matthewmacleod
Member
- Joined
- 19 May 2011
- Messages
- 128
What's the practical difference – more transverse seating?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Class 345 progress
- Thread starter samuelmorris
- Start date
- Status
What's the practical difference – more transverse seating?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I think a lot of those "complaints" would have been avoided if Crossrail didn't go further than Slough. But if you were going further to Maidenhead then you're half-way to the major interchange and town of Reading so in that case it was completely sensible to reach there.
Indeed not for this average traveller, who has grown up using the Tube so sideways seats, no racks and going to the toilet before/after your journey is not an alien concept. At least they are "normal size" trains rather than tiny little Tube ones.
The RER's train interior layout is biased towards suburban commuting. The Elizabeth interior is biased towards short(ish) distance subway journeys with maximum standing capacity, absolutely perfect for the Crossrail core.
Crossrail is a TfL project with over half of it funded by London's council tax payers or London businesses*. So what has been provided is a railway that meets the needs of passengers between Harold Wood, Abbey Wood, Heathrow and West Drayton. Key to those passengers'needs is a high capacity service over those stretches of routes.
I wouldn't expect those funders to pay for enhancements for the few travelling outside those limits. If it is so important, the Berkshire/Reading/Essex local authorities would be only too keen to contribute.
* - something that those who continually claim the whole country pays for London rail projects should remember.
But will people of shenfield really get a stopping train all the way in just so they don't have to change?
Anyway, I agree that the majority of luxuries really aren't necessary, especially since it is essentially being advertised as a tube line (through the use of the word 'line'). People won't expect more. I'd still like to see toilets but that's my personal opinion and not what everyone would consider beneficial.
The only flaw I see in the design of the train is for those out on the long western stretch of the route, I wouldn't want to sit on a seat of a 345 all the way to Maidenhead or twyford etc (whether those commuters paid for the project or not)but that's only a small proportion of where passenger demand would be so I guess the basic layout is better for most passengers
Last edited:
samuelmorris
Established Member
Not from Shenfield but from Brentwood they would, because I do.
So the Thames Valley commuter can like it or lump it? I expect many TV commuters will crowd onto the remaining GWR services on the GW mains for the faster, more comfortable option into London as before (as they do on Chiltern's Aylesbury route). Some may quit rail travel altogether if the 345s aren't to their satisfaction, and that would be a very unfortunate outcome for the railway.
My friend who lives in Reading and works in Moorgate decided long ago that avoiding the Paddington change was hugely worth it, the recent information that the Reading services will be Fast+Stopping rather than Semifast×2 will only improve his strategy.
On more positive news, this was posted on Twitter by Richard Clinnick of Rail:
https://twitter.com/Clinnick1/status/1030371288269893637
https://twitter.com/Clinnick1/status/1030371288269893637
Last edited:
The journey time on Crossrail from Liverpool St to Shenfield takes 41 minutes, whereas the time from Paddington to Maidenhead only takes 35 minutes. Even travelling to Reading from Paddington only takes nine minutes longer than Liverpool St to Shenfield at the eastern limit of Crossrail. So given that those outside the GLA area are being subsidised in part by London council tax payers and London businesses, to answer your question, yes, those living in Berkshire can benefit from the subsidy or lump it.
If as you suggest, there is a mass exodus from stations west of Maidenhead, then the service will be adjusted to meet that demand. I wouldn't be under any illusion that Crossrail as a whole will suffer as there is already an expectation that the trains will be loaded at or near full capacity for much of the day, soon after the line opens fully. So it's pointless dreaming of "a very unfortunate outcome for the railway".
Last edited:
Your calculations don't take into account all those who now have to change trains in the Thames Valley (Henley & Marlow branches, and all those using GWR stoppers west of Reading). Some need to change twice in Dec '19 (commuters north of Didcot) just to get a service into London as a consequence of Elizabeth taking all the peak paths on the GW reliefs. Nearly all these commuters could take direct trains to Paddington before electrification.
The local passenger groups in the Thames Valley are not happy with the specifications of the 345s. That's a fact. These groups represent many commuters to London who pay around £4k+/year in season tickets. Their discontentment may influence future decisions taken with regards to giving TfL control of further suburban lines that run beyond the GLA boundary.
I agree that Elizabeth will be a success story for TfL within and around the Greater London area, once it's all up and running satisfactorily. TfL should rightly be commended taking the project on and seeing it through to completion - a DfT led Crossrail would probably have totally stalled in the aftermath of the 2008 recession.
-
I should add that I'm personally not that bothered by the 345s as my rail journeys are usually short and I don't mind travelling sideways (ultra hard seats aside - but that's a new train safety standards issue, not a TfL one). However, I am more than happy to put their point of view across here.
It's not a completely alien concept, maybe not with crossrail specifically but I thought passenger numbers aren't increasing as fast yet delays, overcrowding and cancellations are increasing (from an average passengers perspective who isn't going to look up stats). That accompanied with hotter summers yet no/broken air con, harder seats, less seats, rising fares etc may lead some to seek alternative routes. It's a downward spiral really. Every time there is a fare increase people will talk about how they will "no longer stand for it" and although we might not have reached it yet and might not for quite some time longer, I believe there will be a tipping point where people will no longer stand for it and the railways may suffer. (Don't get offended, it's my opinion and im not writing this from a statistical point of view, but from an average commuter/passenger point of view who may not fully understand the railways and just see it as greedy companies taking more money for more profit)
Edit: reading the quote again, I agree it won't be "very unfortunate, or majorly radical" but I still do believe in the whole downward spiral thing. I also don't actually mind hard or longitudinal seats, they don't really affect me much however I know some do and some will really not be pleased which is where my "air conditioned box" comment came from however it also came from the fact that whether the 345s are fit for purpose or not, the 387s simply have more for those to use on board.
Last edited:
reddragon
Established Member
Now lets consider a bit of history here!
The east has class 315s, built on the cheap by BR, with hard pad seats that don't align with any windows and without toilets. These replaced the class 306s, with comfy seats and a nice vintage interior but they rode like the runaway train at a theme park. Then there were the 307s, built without any springs, as much power as a milk float and stalled on Brentwood bank frequently, compartments and toilets for 1st class passengers. Before that it was very poor quality LNER compartment stock.
So lets agree that the class 345 is better than anything before in the east.
The west now at last has proper trains (class 387s), with all the mod cons, but they have only just replaced the Turbos, which were 2/3 cars only and the quality of the seats / toilet / broken aircon, useless wifi was irrelevant when the only concern was being able to board a train at some point. The class 117s before were slow, draughty and you had to sit in the centre car where 1st class had a toilet.
The class 387s will still call at Twyford & Maidenhead then fast giving a far superior service than has ever existed before. The class 345s have more seats than the longest 6-car turbos ever had. Everyone will have a quicker service except a small number of commutes between beyond Reading to inner stations.
So apart from those in Henley / Marlow who will never be happy and only want a personal Pullman train which breakfast served by a waiter to take them to work, the Class 345s are better for the majority.
I miss the comfy but very bouncy class 306s of my youth and the excellent HST peak services I recently enjoyed.
The class 345s travel no longer than the Met line or Central Line from outer London and smash the cross London journey times.
Time to move forwards and not go back to steam
The east has class 315s, built on the cheap by BR, with hard pad seats that don't align with any windows and without toilets. These replaced the class 306s, with comfy seats and a nice vintage interior but they rode like the runaway train at a theme park. Then there were the 307s, built without any springs, as much power as a milk float and stalled on Brentwood bank frequently, compartments and toilets for 1st class passengers. Before that it was very poor quality LNER compartment stock.
So lets agree that the class 345 is better than anything before in the east.
The west now at last has proper trains (class 387s), with all the mod cons, but they have only just replaced the Turbos, which were 2/3 cars only and the quality of the seats / toilet / broken aircon, useless wifi was irrelevant when the only concern was being able to board a train at some point. The class 117s before were slow, draughty and you had to sit in the centre car where 1st class had a toilet.
The class 387s will still call at Twyford & Maidenhead then fast giving a far superior service than has ever existed before. The class 345s have more seats than the longest 6-car turbos ever had. Everyone will have a quicker service except a small number of commutes between beyond Reading to inner stations.
So apart from those in Henley / Marlow who will never be happy and only want a personal Pullman train which breakfast served by a waiter to take them to work, the Class 345s are better for the majority.
I miss the comfy but very bouncy class 306s of my youth and the excellent HST peak services I recently enjoyed.
The class 345s travel no longer than the Met line or Central Line from outer London and smash the cross London journey times.
Time to move forwards and not go back to steam
EssexGonzo
Member
- Joined
- 9 May 2012
- Messages
- 636
If the overall journey time is similar, maybe. Getting on a Crossrail train at Shenfield guarantees a seat. Getting on a GA train at peak, a seat is unlikely.
My end to end journey is currently Shenfield to Farringdon. In the peak that's 28 mins journey, 5 mins walk to Circle platform, 2 mins wait, 5 mins journey. Total c. 40 mins.
Shenfield to Farringdon on the Elizabeth Line will be approx 44 mins.
I'll certainly be giving it a try.
The GWR's (1838-1948) suburban carriages didn't have loos...
Hurling cheap insults at commuters isn't terribly respectful either, wherever they reside.
samuelmorris
Established Member
I fail to see how that's a cheap insult, seems a perfectly fair remark, just a bit of hyperbole to get the point across.
The 315 seats aren't wonderful because of their low backs but they are nothing like as firm as those on the 345s, not even the 360s have seats anywhere near that firm, nor even in my opinion the 387s. Nonetheless the 37 minute journey from Liverpool Street to Brentwood is still sufficiently comfortable for me to sit and doze off. The temperature being tolerable during summer makes that generally more pleasant than before, even if I do wish the seats were not effectively a block of wood and a pillowcase.
As for the interchange, I'll be experimenting with all permutations with great interest. I suspect once the 720s arrive en masse, during summer I may well still go via Shenfield and back if I'm connecting at Liverpool Street or Stratford to somewhere not obviously served by Crossrail (e.g. Bermondsey on the Jubilee), but otherwise I'll use the line straight through. Oxford Circus for example I'll just use the eastern end at Bond Street, plenty close enough, if not technically closer to the clients I visit in that area, which are both near Maddox St.
As it currently stands going there, I take a rather circuitous route via Kings Cross, either using the SSL from Liverpool Street, or sometimes HS1 from Stratford International if I can get a quick changeover. I've done too much peak time central line commuting already in my lifetime, as nice as it would be to ride every 92TS unit out there, I'm not sure I can be bothered
- even though it doesn't directly serve the station, the Elizabeth line provides a convenient, direct way of getting there comfortably, so it'll be extremely useful at this end, despite the long journey time sat on a Metro unit. The point of this tangent is really, despite the fact that it would be a lot nicer to be on something like a 720 (one would hope) or 387 for a journey of that duration, for the core section to fulfill its job, the 345s have to be specified as they are, and the fact that they are configured such isn't nearly enough of a negative to outweigh all the positives the service provides. You couldn't have the Elizabeth line service through central London acting as additional tube capacity with the sort of interior people expect for a 40 minute commute. The fact that TfL have configured the units with the bays of transverse seating that they have for those commuting from the outside edges like Brentwood and Twyford is really smart thinking and I honestly think it's the best compromise. I just wish the seats were slightly better!
I'm a little disappointed to see the 710s aren't following the same approach with their centre vehicles to be honest, but that's a matter for another thread...
Honestly that's a lot shorter a time than I expected. Goes to show what a modern EMU is capable of.
I guess at the end of the day, similar to what was said in the post above #2446, the train serve their purpose and I don't think too many people mind rock hard longitudinal seats enough to become vocal about it as when on a 345 I often see both lone travellers and groups (myself included) opt for the longitudinal seats when plenty of transverse seats are available. Also, as a side note I find it both satisfying and mind-boggling how easy and quickly a 7car 345 can swallow up the peak crowds at Stratford, it's honestly great and is a good example of why they were built so bare inside.
In many major overhaul of services there will be those who gain and those who lose. It's a decision that is taken for the majority. Crossrail is a very large increase in services that will benefit the region as a whole by increasing capacity over 10%. It's inevitable that with finite infrastructure, a few will think that they have been hard done by. Rest assured though that the relief line from the Westbourne Park portals to Maidenhead will be carrying more passengers in the peak than ever before at speeds way faster than any previous services.
Local passenger pressure groups can complain as much as they like, - the class 345 trains are purpose designed to provide the whole service. The fact that TfL agreed to run the trains past West Drayton despite it being partly at London's expense, was to make more efficient use of the reliefs and provide a better service for the majority of passengers. The £4K+ per year season ticket is a red herring in the context of this thread, that's £16+ per day (or about £0.26 per mile) Anytime travel, - all London commuters pay similar amounts (per mile) for their journeys.
I doubt that a few commuter protests will have much impact on major decisions as to which body provides rail services. There are much bigger issues involved.
The design of the class 345s has been approved for safe carriage and efficient of up to 1500 passengers per 9-car unit. Like the class 700s, the 345s are examples of modern high-capacity rolling stock. I think that as other commuter lines reach saturation on infrastructure that cannot reasonably be extended, designs like them will become more common.
Wivenswold
Established Member
@Reddraggon @samuelmorris @AM9 I can't "like" your comments but I wanted to say thank you for superb analysis.
cactustwirly
Established Member
Except Epping/Amersham to zone 1 doesn't cost £20.
If you give us tube style trains, you should give us the fares to match!
The 345s are a significant downgrade to the 165s, since they had loads of comfortable seats, loos, and luggage space.
I seriously doubt a 345 has more seats that a 6 car 165.
The timings can be faster with EMUs on the GW relief line. The line speed is 90mph in large parts. The 165/166 Turbos did 90mph (with slower acceleration), the 387s can do 110. 345s can do 90. So faster acceleration from a standing start, certainly. The station dwell times can be improved upon too.
If 345s are designed to provide the 'whole service' - would you willingly travel on them as an interurban train Reading to Abbey Wood/Shenfield end to end? They are not interurban rolling stock. British Rail's CrossRail mock up was designed as interurban, Thameslink class 700 is interurban stock. 'Whole service' as a metro or subway train service, certainly.
Local passenger groups are voluntary organisations, and champions of local public transport infrastructure. These people happily promote public transport usage in their free time. They are conduits for dialogue between transport managers and passengers. If your local passenger group had public misgivings about a major project, and you were an affected passenger how would you feel?
TfL doesn't get things right all the time - but TfL has no political accountability outside Greater London.
The DfT consulted recently on a proposed splitting of the GW franchise in the West - due to the responses from the public this will not now happen. I'd expect the feedback was almost wholly negative.
Protests: Remember 'Worst Late Western'? Oh they aren't called that any more as their old FGW brand became 'toxic' due to passenger protests and an public association with a dismal passenger service in the mid to late 2000's.
That's why I'm glad I'm not commuting in and out of London. Standing and standing room only. Others will call them cattle trucks. I will politely describe them as them subway trains. I'd hope all new rolling stock on the UK railway is safe, reliable and efficient.
matt_world2004
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2014
- Messages
- 4,504
Wouldnt long distance commuters from reading likely get a gwr fast train to the nearest suitable interchange point and then crossrail from there.
reddragon
Established Member
class 165 3 car = 233 seats, 2 car 145 seats so a max of 466 seats - chance of turning up, once in a blue moon
class 345 = 450 seats on all services
Not sure what you are trying to say there. The relief lines (let's call them the more conventional 'slows' because that's what they really are), are not aligned for 110 mph, and even if they were, there wouldn't be much point in the expense as they have to accommodate stoppers and the heavy freight. The freight is limited to 75mph anyway. The faster acceleration of EMUs (especially the class 345s) increases the capacity of the slows and in practical terms, reduces the end-to-end times of all trains using them.
Just like Thameslink, Crossrail is not intended to address what must be a tiny market for travelling the full length of the longest journeys. It is a double-eneded suburban line with an opportunity to travel across the centre of London without changing. Typical journeys will be from the east to Heathrow, maybe slough, and from the west, to Stratford and Canary Wharf. If I needed to make those journeys, it would be OK given that the inconvenience of changing trains twice would be far more irritating than firmer seats. If I was a regular traveller over that journey, then I would probably plan to sit in the transverse seats.
Indifferent because I am looking at the bigger picture, i.e. railways are mass transport systems and just as Crossrail is a solution for the difficulties in the core, the east and the west, there are inevitable compromises. My local line (MML Thameslink) has just undergone a massive upgrade. What do I get from it? Well there's new (ultimately more reliable) trains, but they have smaller harder seats, there will be some additional disruption as the line will run at far higher density, - they are the negatives. Then the major positive is that the capacity of the line will be able to meet the demands of the next 10-30 years. Similar to Crossrail's delivery promise. Of course there are plenty of complaints along the Thameslink routes, but once the current problems have been conquered, the service willmeet the objectives. The constant whining about quite narrow issues plus the opportunistic claims by a few MPs won't really make much of a difference. That includes commuter mouthpieces and local newspapers. I've never seen rail travel as all about me.
Nobody gets things right all the time and that include rail passengers. The world is not a perfect place. So looking at the current issues on GTR and Northern services, how much accountability does the DfT and the SoS for Transport have when the SoS pretends that he doesn't understands rail and deflects all criticism onto the TOCs and Network Rail (ironically entirely controlled by the DfT)?
I think that the clamour of Reading commuters complaining that they might have to pay more to use inter-city trains for a commuter hop wasn't the reason for the shelving of the idea. Some sort of segregation will probably apply either by ticket restrictions or pick up/set down restrictions in due course.
As far as peurile made-up names for TOCs (around here there was 'Worst Capital Connect'), they are typical of soundbite/headline grabbing. Look back 10 years, most have got over the daft names and it their coining changed nothing except within the travelling chattering groups.
As I said above, where the traffic demands of a busy commuter route exceeds the line's capacity, even after every train is running at maximum length and with minimum headways, there are three options left:
1) build additional tracks - through suburban London, dream on!
2) demand management by pricing - politically very difficult
3) increase train maximum capacity - that's seems to be the way ahead, see class 700s, 707s, 710s, 717s, 720s and of course the 345s. It might be standing room only of the busiest trains, but at least all passengers will arrive safely instead of being left on the platform. This is the Crossrail, Thameslink, Crossrail 2, and probably much of the SE commuter lines' solution with high-density commuter trains.
2) demand management by pricing - politically very difficult
3) increase train maximum capacity - that's seems to be the way ahead, see class 700s, 707s, 710s, 717s, 720s and of course the 345s. It might be standing room only of the busiest trains, but at least all passengers will arrive safely instead of being left on the platform. This is the Crossrail, Thameslink, Crossrail 2, and probably much of the SE commuter lines' solution with high-density commuter trains.
cactustwirly
Established Member
The interior of the 345s is too much of a compromise, for stations Slough - Reading to London it's completely unsuitable!
I'll take the Thameslink interior any day of the week over the 345s!
All we're asking is for more transverse seats and a place for luggage!
It isn't a metro, it's a commuter train and the interior should reflect that!
I really don't get the contempt for Thames Valley commuters on this forum.
345s aren't quite reliable just yet although they are improvingclass 165 3 car = 233 seats, 2 car 145 seats so a max of 466 seats - chance of turning up, once in a blue moon
class 345 = 450 seats on all services
In response to the bottom of post #2445, you can only do so much to increase the capacity of a train before rail travel no longer becomes favourable which isn't what we want to do. It's not as if the 387s aren't commuter trains, they're hardly operating for people's one off trips to Edinburgh. Honestly, although I understand we do need to maximise train capacity, more prominent action will need to be taken eventually because once crossrail becomes overcrowded in a few decades, the next steps for maximum capacity on a train will be to remove all seats from half the carriges. Unfortunately, in the UK we are left with trains that even when mainline sized are still very small in comparison to many other countries. The way I see it, why extend crossrail beyond Slough if the trains aren't really fit for it? why extend Thameslink to Peterborough if the train seats aren't fit for it? Maximum capacity is the way we have to go, doesn't mean it will be the favoured option by everyone.
Last edited:
coppercapped
Established Member
Then, at least off-peak, use the two trains per hour GWR service using the Class 387s. This is the half-hourly Paddington - <selected stations> - Reading - stations to Didcot - (and eventually) Oxford outer suburban service.
Have you tried one yet so see how it copes with the loadings west of Paddington?
This is just silly.
The further out from London the more the service is suburban - the closer to London the more metro-like it becomes.
As it's the same train serving both areas, for which area do you make the design compromises? There will be more people on board the closer to London it gets, so I suspect the weighting for the choices moved towards the high density arrangement and the need to keep dwell times in the tunnelled section consistent.
It is almost certain that the bulk of the "Thames Valley commuters" between Slough and London will be quite happy with the design choices and the timetable. The "Thames Valley commuters" living between Twyford and Slough maybe not quite as much and passengers from Reading and points west will probably not use the trains anyway.
I do not feel I have been treated with 'contempt'.
Let's take some positives out of it. It's a phenomenal train for when you just need to bust out some sick dance moves through the Sonning Cutting...
Your original point was that the 345s would be faster than anything previously. That's not feasible.
I hope you never require the assistance of a voluntary organisation - ever. You clearly are above all that.
If you can vote in the next UK General Election, your vote can help remove the party in charge, remove the SoS for Transport and change transport policy. As I don't reside within the Greater London area, I cannot vote for the Mayor or the GLA election. TfL is only really politically accountable to them, not those outside.
Well thanks for that patronising lecture on modern day rail transport around London. I'm sure everyone is much better informed by the facts that you've decanted before us. Thanks also for saying that relief lines are called slow lines elsewhere, aw-shucks - I'll bear that in mind when I'm posting on a forum section about trains that aren't even local to me.
- Status