and musculo-skeletal professionals" or is that just a BS line lifted from a corporate website ?

 

[Goldfish62]

So much of this thread is personal preferences supported by well crafted anecdotes. The seats are of a profile recommended for good posture by most orthopedic and musculo-skeletal professionals for normal healthy individuals.

Oh come now, that's got nothing to do with it. The seats are very upright not because the DfT cares about our postures, but to be able to cram more seats in. It's as simple as that.