Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[physics34]

Passengers pay horrendous amounts in the peak, surely they shouldn't have to go first class 'just' for the privilage of a table or somewhere to put their cup of coffee on their 2hr trip from littlehampton to st panc.

I'll say it again, the 700s interior design is awful. The people who have currently got a 377/1 or /3 most mornings will not be impressed by them.

 

[Class377/5]

I said "compared to my local trains they seem pretty lightly loaded" and I prefaced that with "So whilst they are far from empty". I am not saying there is no standing from Haywards Heath but that they are less full than trains operating through Redhill. The standing from Redhill is intense (i.e. lots of people in very close proximity).

This is from personal experience of both travelling on and seeing the South Coast trains and can be backed up by FCC's own graphics which I provided links to.

The standing times from Hayward Heath to London are comparable to those from Redhill as most trains from Redhill have a denser stopping pattern and thus are only a few minutes less travelling time than Haywards Heath (as I also showed before)

I'd also contend that the 377 does very well in these situations and can unload and reload at Clapham Junction normally in under a minute (noted daily by me). It may not be as efficient as a Class 700 in unloading and loading but it also does a lot of things for passengers that the 700 can't like give the passengers a good journey.

Also the 377 is a 15 year old design now and the 700's brand new - The new wide doors and extended standing areas on the 700's will do more for unloading speed than removing arm rests and tray tables. Hence I can't see why this removal of tables on the 700's and was necessary. Computer modelling in time and motion studies is not going to convince me.

I'll also contend that most travelers in the core will terminate there having come from a much longer distance (Excepting Wimbledon services). There will be relatively little "core" only end to end travelers but there will be plenty of room for them in the extended door areas anyway. So the point of dealing with many different types of passengers doesn't hold true to me.

OK we are both discussing personal experiences which to be fair to be of us are something we both see daily.

However are you really trying to claim that there are not many different types of passengers to accomidate? Well commuters, leisure, airport, Core hoppers are four very different groups with very very different needs. It seems you suggest we should just deal with commuters and sod the rest which is quite frankly stupid.

Is the balance right on the 700s? We've seen the carriage layouts for both 8 and 12 car configurations, and maybe the seats with tables will be enough for the leisure travellers off-peak, or people who want more WILL pay for first class. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

There's no tables expect in first class compartments.

 

[southern442]

OK we are both discussing personal experiences which to be fair to be of us are something we both see daily.

However are you really trying to claim that there are not many different types of passengers to accomidate? Well commuters, leisure, airport, Core hoppers are four very different groups with very very different needs. It seems you suggest we should just deal with commuters and sod the rest which is quite frankly stupid.

Commuters need somewhere to put their laptop to work from and need to be able to travel in comfort for the entirety of their 40min+ journey. Lesiure travellers normally undertake long journeys and would like a comfortable train experience. Airport travellers need lots of space to put all their bags. The class 700 has hardly any legroom, poor, narrow seating and no tables, which means that the journey for all of these customers will be less than satisfactory. It is interesting that you say that focusing on commuters and sodding the rest is stupid, which indeed it is, but what they actually have done is focused on the core hoppers and sodded the rest, which surely is as stupid?

 

[Minstral25]

Commuters need somewhere to put their laptop to work from and need to be able to travel in comfort for the entirety of their 40min+ journey. Lesiure travellers normally undertake long journeys and would like a comfortable train experience. Airport travellers need lots of space to put all their bags. The class 700 has hardly any legroom, poor, narrow seating and no tables, which means that the journey for all of these customers will be less than satisfactory. It is interesting that you say that focusing on commuters and sodding the rest is stupid, which indeed it is, but what they actually have done is focused on the core hoppers and sodded the rest, which surely is as stupid?

Absolutely and love the phrase "Core Hoppers" which is what they should always be known from now on.

 

[jon0844]

There's no tables expect in first class compartments.

D'oh - really need to look back through my photos from January.

 

[Aictos]

Being realistic, can anyone offer any good suggestions on how the requirements could still be met yet have luxuries such as wifi, power sockets, fold down tables which will add weight to the train?

Just wondering to see if anyone has them to prove why the Class 700 is such a bad design.....

 

[HSTEd]

The train is electric, which means it is essentially not power limited to any reasonable degree.

And since it is a multiple unit an increase in weight will lead to an increase in tractive weight so in the traction limited regime acceleration characteristics will remain pretty much identical.
In fact an increase in train mass might marginally increase the acceleration as air resistance will remain the same in both cases.

Weight is irrelevant - they just didn't want to pay for seat back tables.

 

[Class377/5]

The train is electric, which means it is essentially not power limited to any reasonable degree.

And since it is a multiple unit an increase in weight will lead to an increase in tractive weight so in the traction limited regime acceleration characteristics will remain pretty much identical.
In fact an increase in train mass might marginally increase the acceleration as air resistance will remain the same in both cases.

Weight is irrelevant - they just didn't want to pay for seat back tables.

Sorry but weight is very very relevant indeed. There's a document showing the tonnage the core will take on a daily basis, day in, day out, and its massive amount. Simply put weight is an issue as it as it increases, the the life of track reduces and core closures to replace the track increase.

Commuters need somewhere to put their laptop to work from and need to be able to travel in comfort for the entirety of their 40min+ journey. Lesiure travellers normally undertake long journeys and would like a comfortable train experience. Airport travellers need lots of space to put all their bags. The class 700 has hardly any legroom, poor, narrow seating and no tables, which means that the journey for all of these customers will be less than satisfactory. It is interesting that you say that focusing on commuters and sodding the rest is stupid, which indeed it is, but what they actually have done is focused on the core hoppers and sodded the rest, which surely is as stupid?

I disagree that its just focused on core hoppers. Airport users need wide doors too.

Absolutely and love the phrase "Core Hoppers" which is what they should always be known from now on.

I like the term actually.

D'oh - really need to look back through my photos from January.

Your thinking of that nice first class section.

 

[tsr]

Sorry but weight is very very relevant indeed. There's a document showing the tonnage the core will take on a daily basis, day in, day out, and its massive amount. Simply put weight is an issue as it as it increases, the the life of track reduces and core closures to replace the track increase.

I was rather under the impression that the emphasis had been on reducing the weight of Class 700 units to allow effective acceleration. This is what I was told at the Excel event by at least two members of staff on hand. Nonetheless, I also agree this is good for the track. It is just a pity that a few useful ideas, including one or two I have mentioned on the thread, couldn't be considered - for example, replacing conventional tables in Standard Class with cup holders (which could be made out of a fairly lightweight material) rather than a stark "nothing". Seats might not necessarily need armrests, but increased padding on the sides of the seat backs could help to delineate them, rather than flatter surfaces. And I feel some sympathy with those who suggest legroom could be improved by removing a couple of seats from each coach. This might make it quicker for people to stand up and move out of their seats anyway.

I know electrical socket installations can actually weigh a fair bit, when it comes to all the cabling and equipment to make supplies safe for each and every socket, but perhaps a wifi installation could be included as maybe it could be lighter. That said, if 3G/4G signal was improved in the TL Core section and in tunnels, I can see no reason why people couldn't opt for that instead.

I guess the real issue with the physical load on the TL Core tracks is that the effects cannot be as easily mitigated with the 24 hour running as, say, they would be if the line was operated like the ELL, with intensively-run daytime services but also overnight closures coupled with quite a few weekend blocks per year.

As for dwell time, whilst a lot of work has gone into mitigating this, I think the service (especially whilst timetables settle into place) could be confusing and tourists may also have to take a moment to work out where they are, so perhaps the greatest risk is not the provision of tray-tables but actually dithering customers - that's not to say they're particularly to blame, but just a fact of life. Remember that St Pancras is a key infrastructure hub for serving tourists, and the other stations will potentially be used by many business customers who are unfamiliar with the area (probably exactly as today, if not rather more so).

 

[southern442]

I disagree that its just focused on core hoppers. Airport users need wide doors too.

The railways don't seem to think so, take the 442's

I can see where you are coming from but once you've got on the train, there's no proper place to sit AND put your heavy, large bags aswell (the person in charge of legroom appears to be a 1 year old)

 

[Fincra5]

From being on a 450 and a 360.. its just another Siemans commuter train... as they too have no tables or arm rests... and I don't like them at all!

 

[Bald Rick]

I really don't know the answer to this, but...

Apart from the 377s (and I guess the 379s), which classes of EMU in service today used for commuting trips of more than 30 min have tables in standard suitable for laptops etc?

 

[southern442]

I really don't know the answer to this, but...

Apart from the 377s (and I guess the 379s), which classes of EMU in service today used for commuting trips of more than 30 min have tables in standard suitable for laptops etc?

Some 317's and 321's, some 319's, the end's of 357's (as mentioned earlier), 458/5's at the ends, 450's and 458/0's on seat backs, 375's, 365's and 350's.

There are more than you would think!

 

[Bald Rick]

Some 317's and 321's, some 319's, the end's of 357's (as mentioned earlier), 458/5's at the ends, 450's and 458/0's on seat backs, 375's, 365's and 350's.

There are more than you would think!

I've been commuting on 319s for 11 years, and never seen a table in standard. Similarly with the 317s 321s and 365s on the occasions I have used them. Must be looking in the wrong place!

 

[southern442]

I've been commuting on 319s for 11 years, and never seen a table in standard. Similarly with the 317s 321s and 365s on the occasions I have used them. Must be looking in the wrong place!

Only 8 319's have tables in standard, the 319/2's. 317/6's have tables:

(you can see them very faintly in the corners of the photo)

the LM 321's have them:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ryanstrainphotos/8446460195/

and here they are on the 365:

I'm pretty sure the 320's, 318's and 380's count as commuter, in which case they are equiped with tables too.

 

[deltic08]

Commuters need somewhere to put their laptop to work from and need to be able to travel in comfort for the entirety of their 40min+ journey. Lesiure travellers normally undertake long journeys and would like a comfortable train experience. Airport travellers need lots of space to put all their bags. The class 700 has hardly any legroom, poor, narrow seating and no tables, which means that the journey for all of these customers will be less than satisfactory. It is interesting that you say that focusing on commuters and sodding the rest is stupid, which indeed it is, but what they actually have done is focused on the core hoppers and sodded the rest, which surely is as stupid?

Well said. The passenger is the consumer here and should be taken notice of. As a tax payer paying for it, I want a better experience than we are getting on our railways especially as we are the most expensive fares in Europe.

 

[Bald Rick]

Only 8 319's have tables in standard, the 319/2's. 317/6's have tables:

the LM 321's have them:

and here they are on the 365:
.

I'd argue those aren't tables - certainly not suitable for laptops. I tried on a 365 with these mini tables once, and found it much easier on my lap.

 

[deltic08]

The train is electric, which means it is essentially not power limited to any reasonable degree.

And since it is a multiple unit an increase in weight will lead to an increase in tractive weight so in the traction limited regime acceleration characteristics will remain pretty much identical.
In fact an increase in train mass might marginally increase the acceleration as air resistance will remain the same in both cases.

Weight is irrelevant - they just didn't want to pay for seat back tables.

There is no connection between frontal air resistance and weight of train as far as acceleration for a given power. A heavier train will accelerate less due to inertia of the weight or mass. Once up to a given speed the train has momentum but needs more energy to maintain that momentum on a heavier train. Do you mean that more weight on the driving wheels reduces slip on a wet rail accelerating? Sepex solves this problem nowadays.

Air resistance increases with increase in speed. This has nothing to do with weight. At 350mph, 27 times more energy is required to move a train at this speed than the same train at 100mph.

If trains have to be lighter for time savings in the core, then take out all the seats and run them without passengers. Job done.

 

[hassaanhc]

Some 317's and 321's, some 319's, the end's of 357's (as mentioned earlier), 458/5's at the ends, 450's and 458/0's on seat backs, 375's, 365's and 350's.

There are more than you would think!

The 166's have a table or two in the middle coach:

166207_MSO_Internal by peter_skuce, on Flickr
(The middle coaches on them are most odd )

 

[NotATrainspott]

The 318s and 320s both have small tables but the 334s have none. The 334s are used on two hour long Helensburgh Central - Edinburgh Waverley runs via Airdrie-Bathgate, which is almost comparable to the entire Bedford-Brighton service. All ScotRail stock will be fitted with free WiFi and all but the 314s will be fitted with power sockets by the new franchisee, so that would be something they have up on the Thameslink stock.

 

[HSTEd]

There is no connection between frontal air resistance and weight of train as far as acceleration for a given power.

The air resistance remains pretty much constant if you increase the train length.
This means that the effect becomes increasingly insignificant as train mass and thus tractive effort increases.
Which means performance will asymptotically approach performance in a vacuum.

A heavier train will accelerate less due to inertia of the weight or mass.

That only holds if you assume the train's tractive effort is constant and independent of its mass - thanks to fancy computer controlled motors this is no longer true.
If the train gets heavier it can develop more starting tractive effort and assuming power limits do not become an issue it can accelerate exactly as it did before.

Once up to a given speed the train has momentum but needs more energy to maintain that momentum on a heavier train. Do you mean that more weight on the driving wheels reduces slip on a wet rail accelerating? Sepex solves this problem nowadays.

With long trains this effect has been shown to become negligible as by the time you get to about axle number 12 the water is completely gone from the railhead.
Another thing we can thank the FASTECH 360 tests for in Japan.

If trains have to be lighter for time savings in the core, then take out all the seats and run them without passengers. Job done.

What I am trying to say is that for EMUs with essentially unlimited power acceleration is independent of train weight.

 

[tsr]

With long trains this effect has been shown to become negligible as by the time you get to about axle number 12 the water is completely gone from the railhead.

On the other hand, contaminants are a big deal (though mostly outside the TL Core where acceleration will be most important for 700s), and can easily be compressed and effectively burnt onto a railhead with the passage of further axles.

 

[edwin_m]

What I am trying to say is that for EMUs with essentially unlimited power acceleration is independent of train weight.

Even an EMU doesn't have unlimited power. At the speeds where air resistance becomes significant, tractive effort is likely to be limited by available power. To take an extreme example, the Alstom AGV TE curve is power-limited above about 76km/h.

 

[physics34]

Being realistic, can anyone offer any good suggestions on how the requirements could still be met yet have luxuries such as wifi, power sockets, fold down tables which will add weight to the train?

Just wondering to see if anyone has them to prove why the Class 700 is such a bad design.....

A fold down table on a two hour journey isn't a luxury it's a necessity!

 

[HSTEd]

Even an EMU doesn't have unlimited power. At the speeds where air resistance becomes significant, tractive effort is likely to be limited by available power. To take an extreme example, the Alstom AGV TE curve is power-limited above about 76km/h.

Which is probably higher than most of the speeds obtained in the Thameslink Core.
We are now at the point where power is very cheap to fit.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Which is probably higher than most of the speeds obtained in the Thameslink Core.
We are now at the point where power is very cheap to fit.

Performance on the third rail network will be the major factor in needing to reduce weight as much as possible, as it is clearly not possible to cheaply add in more power to the network. Once the entire Thameslink network down to Brighton has been converted to overhead wires that will change but the 700s will be well past halfway through their operational lives by the time that happens.

 

[jon0844]

Might not save on weight but I've got the perfect solution to the tables hindering alighting and boarding times...

On approach to the core, an automated message will be broadcast:

"Ladies and gentlemen, we will shortly be entering the Thameslink core. Passengers are requested to remove all items from tables and fold them in the upright position. A member of staff will be through shortly to lock them in position for the duration."

You then employ a team of people to lock and then unlock the tables.

Such a good idea I am amazed nobody else thought of it before.

 

[DJL]

Might not save on weight but I've got the perfect solution to the tables hindering alighting and boarding times...

On approach to the core, an automated message will be broadcast:

"Ladies and gentlemen, we will shortly be entering the Thameslink core. Passengers are requested to remove all items from tables and fold them in the upright position. A member of staff will be through shortly to lock them in position for the duration."

You then employ a team of people to lock and then unlock the tables.

Such a good idea I am amazed nobody else thought of it before.

Or just motorise them and people get a wet lap if they ignore the plentiful advanced warnings!
(Won't save on weight of course)

Seriously though I think all this talk about tables is nonsense. It's such a minor issue compared to far more important things such as reliability.
If it really bothers you that much take your own portable table with you!
Or just use the LAPtop how it was designed to be.

How about people wait until the new units actually arrive and they get a chance to use the new trains before they pass judgement.

Companies don't get paid vast sums of money to design a train without thinking everything through and weighing up the pros and cons to every detail of the train.

Finally I seem to remember reading that the new trains are of a modular design - meaning it should be (comparatively) easy to change something 6 months down the line if it is found to be inadequate. Perhaps some changes could even be made in the train shed without a visit to a major depot.

 

[deltic08]

The air resistance remains pretty much constant if you increase the train length.

No. The longer the train length the greater is the air resistance for a given speed. It is called skin friction. Also turbulence caused by gaps between carriages increases the more carriages there are and turbulence causes resistance to forward movement.

This means that the effect becomes increasingly insignificant as train mass and thus tractive effort increases.

No again.

Which means performance will asymptotically approach performance in a vacuum.

Complete nonsense. You would never be in a vacuum.

That only holds if you assume the train's tractive effort is constant and independent of its mass - thanks to fancy computer controlled motors this is no longer true.

Don't understand this statement.

If the train gets heavier it can develop more starting tractive effort and assuming power limits do not become an issue it can accelerate exactly as it did before.

Mlsassumption on your part.

With long trains this effect has been shown to become negligible as by the time you get to about axle number 12 the water is completely gone from the railhead.

Only true for multiple units with central driving axles on completely uncontaminated rails

What I am trying to say is that for EMUs with essentially unlimited power acceleration is independent of train weight.

Totally untrue. Even with unlimited power which is unlikely as there is a limit to the size and weight of traction motors installed even with electric traction, the heavier the train the slower it will accelerate for a given power.

 

[21C101]

Flip down the fold down seats and rest your legs - bet that will happen a lot
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I understand the need to make dwell times minimal in the core. Why didn't someone spot that this means entirely inappropriate trains for 70% of the regular users (my guess but by time spent on train it is probably higher). It's not the Bedford - Brighton passengers who will be rare, but the daily Haywards Heath to City Thameslink, Peterborough to St Pancras or Horsham to London Bridge passengers who will find these trains a total chore to travel on, a total time waster for them.

Worse bit is I suspect that the Government (including the DfT) is full of people doing long distance commuting and they have brought this on themselves, but they all go to Victoria or Waterloo so won't care.

What is without question is that the trains are wrong for most of the thousands of London commuters who will use them with their reduced leg room, lack of arm rests and tables.

It would have been much more sensible to use them on a Southern Metro services through the core to St Albans/Welwyn/Hertford routes - they suit these services

I am fed up of hearing that dwell times in the core are deriving the quality of long distance commutes including mine, with the reality that it will be 30 or 40 years before it will actually be a problem. If so why not change the seating in 2040 as part of a complete refresh if it has become a necessity.

I will be very surprised if the 12 car versions have not been redeployed to metro/coastway services and replaced with 377s within five years. I do not envy the new franchises management when these things enter service.

Most of the revenue on this line comes from longer distance/outer suburban travel. If you stopped the Bedford to Brightons additionally at Elstree, for most of the day outside the peaks you could run the Wall of Death to St Albans service with a few Class 121 bubblecars and not have many people standing (alright I'm exaggerating slightly but not that much).

I think the introduction of these things is going to make BRs APT fiasco look like a vicarage tea party. S*d a day out at the beach at Brighton from Bedfordshire in one of those things. Alternatively I suppose we could bale out at St Pancras and go to Margate on HS1.

The success of Thameslink is principally down to generating large amounts of discretionary offpeak travel (which is why they can countenance fixed formation 12 car trains). In my opinion this will kill it. From what I've seen of the 700s, I would rather put up with the M1/M25/M23 petrol and parking costs than spend two hours each way on one of those.

I also think that this will dent commuter use which has risen year on year. Expect:

* Less commuting from as far as Northampton/Daventry to Bedfordshire Thameslink stations to use Thameslink instead of London Midland
* More commuting down the newly widened M1 and A1(M) to Cockfosters, High Barnet Edgware and Stanmore.
* People look for alternative work because they don't fancy paying £5k a year to sit in a glorified tram seat.

I think these things could be a tipping point.