Why are the Class 700s so terrible?

[highspeed990]

Is this supposed to be an improvement? There are less seats, and all the seats are at a near 90 degrees angle and it feels like sitting on solid wood. No consideration whatsoever for long distance passengers.

It seems the train companies are little by little getting people used to lower standards: Pack as many people in like sardines as possible and cheap seats. At least the Class 319 seats were comfortable enough. It fills me with disgust. Technology goes up, quality goes down. Thoughts?

 

[ooo]

I disagree personally and think that they are an improvement.
They have have much more standing room than the trains they replaced which is ideal for some of the loads they have to take. They have many other features which I think are good like the information displays, the glass luggage racks which are nice and large and the clean bright interior. Also I personally find the seats perfectly comfortable and there is a reasonable amount of leg room

 

[Joe Paxton]

... Thoughts?

Far prefer the seats on class 700s to the hobbit seats on class 319s (the same style of seats also features on some other BREL trains of the same era).

I do not outright discount 3+2 seating like some on here, but I'm not a great fan of it either and would rather not squash in on them, at least not with people I don't know (I've got quite broad shoulders).

The class 700s are far better at carrying peak loads, with lots of standing and just as important circulation space - a crammed class 319 is no fun. After the 700s started coming into service, I'd let out a sigh when a 319 turned up and it was busy.

The seats could be more comfortable yes, though I quite like an upright seat rather than a slouchy one.

I'd have preferred the interior lighting to be a bit less harsh and clinical though, along with some attempt to soften the interior styling too.

The lack of at seat champagne service and absence of dancing girls is problematic, but that's a wider issue for the whole railway to address.

 

[Mag_seven]

All I can say is try travelling on a packed peak time two car Pacer out of a Northern city and you'll soon see what "terrible" is.

 

[Hadders]

The 700s are probably an improvement on the 319s but are a significant downgrade compared to a 365.

What I don't understand is why the 700s couldn't be fitted with a 365 style interior.

 

[dk1]

700s are perfect for the high density job. Why all the moans about hard seats? Find them fine, don't want to snuggle down anyway.

 

[Blindtraveler]

If the railway can build anything worse in terms of both cumfort and reliability then I think I'll start playing dominos instead for a hobby. The class 700 is IMO the pits and whilst they can shift loads which is all fine and good Im sure we could have done a bit better cumfort wise for the many hours of the day when these trains are not packed solid and dont get me started on their dreadful performance.

 

[Mag_seven]

I travelled on one (a 12 car) this afternoon from Bedford to Farringdon and I thought it was OK. Guess as ever its a matter of personal opinion but what would other parts of the country give for 8 car let alone 12 car trains.

 

[jon0844]

The remit was to build a train that could cope with huge demand on a railway that has a 42 second dwell time in the core, the need to serve a massively expanded set of destinations and with many trains at their maximum length.

There may be options to convert some 8 cars to 12 cars but the core still causes the problem in terms of capacity. I can't see how they could be designed any different for their intended use.

We can of course argue about whether Thameslink joining up with the ECML is a good idea, but the 700s seem the best train for the job. The next closest match would be an S-Stock train or the 345s, which follow a similar formula.

These trains can swallow passengers up. Sadly many will potentially have to stand on their commute, but those going through the core are unlikely to struggle to get a seat at least for part of their journey as people alight. And off-peak there are ample seats. For now.

When off peak trains are to capacity then I have no idea what the DfT has planned next. Maybe Crossrail 2 will be running by then.

 

[D365]

They're a metro train being used on XL routes. Simple.

 

[3141]

It seems the train companies are little by little getting people used to lower standards

Who specified and ordered these? The DfT, long before they'd appointed an operator for the new expanded Thameslink.

 

[highspeed990]

The only good part about the seats is that they are taller so it could be better for short journeys but for long journeys they are terrible. I also don't understand why there are less seats. The trains are 12 cars long and tph is being increased so what's the point of less seats? I think that the faster Bedford trains should have more and more comfortable seats installed at least. I think I'm one of few people who prefer the old 319s. Just couple 3 together and the problem is sorted. And why are seats getting harder and harder with newer trains? What's so hard and expensive about installing soft seats? Peasants in 3rd class a century ago had more comfortable seats. Next they'll be making them plain plastic like a lot of metro systems around the world.

 

[highspeed990]

Who specified and ordered these? The DfT, long before they'd appointed an operator for the new expanded Thameslink.

Of course, the government doesn't care either. But I'm sure even they didn't specify cheap terrible seats.

 

[Joe Paxton]

I sometimes get the feeling that some critics of certain types of train haven't ever played sardines in the predecessor units.

 

[jon0844]

They're a metro train being used on XL routes. Simple.

Exactly. Which makes you wonder who came up with the idea of an expanded Thameslink service.

 

[radamfi]

My main beef with them is the vent on the floor where your foot should be. Even if you are able to put your foot at the side of it, there is a protruding bit of plastic on the floor which is also uncomfortable. Surely this isn't necessary?

 

[highspeed990]

I sometimes get the feeling that some critics of certain types of train haven't ever played sardines in the predecessor units.

I'm unhappy about trains being designed to pack standing passengers in. They did this by removing transverse seats on the DLR, district line and metropolitan line, but as these are metro railways it is somewhat understandable but doing it on the thameslink infuriates me. They are turning thameslink into a metro. They are also treating crossrail like a metro when it is a 'proper' rail service.

 

[Bald Rick]

The 'point' of fewer seats* is that with much wider doors, and much more vestibule space, dwell times can be reduced at stations. Only by doing this (and a few other things) can you then increase the frequency to 24tph through the core.

*as it happens, a 12car 700 has exactly the same number of seats as a 12car 387. And not that many fewer than a 12 car 319.

Seat comfort is, of course, a subjective matter of opinion. I certainly prefer them to the 319 seats. It is also noticeable how they are softening with use, as a few of us predicted more than a year ago. (It happens with most soft furnishings - as the supplier of my new mattress said, "give it 3 months")

Blindtraveller - whilst the units certainly had a sticky start for reliability, they are now performing well. Still a way to go yet, but I would think that their Miles per Trust Incident (MTIN) is over 10k and heading north rapidly (no evidence, just a back of envelope calc). MTIN is a measure of delay incidents caused by fleet issues that cause a delay to at least one train of at least 3 minutes.

Given that the 40 odd 700s in service every day are now doing the work of around 100x4 car units, on a level playing field with their predecessors that would be an MTIN of 25k. For the record the last reported numbers (as per the Modern Railways Golden Spanners) for GTR Class 319s was 14,465, and for 377s 22,089.

 

[Bald Rick]

Exactly. Which makes you wonder who came up with the idea of an expanded Thameslink service.

British Rail in 1989. Chris Green was (and still is) a strong supporter.

 

[Bald Rick]

. They are also treating crossrail like a metro when it is a 'proper' rail service.

You might need to define 'proper' in this context.

 

[highspeed990]

You might need to define 'proper' in this context.

I don't know how to define it. Like non metro trains, non light rail. I also don't know why class 319s have been taken out of service so early. They are only 30 years old and have at least 10 years more of life.

 

[jon0844]

British Rail in 1989. Chris Green was (and still is) a strong supporter.

Were the predictions about the usage levels anywhere close back then?

 

[physics34]

anybody with an ounce of a bad back will struggle with the seats with its poor cushioning.

They are also too close together and too close to the wall

 

[sd0733]

anybody with an ounce of a bad back will struggle with the seats with its poor cushioning.

They are also too close together and too close to the wall

Im awaiting surgery on my back and the harder, higher seats are a godsend compared to the soft ones. Of all the trains I've been on the Chiltern mark 3s and their ilk are horrific and I can't get down that low to even get in them without causing severe pain whereas a 700 seat is easy to.get in and out of and sit on. Granted you do have to pick your seat on a 700 some have got some pretty poor legroom

 

[AM9]

I don't know how to define it. Like non metro trains, non light rail. I also don't know why class 319s have been taken out of service so early. They are only 30 years old and have at least 10 years more of life.

Because in order that the core and it's feeder lines can carry the current required peak load and have any chance of carrying the projected increase in traffic, a train with ver specific characteristics is essential. these include:
1) uniform high performance with nimble acceleration in order to use tight paths between inter-city and other fast outer suburban services
2) ability to run 2.5 minute headways in the core with 40 second dwells
3) adequate seated capacity for quite intensive loading between the peaks
4) enough total capacity including standing to cope safely with peak crush-loads
5) compliant with all accessibility requirements even with standing passengers
6) low track loading to reduce core infrastructure maintenance
7) high energy efficiency
8) high reliability/availability (see Bald Rick's post #18

None of the above was achievable with the 319s and there weren't enough of them to provide a full service anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't have a problem with them personally. They are nicer than 319s, which is what they were intended to replace. Other stock was a stopgap and will move elsewhere.

Indeed, every time I use them I wonder how Thameslink got to look like a modern European S-Bahn.

 

[highspeed990]

You might need to define 'proper' in this context.

Because in order that the core and it's feeder lines can carry the current required peak load and have any chance of carrying the projected increase in traffic, a train with ver specific characteristics is essential. these include:
1) uniform high performance with nimble acceleration in order to use tight paths between inter-city and other fast outer suburban services
2) ability to run 2.5 minute headways in the core with 40 second dwells
3) adequate seated capacity for quite intensive loading between the peaks
4) enough total capacity including standing to cope safely with peak crush-loads
5) compliant with all accessibility requirements even with standing passengers
6) low track loading to reduce core infrastructure maintenance
7) high energy efficiency
8) high reliability/availability (see Bald Rick's post #18

None of the above was achievable with the 319s and there weren't enough of them to provide a full service anyway.

I guess this makes sense. But I think they should have kept the 319s and coupled 3 together to use together with class 700s.

Also, why are rail passengers increasing so much? Why did they shoot up after privatisation? You see people complaining about privatised railways and saying they are too expensive to use, yet the numbers are going up.

 

[D365]

I guess this makes sense. But I think they should have kept the 319s and coupled 3 together to use together with class 700s.

Why?..

 

[Jamesrob637]

I travelled on one (a 12 car) this afternoon from Bedford to Farringdon and I thought it was OK. Guess as ever its a matter of personal opinion but what would other parts of the country give for 8 car let alone 12 car trains.

Manchester is slowly but surely getting longer trains now but not quite 700s. I did a short run on a 700 in February and it was what it was - a high-density commuter train. Not a luxurious express.

 

[goblinuser]

I'm unhappy about trains being designed to pack standing passengers in. They did this by removing transverse seats on the DLR, district line and metropolitan line, but as these are metro railways it is somewhat understandable but doing it on the thameslink infuriates me. They are turning thameslink into a metro. They are also treating crossrail like a metro when it is a 'proper' rail service.

I thought the 700s on thameslink have normal seats? Are they fitting longitudinal ones?