Thameslink/ Class 700 Progress

[asylumxl]

Although running services through London gives operational savings on the number of drivers needed and increased stock utilisation, having such a complex arrangement of interworked trains and drivers' turns means that it only takes one unit failure or driver no-show to screw up the whole shooting match.

And that's the crux of the whole thing. Govia are only interested in extracting maximum revenue and the government are only interested in getting the biggest premiums from that revenue.

Let's face it, some ******* in Whitehall really isn't going to care less if your train is cancelled or if you are stuck on a broken down train for hours..

 

[Bald Rick]

The big swindle/lie being pandered by GTR is the phrase "x-thousand more seats during the peak" or similar such disingenuous bull****.

But it's not a lie, it's fact.

On the MML, from 2018 there will be more trains in the morning peak, 12 more than today (well tomorrow) to be precise. And whereas today 3 of trains in the entire morning peak have 12 coaches, more than half will come 2018.

An 8 car 377 has 532 seats (I think), 12 car 798. 319s aren't much more and never run as 12 cars. A 12 car 700 has 666. So whilst 3 individual services will lose 132 seats (but gain more generous standing capacity), about another 20 services will gain 134 seats, and then there 12 new services each with between 427 and 666 seats on.

Plenty of people do alter their journey patterns / times to be more comfortable. Not everyone has a boss that demands a specific time in.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And that's the crux of the whole thing. Govia are only interested in extracting maximum revenue and the government are only interested in getting the biggest premiums from that revenue.

Let's face it, some ******* in Whitehall really isn't going to care less if your train is cancelled or if you are stuck on a broken down train for hours..

Not correct in this case, as the franchise terms are different.

The DfT are interested in gaining maximum revenue. GoVia are solely concerned with keeping costs down.

By chance I happen to know the bloke in 'Whitehall' (Horseferry Road to be precise) who very much cares about if your train is cancelled etc. And he is as frustrated as the people who use the trains. And he's actually a very nice chap.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Maybe im sounding too generous, but surely the trains should be built to suit passengers who are on the train the LONGEST not just the average, because basically that means they are ignoring the needs of those passengers who are travelling for longer.

Presumably that's why Central line trains have tables ...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's a shame the opportunity was not taken to extend platforms 9 to 11 at King's Cross during all the recent work.

How would you have done that?

And given that most of the services that use it go to TL in just over 2 years time, why would you do it even if it was possible?

 

[southern442]

Maybe im sounding too generous, but surely the trains should be built to suit passengers who are on the train the LONGEST not just the average, because basically that means they are ignoring the needs of those passengers who are travelling for longer.

With the increased journey opportunities i can now see many people (off peak) travelling directly on journeys such as Cambridge to Brighton..... Peterborough to Gatwick Airport etc etc

Perhaps looking at just the longest passenger journeys isn't representative of what facilities should or should not be provided, because as Bald Rick said, we might as well put tables on the Central line if that was the case. However, in the instance of Thameslink, where allegedly the average journey time is 25 minutes. Long journeys here are in excess of an hour and some will be well over 40 miles in distance, and when you take into account that there are thousands of people each day make these long journeys, it seems strange that an interior less luxurious than the A stock (which were metro stock by the way) is being used.

 

[AM9]

I agree entirely. Even with ATO through the Core, it only takes one train to have a technical issue, or have a passenger pull the emergency signal and the whole job will fall to bits. Where will the operators put a failed 12-car train between St Pancras and Blackfriars?

Well they have just done the tests to verify that one 12-car 700 can push or pull another 12-car 700 through the core, (see post #1923). Apparently, this is the plan for recovery of complete breakdowns when they occur in the core, and both the trains and the infrastructure passed the test adequately. Most of the wiring in the core is new as the old OLE contact wires have been replaced by a rigid conductor bar over the last few years. The power supplies between Farringdon and City Thameslink are using new switchgear, allowing ac>dc and vice versa, changeover anywhere between those two locations and crossovers in case they just can't make it. The signalling will be all new for ATO. The track is maintained to the highest standards commensurate with the intensity of service to be run. So with new trains, there won't be much more chance of serious blockage in the core than on Crossrail.
But let's not spoil it for those who want to wallow in their prophesies of doom, - just hoping that the whole thing will fall over frequently enough for them to feel completely vindicated.

Given that the infrastructure the Class 700s will be using (for the most part) is formed of the same clapped out signalling/track and fragile OHLE, even the introduction of the new trains is no guarantee of trouble-free running.

Well that would be the same clapped-out infrastructure that is in use today, on both the MML and the ECML. You can sit in your Electrostar or 8-car Networker 2+3 seats with somebody pressing their hips, rear or worse in your ear, waiting for them to rescue your train when the headspans come down, i.e. they have 4 times the chance of independently registered wires and even more times that of a fault on a rigid conductor. So your comment is irrelevant to either the core issues or the 700 trains.

 

[asylumxl]

Well that would be the same clapped-out infrastructure that is in use today, on both the MML and the ECML. You can sit in your Electrostar or 8-car Networker 2+3 seats with somebody pressing their hips, rear or worse in your ear, waiting for them to rescue your train when the headspans come down, i.e. they have 4 times the chance of independently registered wires and even more times that of a fault on a rigid conductor. So your comment is irrelevant to either the core issues or the 700 trains.

Wait, where did he talk about the infrastructure being clapped out in the core? I took it to mean north of St Pancras, particularly as he said "for the most part", which I took to mean the

 

[jon0844]

You could replace all the track (although I guess the curve at St Pancras means the new trains will still squeal and make everyone go deaf?), signalling, wires and so on - but I still can't wait to see how the station will cope with so many trains all potentially going to different destinations, and how people organise themselves on the platform so as not to get in the way of others and cause delays.

Of course there are other stations that have multiple routes and TOCs on the same platform (e.g. London Bridge) but they're more open. People have phone coverage. There's a shop (or was), toilets and more seating. More toilets too, rather than one well hidden and often out of use toilet, or lifts that are so slow at the best of times that you really better get to the station early if you want to get to the platform in time for your train.

Ultimately, St Pancras is the weak link in all of this. Maybe other core stations too, but not on the same scale (at least until Crossrail maybe, for Farringdon).

I know this has nothing to do with the 700s themselves, but when things go wrong as I suspect they will quite often then I bet the trains will take a lot of the blame, as it will be the trains that are seen stuck in the platforms.

 

[asylumxl]

Not correct in this case, as the franchise terms are different.

The DfT are interested in gaining maximum revenue. GoVia are solely concerned with keeping costs down.

Is the end result not the same? Government want as much money as possible, while Govia want to spend as little as possible?

By chance I happen to know the bloke in 'Whitehall' (Horseferry Road to be precise) who very much cares about if your train is cancelled etc. And he is as frustrated as the people who use the trains. And he's actually a very nice chap.

He may be a lovely chap, but I'm not convinced the DfT is that concerned.

The performance on TL has been abysmal as of late and while I appreciate a lot of the blame may be down to NR, some of it is most certainly down to GTR - particularly their contingency planning (which even the ORR has commented on).

As it stands the service through the core is not particularly robust and I, along with other users of the route, have concerns about the further problems GN trains using the core may create. I do not feel these concerns have been properly addressed yet.

That's all I'll say as I don't want to go too OT.

 

[The Box Photter]

Well they have just done the tests to verify that one 12-car 700 can push or pull another 12-car 700 through the core, (see post #1923). Apparently, this is the plan for recovery of complete breakdowns when they occur in the core, and both the trains and the infrastructure passed the test adequately. Most of the wiring in the core is new as the old OLE contact wires have been replaced by a rigid conductor bar over the last few years. The power supplies between Farringdon and City Thameslink are using new switchgear, allowing ac>dc and vice versa, changeover anywhere between those two locations and crossovers in case they just can't make it. The signalling will be all new for ATO. The track is maintained to the highest standards commensurate with the intensity of service to be run. So with new trains, there won't be much more chance of serious blockage in the core than on Crossrail.
But let's not spoil it for those who want to wallow in their prophesies of doom, - just hoping that the whole thing will fall over frequently enough for them to feel completely vindicated.



Well that would be the same clapped-out infrastructure that is in use today, on both the MML and the ECML. You can sit in your Electrostar or 8-car Networker 2+3 seats with somebody pressing their hips, rear or worse in your ear, waiting for them to rescue your train when the headspans come down, i.e. they have 4 times the chance of independently registered wires and even more times that of a fault on a rigid conductor. So your comment is irrelevant to either the core issues or the 700 trains.

My point is that it doesn't matter how new the trains are, the infrastructure is held together with chewing gum and spit. Most failures in service (and that's what is important to customers) anecdotally seem to arise from signalling, track and power supply issues, or a non-existent driver.

I realise that "tests" have been undertaken to prove that one 12-car 700 can push or pull another 12-car train. That doesn't exactly blow my skirt up with excitement. I haven't heard of any tests that involve the de-training of 2x 12-car trainloads of passengers in the Core during the rush hour.

I challenge your assertion that I'm wallowing in prophesies of doom, I'm simply stating what already happens due to influences other than the choice of stock for the service. So even if the 700s work flawlessly out of the box, there are still the same inherent problems in running the current (and future) Thameslink service. Adding more trains to even wider-flung destinations is a recipe for disaster, let alone the confusion that will occur having identical trains leaving from the same platforms going to different destinations on completely different routes. At present, passengers still get onto fast northbound services at St Pancras who ask "when will this train get to West Hampstead" as we sail through Mill Hill on the fast line, or foreign travellers ask when the train will be calling at Luton Airport, only to be told that this train is a fast that doesn't call there. At least at present, the worst that happens to them is that they have to get off at Harpenden or Luton. The conversation's going to be a bit more difficult when the same question is asked as the train approaches Potter's Bar.

GTR have no vested interest in providing a "better" service because they can claim back compensation from Notwork Fail every time a signal failure or track fault or bridge strike causes delays.

Finally, I don't know who was asked about the specification of the 700s, but it certainly wasn't me, or any other regular passengers I've spoken to.

 

[bramling]

You could replace all the track (although I guess the curve at St Pancras means the new trains will still squeal and make everyone go deaf?), signalling, wires and so on - but I still can't wait to see how the station will cope with so many trains all potentially going to different destinations, and how people organise themselves on the platform so as not to get in the way of others and cause delays.

Of course there are other stations that have multiple routes and TOCs on the same platform (e.g. London Bridge) but they're more open. People have phone coverage. There's a shop (or was), toilets and more seating. More toilets too, rather than one well hidden and often out of use toilet, or lifts that are so slow at the best of times that you really better get to the station early if you want to get to the platform in time for your train.

Ultimately, St Pancras is the weak link in all of this. Maybe other core stations too, but not on the same scale (at least until Crossrail maybe, for Farringdon).

I know this has nothing to do with the 700s themselves, but when things go wrong as I suspect they will quite often then I bet the trains will take a lot of the blame, as it will be the trains that are seen stuck in the platforms.

With regard to passenger organisation, it won't help that many of the routes will have just a half-hourly frequency, compared to today's Thameslink where most are quarter-hourly.

Someone waiting for a train to, for example, Huntingdon could potentially be taking up space on the platform for 29 minutes.

And, of course, it doesn't have to be the trains at fault. A 10-minute 'passenger having siezure' at St Pancras will potentially delay 3 or 4 trains. If a Tattenham Corner-Cambridge train is delayed by a few minutes, this will likely delay a King's Cross-Kings Lynn train, which in turn could delay an up Kings Lynn-King's Cross train on the single-line sections, resulting in a regulating decision at Cambridge - does the Tattenham Corner train go ahead of this and further delay the KX train, or does the Tattenham Corner train get held and run late, then potentially delaying the Cambridge-Brighton train?

The above is conjecture, but it's the sort of thing that will happen post-2018.

 

[AM9]

My point is that it doesn't matter how new the trains are, the infrastructure is held together with chewing gum and spit. Most failures in service (and that's what is important to customers) anecdotally seem to arise from signalling, track and power supply issues, or a non-existent driver.

And my point is that the core infrastructure will have signalling, track and power supplies that will be newer and should be more resilient than the infrastructure held together with chewing gum and spit that you blame for so many failure in service.

I realise that "tests" have been undertaken to prove that one 12-car 700 can push or pull another 12-car train. That doesn't exactly blow my skirt up with excitement. I haven't heard of any tests that involve the de-training of 2x 12-car trainloads of passengers in the Core during the rush hour.

Apart from St Pancras to Farringdon, two coupled 12-car trains will more often than not put one end or the other in a station. (Yes, I know that the 700 cabs aren't walk through)

I challenge your assertion that I'm wallowing in prophesies of doom, I'm simply stating what already happens due to influences other than the choice of stock for the service. So even if the 700s work flawlessly out of the box, there are still the same inherent problems in running the current (and future) Thameslink service. Adding more trains to even wider-flung destinations is a recipe for disaster, let alone the confusion that will occur having identical trains leaving from the same platforms going to different destinations on completely different routes. At present, passengers still get onto fast northbound services at St Pancras who ask "when will this train get to West Hampstead" as we sail through Mill Hill on the fast line, or foreign travellers ask when the train will be calling at Luton Airport, only to be told that this train is a fast that doesn't call there. At least at present, the worst that happens to them is that they have to get off at Harpenden or Luton. The conversation's going to be a bit more difficult when the same question is asked as the train approaches Potter's Bar.

Increased demand for capacity will need to be met. Maybe you have better ideas for providing that both on sides of London that Thameslink serves, - at the same or similar cost of course!

Passengers occasionally get on the wrong trains in many places, e.g. on the Underground (especially with S stock now) and what was the Southern Region with its plethora of Electrostars running in colours different from the advertised TOC. Most passengers learn to look at the PIS after a few weeks.

 

[JaJaWa]

Agree re St Pancras Thameslink - I wonder if anything can be done. Perhaps there could be some form of waiting lounges (I understand Birmingham New Street now uses this but I'm not aware of how the system works). It needs more than one toilet on each platform (or for the singular toilets to be RADAR locked). It would really benefit with links down to the Underground as well.

I remember before it was built that there was initially talk of a central platform for exiting trains and at the very least travelators to the Underground - a shame neither of these happened.

 

[bramling]

Agree re St Pancras Thameslink - I wonder if anything can be done. Perhaps there could be some form of waiting lounges (I understand Birmingham New Street now uses this but I'm not aware of how the system works). It needs more than one toilet on each platform (or for the singular toilets to be RADAR locked). It would really benefit with links down to the Underground as well.

I remember before it was built that there was initially talk of a central platform for exiting trains and at the very least travelators to the Underground - a shame neither of these happened.

The issue with waiting areas is that people will want to be on the platform early in order to stand maximum chance of being first to join the train, and therefore stand the best chance of getting a seat (on the trains which, of course, will have less seats than today - especially on the 8-car routes).

I suspect there will prove to be an issue with this. It already occurs on the GN side at most stations during the peaks. Less of an issue with a frequent service, but not every Thameslink route will be particularly frequent.

This will need careful management otherwise trains will be attempting to leave with passengers still crowding round doorways waiting for another service. Another element that will thoroughly **** off GN commuters, who are used to joining their trains in a rather more civilised fashion at King's Cross.

Thameslink Programme: inferior trains, worse reliability, a more tedious journey experience.

 

[Saint66]

I do love a good discussion about the Class 700's.... Oh, wait, no, St Pancras...

 

[talldave]

Agree re St Pancras Thameslink - I wonder if anything can be done. Perhaps there could be some form of waiting lounges (I understand Birmingham New Street now uses this but I'm not aware of how the system works). It needs more than one toilet on each platform (or for the singular toilets to be RADAR locked). It would really benefit with links down to the Underground as well.

I remember before it was built that there was initially talk of a central platform for exiting trains and at the very least travelators to the Underground - a shame neither of these happened.

Replacing those pathetic LCD info boards would be a good starting point.

 

[physics34]

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Presumably that's why Central line trains have tables ...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Irrelevant argument. Central line is a known metro service and less than 25 mins would be the average journey time on that line.

 

[AM9]

Irrelevant argument. Central line is a known metro service and less than 25 mins would be the average journey time on that line.

Just like the average journey time on Thameslink according to Bald Rick. Maybe somebody has verifiable figures that differ.
The Central Line is indeed a metro tube line and it's end-to-end journey time is up to 1hr 25mins. That is almost as long as a Luton to Sutton journey on Thameslink. The existence of tables etc., is totally irrelevant to a commuter travelling on a train that covers 5 or 50 miles in its average journey time, as is the speed that it travels at. It was an example to prove that point. Thanks for confirming that the average journey time is about the same as on Thameslink.

Why can't posters here accept that Thameslink is just a double-ended commuter railway with maximum journeys into London of about 50-60 miles, taking about an hour or just over. As such the 700s are designed to cater for the expected continuing increase in passenger numbers over the next 30 years. They will maximise platform space on the routes on which they run and make minimum demands of headways by ATO in the critical area and dwells as short as is practicable. I have no particular axe to grind here. Whilst I am not a commuter, I very occasionally use the peak hour trains but most of my journeys are for leisure. Travelling to Brighton takes almost 2 hours from St Albans but the trains are fine for me. If I really had a thing about tables and armrests, I would get off (Thameslink - the stopper service) at at East Croydon and board a 377 to Brighton, tables and all.

 

[A-driver]

Just like the average journey time on Thameslink according to Bald Rick. Maybe somebody has verifiable figures that differ.
The Central Line is indeed a metro tube line and it's end-to-end journey time is up to 1hr 25mins. That is almost as long as a Luton to Sutton journey on Thameslink. The existence of tables etc., is totally irrelevant to a commuter travelling on a train that covers 5 or 50 miles in its average journey time, as is the speed that it travels at. It was an example to prove that point. Thanks for confirming that the average journey time is about the same as on Thameslink.

Why can't posters here accept that Thameslink is just a double-ended commuter railway with maximum journeys into London of about 50-60 miles, taking about an hour or just over. As such the 700s are designed to cater for the expected continuing increase in passenger numbers over the next 30 years. They will maximise platform space on the routes on which they run and make minimum demands of headways by ATO in the critical area and dwells as short as is practicable. I have no particular axe to grind here. Whilst I am not a commuter, I very occasionally use the peak hour trains but most of my journeys are for leisure. Travelling to Brighton takes almost 2 hours from St Albans but the trains are fine for me. If I really had a thing about tables and armrests, I would get off (Thameslink - the stopper service) at at East Croydon and board a 377 to Brighton, tables and all.

People do accept its a double ended commuter line however the maximum mileage into London is almost 80 once Peterborough becomes TL. No one is suggesting lots travel Bedford to Brighton but the issue is that a journey from Peterborough into central London will be over 1hr15mins. From Huntingdon over 1hr, st Neots over 50mins. From Cambridge over 1 hour. Currently the commuters who travel those distances/times have tables to work at etc, they won't once the 700s start.

 

[AM9]

People do accept its a double ended commuter line however the maximum mileage into London is almost 80 once Peterborough becomes TL. No one is suggesting lots travel Bedford to Brighton but the issue is that a journey from Peterborough into central London will be over 1hr15mins. From Huntingdon over 1hr, st Neots over 50mins. From Cambridge over 1 hour. Currently the commuters who travel those distances/times have tables to work at etc, they won't once the 700s start.

OK, a few journeys at the periphery exceed 60+ minutes by maybe 15 mins. of the 24 trains per hour in the peak, what proportion will be making those longest journeys? And of those few trains, what proportion of the total passenger population to Central London will be travelling to those extremities?
In addition, as I understand from some posts here, there will be 365s running from Peterborough, through Huntingdon to Kings Cross.Currently of the 6 Thameslink trains arriving at Kings Cross between 07:00 and 09:00 three take 83 mins and the other three take 65, 67 & 78 minutes. The 80+ minute trains are those providing service to all shacks to Stevenage so are not preferred for Peterborough to London journeys. The three fast Thameslink trains take 50 mins from Huntingdon to Kings Cross. I doubt that the new trains plus will be any slower and may have far better acceleration given their light weight and 5MW of power.
There is also the option of VTEC trains running non-stop (mostly well under 1 hour). Those* and the retained 365s will have the same table arrangements as now.

* or whatever the 800/801 facilities are.

 

[bramling]

OK, a few journeys at the periphery exceed 60+ minutes by maybe 15 mins. of the 24 trains per hour in the peak, what proportion will be making those longest journeys? And of those few trains, what proportion of the total passenger population to Central London will be travelling to those extremities?
In addition, as I understand from some posts here, there will be 365s running from Peterborough, through Huntingdon to Kings Cross.Currently of the 6 Thameslink trains arriving at Kings Cross between 07:00 and 09:00 three take 83 mins and the other three take 65, 67 & 78 minutes. The 80+ minute trains are those providing service to all shacks to Stevenage so are not preferred for Peterborough to London journeys. The three fast Thameslink trains take 50 mins from Huntingdon to Kings Cross. I doubt that the new trains plus will be any slower and may have far better acceleration given their light weight and 5MW of power.
There is also the option of VTEC trains running non-stop (mostly well under 1 hour). Those* and the retained 365s will have the same table arrangements as now.

* or whatever the 800/801 facilities are.

The 365s to Peterborough will, as far as is understood, be peak-hours only. So no use to off-peak passengers. For Huntington to London in the off-peak, the only train will be 700s. There's a certain irony that the 365s working the fast Peterborough services, with *shorter* journey times than the comparable 700 journey time, get the superior train.

There will also be some longer journeys on the Cambridge side too, Royston to London will be about an hour. Likewise Potters Bar to Cambridge would be approx 65-70 mins, the latter route won't get any benefit from 12-car trains either.

If at least 1tph residual service was retained to King's Cross from both Cambridge and Peterborough serving the intermediate stations, this would mean everyone gets the choice of whether they want to use the class 700s or not, and furthermore with a corresponding reduction in services through the core would improve reliability - which is the other main concern about this badly-specified Thameslink Programme.

 

[southern442]

OK, a few journeys at the periphery exceed 60+ minutes by maybe 15 mins. of the 24 trains per hour in the peak, what proportion will be making those longest journeys? And of those few trains, what proportion of the total passenger population to Central London will be travelling to those extremities?

Quite a few.

 

[A-driver]

OK, a few journeys at the periphery exceed 60+ minutes by maybe 15 mins. of the 24 trains per hour in the peak, what proportion will be making those longest journeys? And of those few trains, what proportion of the total passenger population to Central London will be travelling to those extremities?
In addition, as I understand from some posts here, there will be 365s running from Peterborough, through Huntingdon to Kings Cross.Currently of the 6 Thameslink trains arriving at Kings Cross between 07:00 and 09:00 three take 83 mins and the other three take 65, 67 & 78 minutes. The 80+ minute trains are those providing service to all shacks to Stevenage so are not preferred for Peterborough to London journeys. The three fast Thameslink trains take 50 mins from Huntingdon to Kings Cross. I doubt that the new trains plus will be any slower and may have far better acceleration given their light weight and 5MW of power.
There is also the option of VTEC trains running non-stop (mostly well under 1 hour). Those* and the retained 365s will have the same table arrangements as now.

* or whatever the 800/801 facilities are.

Considering the vast majority of people boarding at Huntingdon and st Neots are going to London and considering far, far more people board the trains (and leave them in the evenings) at these stations than any others on the line and they are pretty much all going to London I'd say quite a few will be onboard for around an hour.

 

[Bald Rick]

I haven't been on the the GN side for a while, but I thought the tables on the 365s in standard class were the little stubby ones that were only of any use if you were at the window seat. Same for the 317s?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Considering the vast majority of people boarding at Huntingdon and st Neots are going to London and considering far, far more people board the trains (and leave them in the evenings) at these stations than any others on the line and they are pretty much all going to London I'd say quite a few will be onboard for around an hour.

But nowhere near as many as do St Albans to St Pancras, or St Pancras to City TL, or E Croydon to London Bridge, or Tulse Hill to Blackfriars etc etc etc.

 

[bramling]

I haven't been on the the GN side for a while, but I thought the tables on the 365s in standard class were the little stubby ones that were only of any use if you were at the window seat. Same for the 317s?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


But nowhere near as many as do St Albans to St Pancras, or St Pancras to City TL, or E Croydon to London Bridge, or Tulse Hill to Blackfriars etc etc etc.

The 365 tables are half-size. Whilst they're of main benefit to those in the window seats, they can also be used by the aisle seats too.

With respect, I'm not interested in the journey statistics for the Midland. The trains may (or may not) be suitable for that route, with its heavy emphasis on St Albans. They are *not* acceptable for Great Northern, with longer journey times, less crush loading and more people travelling to the extremeties of the route. If Thameslink programme cannot deliver rolling stock which meets the needs of this route, the Great Northern would be better off with the status quote - perhaps enhanced with the 377/5s on the fast Cambridge service.

 

[MML]

Is it really too late to change the specification from single seats to doubles and add seat back fold down tables for all airline type seating ?

Also looking at the proposed timetable, it appears Luton, Luton Airport Parkway and Harpenden will only have off-peak services to Gatwick and Brighton. The Sutton services are proposed to start at St Albans. Surely it would be beneficial for the 8-car Class 700 serving the stopping north London stations to start at Luton and call at the airport ?

 

[Bald Rick]

Is it really too late to change the specification from single seats to doubles and add seat back fold down tables for all airline type seating ?

Also looking at the proposed timetable, it appears Luton, Luton Airport Parkway and Harpenden will only have off-peak services to Gatwick and Brighton. The Sutton services are proposed to start at St Albans. Surely it would be beneficial for the 8-car Class 700 serving the stopping north London stations to start at Luton and call at the airport ?

Reasonably sure the Suttons will alternate between Luton and St Albans terminating.

 

[Domh245]

Is it really too late to change the specification from single seats to doubles and add seat back fold down tables for all airline type seating ?

Yes. Yes it is. The contract to build the seats would have been awarded to Fainsa by Siemens a while ago, and it isn't unreasonable to expect Fainsa to have produced a large number of seats. There is a version of that seat with a table built in (as fitted to the latest electrostars) but you would have to write off all of the seat backs (at best! Potentially the whole seat) constructed so far, as well as a fee for changing the contract, and then essentially the same again for the new seat backs.

I don't understand what you expect to gain by changing the single seats to doubles? AFAIK, there aren't a lot of them, and they are usually single seats out of necessity!

 

[Bald Rick]

With respect, I'm not interested in the journey statistics for the Midland. The trains may (or may not) be suitable for that route, with its heavy emphasis on St Albans. They are *not* acceptable for Great Northern, with longer journey times, less crush loading and more people travelling to the extremeties of the route. If Thameslink programme cannot deliver rolling stock which meets the needs of this route, the Great Northern would be better off with the status quote - perhaps enhanced with the 377/5s on the fast Cambridge service.

That's your opinion, to which you are entitled.

I can remember similar arguments when Huntingdon commuter services went from HSTs to Class 312s and Class 317s in 1985. Although St Neots commuters were much happier than what they had to put up with before. Some people gain, some don't.

 

[Skimble19]

Yes. Yes it is. The contract to build the seats would have been awarded to Fainsa by Siemens a while ago, and it isn't unreasonable to expect Fainsa to have produced a large number of seats. There is a version of that seat with a table built in (as fitted to the latest electrostars) but you would have to write off all of the seat backs (at best! Potentially the whole seat) constructed so far, as well as a fee for changing the contract, and then essentially the same again for the new seat backs.

I don't understand what you expect to gain by changing the single seats to doubles? AFAIK, there aren't a lot of them, and they are usually single seats out of necessity!

Seems ridiculous.. The seat back tables on a 365 certainly don't require the entire back replacing! Surely they could get something that could be attached rather than rebuilding the seats?!

 

[hwl]

Yes. Yes it is. The contract to build the seats would have been awarded to Fainsa by Siemens a while ago, and it isn't unreasonable to expect Fainsa to have produced a large number of seats. There is a version of that seat with a table built in (as fitted to the latest electrostars) but you would have to write off all of the seat backs (at best! Potentially the whole seat) constructed so far, as well as a fee for changing the contract, and then essentially the same again for the new seat backs.

Folding seat back tables for standard class seats could easily be fitted using just an allen key on to the existing seat backs like those on the 377/6 /7 and 387s are, there aren't different backs for table /non table (a very clever clamp design).

Who pays for retrofitting 70k+ seat back tables is a different manner and needing DfT sign off...

I'm sure there is a market for passengers to be able to buy a new variant of the existing tray table design that easily clamps on and off the seat back every journey and that the passenger takes with them. I'd love to see what that does to the dwell time modelling in the core as passengers all try to remove and fit their own tables all the time!

 

[bramling]

That's your opinion, to which you are entitled.

I can remember similar arguments when Huntingdon commuter services went from HSTs to Class 312s and Class 317s in 1985. Although St Neots commuters were much happier than what they had to put up with before. Some people gain, some don't.

It's hard to think of any GN location which will benefit. Those travelling longer distance get inferior trains, those nearer are locked in to 8-car trains with less seating. Lose-lose.

Then add in the inevitable inherent unreliability of importing delays from other areas, and it all amounts to a deeply unattractive package for the GN side.

The only improvement is the 377/5s coming over.