Class 700's - table-less bays in standard class

[All Line Rover]

The Class 700 fleet introduced to the Thameslink franchise has no tables in standard class. Apparently the provision of a table is sufficiently luxurious to justify the appellation "first class".

However, not all seats in standard class are airline style. A good proportion, perhaps one fifth, are in table-less bays of four.

What, exactly, is the point of these bays? What benefit do they confer on passengers? Or is it simply a case of a bay of four seats occupying even less space than two rows of airline style seats due to the combined legroom being even more constricted?

I mention these bays because, whenever I have travelled on the Thameslink route on relatively empty off-peak trains, the number of passengers occupying the bays with their feet on the seats opposite is incredible. Over half the passengers occupying the bays seem to do so. This is not entirely unforeseeable, so why weren't all the seats in standard class specified as airline-style? If all of the seats had been airline-style and fitted with pull-down tables (which, I understand, are being retrofitted to those airline-style seats that do exist following passenger complaints, having not been specified originally), I would have thought that passengers would be quite satisfied.

 

[Bald Rick]

The point is presumably the same as in the dozens of other classes of train that have face to face seats without tables.

To enable groups of more than 2 people (eg families) to sit with each other, and, perhaps, talk.

 

[MikePJ]

What, exactly, is the point of these bays? What benefit do they confer on passengers? Or is it simply a case of a bay of four seats occupying even less space than two rows of airline style seats due to the combined legroom being even more constricted?
.

Passengers travelling in groups of more than two (notably parents with children) prefer to sit face-to-face rather than airline style.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What, exactly, is the point of these bays? What benefit do they confer on passengers?

The ability to be sociable when travelling in a group? While commuters dislike 350/2s, the bays of 6 are very popular with families and groups off-peak (and the narrow seats aren't a problem if you put a child in the middle), and I've definitely heard whines about it being a /1 because there are very few bays.

It's also easier to get out if there's no table - you can get out of a bay of 6 on a 350 (they are spaced quite generously in terms of pitch) without anyone needing to get up.

 

[jopsuk]

just like, off the top of my head:
Class 317 (most variants) (barring on some where they survive the mini-tables)
Class 365 (many mini-tables missing, mini-tables not much use in outer seats)
Class 321 (the same. In fact just take comments about minitables as read)
Class 357
Class 360
Class 455
Class 456
Class 450
Class 458
Class 465
Class 466
Class 377 (some subclasses)
Class 319 (most)
Class 313
Class 314
Class 315
Class 318
Class 320
Class 334

 

[Bletchleyite]

507 and 508 (all seats, there are no airline seats on these)
350/2
350/1 (one bay by the guard's office, the rest have tables)
150/1
142/3/4 in the middle of the coach
153/156 where the tables have broken and not been replaced

and no doubt others.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Indeed, a mix of non-tabled bays and airline seats is the norm for medium-distance commuter trains.

 

[All Line Rover]

The 175s have a very small number of table-less bays, though the legroom is laughable and there are plenty of tables throughout standard class, so there is no reason to use them.

I was under the impression that the Thameslink fleet was designed with commuters in mind (in other words, similar to the recent rolling stock introduced to the Underground and Overground, but without going so far as to fit longitudinal seating). I'm yet to come across a group making use of a bay, which is surprising considering how many times I've seen them being used as footrests.

 

[jopsuk]

Indeed, a mix of non-tabled bays and airline seats is the norm for medium-distance commuter trains.

It's certainly what the original Thameslink stock has. As such the bays with tables in the 377/5 and 387 fleets is (relatively) short term aberration in the stock history of the line

 

[fgwrich]

350/2, 450, 165, 166.

 

[randyrippley]

If you go back a bit.......corridor coaches had face-to-face seating and never had tables. So did non-corridor compartment stock.
The same goes for Southern EMUs like the VEPs, so there's plenty of precedence

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's certainly what the original Thameslink stock has. As such the bays with tables in the 377/5 and 387 fleets is (relatively) short term aberration in the stock history of the line

Indeed. The Electrostar fleets were only ever a temporary stopgap, but people seem to have got used to their InterCity quality interiors and don't want rid

The Class 319 is the valid comparison, really.

 

[387star]

Indeed. The Electrostar fleets were only ever a temporary stopgap, but people seem to have got used to their InterCity quality interiors and don't want rid

The Class 319 is the valid comparison, really.

most commuters south of east croydon have likely forgotton 319s exist such is their rarity now

 

[Starmill]

What I want to know is why no half-table? Or AT LEAST a cup holder as with some Chiltern Turbos. I really don't see how this could impact on dwell times. The 380 manages this (along with sockets and *shock* wifi) perfectly.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

If I can't sit in an airline seat and have to take a bay, I would very much rather it was one without a table than one with a table.

 

[bnsf734]

Add Class 172 and 323 to the list.

 

[deltic]

You can stretch your feet and move around it - which is useful given the seats are incredibly uncomfortable as I am presently finding out on a London Bridge- Brighton service

 

[Deepgreen]

Who approves these designs?! Airline-style seats with folding tables are surely a basic requirement these days, so why do they have to be retro-fitted? Yet another train design that seems to have ignored some basic requirements of those who actually use them. Surely it can't have been that hard to envisage that, given the plethora of items most people have with them these days - most notably hot drinks and laptops/tablets, etc., - a table would be fundamental.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree the lack of folding tables and small bay tables is silly. The 350/2s are similarly poorly endowed, one of the many reasons commuters dislike them.

 

[Deepgreen]

I agree the lack of folding tables and small bay tables is silly. The 350/2s are similarly poorly endowed, one of the many reasons commuters dislike them.

Leaving aside the premise of designing trains with basic passenger convenience in mind and taking one element of table use alone; given the huge increase in drinks taken on board trains now (morning coffees, for example), having a table surely makes good business sense too, as passengers will place their cups on the table and a) are more likely to take them with them when they alight, b) are less likely to put them on the floor and knock them over, meaning less spillage, and, c) those that are left behind are easier to collect by cleaners.

 

[Class377/5]

Who approves these designs?! Airline-style seats with folding tables are surely a basic requirement these days, so why do they have to be retro-fitted? Yet another train design that seems to have ignored some basic requirements of those who actually use them. Surely it can't have been that hard to envisage that, given the plethora of items most people have with them these days - most notably hot drinks and laptops/tablets, etc., - a table would be fundamental.

DfT, its their spec train.

 

[387star]

I read on here something like it isn't possible to fit existing seats with tables and they would have to swap seats about when the tables come as standard in the later builds?

Surely fitting them at these facing seats would be easier like the chiltern railways class 172 cup holder that came in use on my trip to stratford on avon from london recently- interestingly those units were not built for such work and it is usually in the hands of the 168s

 

[185143]

DfT, its their spec train.

Says a lot...

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[physics34]

I read on here something like it isn't possible to fit existing seats with tables and they would have to swap seats about when the tables come as standard in the later builds?

Surely fitting them at these facing seats would be easier like the chiltern railways class 172 cup holder that came in use on my trip to stratford on avon from london recently- interestingly those units were not built for such work and it is usually in the hands of the 168s

Got to be false as, if you look at a folding table on a 377/6 or /7 on the virtually identical seat, it is just screwed on to the "piping " on the sides of the seats. Would need probably 2 screw holes per seat and a couple of brackets.

 

[hwl]

Who approves these designs?! Airline-style seats with folding tables are surely a basic requirement these days, so why do they have to be retro-fitted? Yet another train design that seems to have ignored some basic requirements of those who actually use them. Surely it can't have been that hard to envisage that, given the plethora of items most people have with them these days - most notably hot drinks and laptops/tablets, etc., - a table would be fundamental.

The most basic requirement is low dwell time in the Core for recover purposes equivalent to 30tph
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Got to be false as, if you look at a folding table on a 377/6 or /7 on the virtually identical seat, it is just screwed on to the "piping " on the sides of the seats. Would need probably 2 screw holes per seat and a couple of brackets.

Try getting the self cutting / tapping screws in from the window side on the window seat
Hence you have to remove the seat frame to fit them...

 

[physics34]

Try getting the self cutting / tapping screws in from the window side on the window seat
Hence you have to remove the seat frame to fit them...

do that they must then... to please thine passengers ... anyway im genuinely surprised they have not made the seating and layout easy to reconfigure when required.

 

[AM9]

do that they must then... to please thine passengers ... anyway im genuinely surprised they have not made the seating and layout easy to reconfigure when required.

All of the class 700 units need to have the same seating configuration in order for the extreme dwell time requirements to be met. The dwell times will become more critical every year so the next opportunity to make fleet-wide changes will be at the refit/refurb, probably the mid-life update, (as per the current in-service class 350s).

 

[hwl]

do that they must then... to please thine passengers ... anyway im genuinely surprised they have not made the seating and layout easy to reconfigure when required.

Teh seating will be very easy to reconfigure as it is all side rather than side/floor mounted. Fitting drop down tables to the window seats is about the hardest thing.
If you're really worried about dwell time performance then a sensible compromise might be drop down tables in Window but not Aisle seats.

 

[Greenback]

If I can't sit in an airline seat and have to take a bay, I would very much rather it was one without a table than one with a table.

I am in total agreement with you!

I agree the lack of folding tables and small bay tables is silly. The 350/2s are similarly poorly endowed, one of the many reasons commuters dislike them.

As bay table would be OK. I find the bigger tables, finding or not, simply take up too much room. They can also lead to arguments as one person will usually try to take up other people's space.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The small tables provided on the Class 321 are good for coffees etc. Probably the ideal solution for commuter stock (which, even though you can make some longer journeys, it primarily is - just as Merseyrail is primarily a commuter operation even though you can make quite a long journey from, say, Southport to Chester).

 

[bramling]

The small tables provided on the Class 321 are good for coffees etc. Probably the ideal solution for commuter stock (which, even though you can make some longer journeys, it primarily is - just as Merseyrail is primarily a commuter operation even though you can make quite a long journey from, say, Southport to Chester).

Same with the 365s. The tables are big enough to be useful, but small enough not to get in the way.