Exactly what is the point you are trying to make, and what is your viewpoint (within the industry, presumably)? Possibly you're one of the new "beneficiaries" of the 319s up North?
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. I have never had any connection with the railway other than an appreciator of railway technology and operations and also as a fare-paying passenger.
If you can see my location, it is near the busiest Thameslink station outside the London zones so I am not biased towards (or against) those in the North. In fact if you read some of my contributions to earlier threads about both London and Northern rolling stock matter, it is clear that I have no regional bias at all but I am not blind to differences that exist between all areas of the UK.
At any rate it seems you're saying the public should not aspire to such luxuries, despite their provision on other trains. I get the impression you're arguing for "get what you're given, be grateful and, as long as we can accommodate as many people as possible on hard seats or standing, the job's a goodun".
No, like some others, you have assumed wrongly that I have any interest in the travelling public's 'luxury' aspirations. When I travel, I take responsibility for my own requirements.
This thread is about the introduction of the class 700s into service. It has posts from members who have for the first time, had an opportunity to travel on the new trains so understandably has gathered some views on them.
The fact is that Thameslink is a special case, - maybe unique in National Rail because of the need for maximising the capacity of a barely adequate infrastructure. The MML has been subject to explosive commuter growth ever since the last 'Bedpan' DMUs stopped running into St Pancras in the early '80s. First, electrification brought the full sparks effect when the class 317s transformed the life of commuters. Demand for housing near the route put house prices along the line up 30% more than similar places off the route. Then at the end of the '80s, the Thameslink core was opened. There was even more growth in traffic, moderated only by the general lull through the 'nineties that affected all routes. The decision to (eventually) proceed with the Thameslink programme meant that every measure would need to be taken to maximise the capacity of the core as quadrupling the track was not an option.
So we have a railway in the core when complete:
The line will have a full ERTMS system including ATO to provide a consistent speed profile through the core allowing minimum headways.
The track will be maintained to the highest standard, hopefully minimising failures and service interruptions.
The trains will be of minimum practicable weight giving both better performance, lower power consumption and heat generation and importantly, lower track wear in the core.
The trains will all be of uniform performance and specification allowing flexibility in deployment (save for the 8-car vs 12-car issue which in an emergency could even be managed with SDO).
The trains have dual power systems on both ac and DC allowing them to clear the core track in the event of a failure.
The trains have sufficient power to push/pull another failed train clear of the track, even up the 1:29 gradients at the ends of the core.
The trains have interiors designed (and modelled we are informed here) to carry the maximum number of passengers in acceptable comfort both under crush loading - which is already a regular feature of the Thameslink route, and off peak. Clearly opinions of what is 'acceptable comfort' will vary, but the design has to be a compromise.
Critical to the design of route capacity is the need to minimise core station dwell times. This has been achieved and modelled, and includes features such as wide, fast operating sliding doors, wide through gangways and (the nub of many complaints here) by minimising passenger alighting delays arising from armrests, connected devices and clutter on tables preventing easy exits from seating etc.
The trains are being worked through some teething troubles. which their detractors conveniently forget beset nearly all new train designs to a degree, so can only sensibly be judged when:
a) they complete a resonable bedding-down period and start performing as intended
b) are subjected to the full rigours of peak loadings, in winter and summer conditions, - even under service failure conditions that can affect any train service. We will then know whether all the measures were both necessary and effective.
