Class 700

[dp123]

 

Running 5-car trains (700s) which have been designed to be as basic as possible strikes me as a ludicrously poor substitute for 8-car trains with what I would consider the minimum necessary standards of comfort. SDO is not a new invention, for the occasional very rural stop unable to take longer trains.

 

 

700s are 8 or 12 car fixed formation trains. The SWT 707 variant of the Desiro City is 5 car, but more akin to a 455 inside.

 

 

[Fenman]

700s are 8 or 12 car fixed formation trains. The SWT 707 variant of the Desiro City is 5 car, but more akin to a 455 inside.

Thanks. Dunno why I made that dumb error.

 

Paul

[Joseph_Pestell]

Fascinating, really. At a time when the railway's main competitor - the private car - is getting ever more luxurious, spacious and quiet, with air-conditioning and electrically-heated seats (some with massagers), and with state-of-the-art bluetooth music systems and integrated mobile phone comms, we think that trains should be getting harsher and more crammed. Even arm-rests are, apparently, an unacceptably decadent "luxury".

 

How on earth are we going to get significant modal shift if we make the trains so miserable?

 

Paul

 

Congestion charging and letting the roads become even more logjammed than they are already. But I agree with you that downgrading the comfort of trains is not the right way to go.

[Reorte]

Congestion charging and letting the roads become even more logjammed than they are already. But I agree with you that downgrading the comfort of trains is not the right way to go.

If it's seen as the efficient way to go it'll be done that way. I would say cheap and nasty always wins the day but it's never cheap.

[stewartingram]

Thameslink services will go no further north than Cambridge - so passengers north of there will be spared the spartan 700s. Interesting that they are keeping the 365s on the Kings Lyn runs though - because as you say that means platform extensions due to the units lack of an end gangways. Given the focus on costs I would have thought SDO and Electrostars would have worked out more cost effective to the Bean counters than platform extensions.

 

And we used to manage with 9x Mk1 (including a buffet car) + an EE3 on the front....progress is wonderful.

 

Stewart

[Reorte]

And we used to manage with 9x Mk1 (including a buffet car) + an EE3 on the front....progress is wonderful.

But presumably running less often so less capacity overall. Progress would be wonderful if it didn't manage to throw away the upsides of the past along with the problems.

[Fenman]

And we used to manage with 9x Mk1 (including a buffet car) + an EE3 on the front....progress is wonderful.

 

Stewart

And even more progress when the Mk1s were replaced with lovely Mk2s (though the restaurant / buffet remained a Mk1 to the end).

 

Paul

[stewartingram]

But presumably running less often so less capacity overall. Progress would be wonderful if it didn't manage to throw away the upsides of the past along with the problems.

Agreed with frequency of service etc, but the point is they were 9 coach, with the platform lengths as they still are. And they were slam-door, not OPO, but we managed.

 

Stewart

[Glorious NSE]

Agreed with frequency of service etc, but the point is they were 9 coach, with the platform lengths as they still are. And they were slam-door, not OPO, but we managed.

 

Slam door was arguably easier, you just told folk what coach to be in, and if they got it wrong they end up in Kings Lynn, which is an incentive to get it right...

[Fenman]

Slam door was arguably easier, you just told folk what coach to be in, and if they got it wrong they end up in Kings Lynn, which is an incentive to get it right...

Even at KL, the platforms could take 8 coaches - so on arrival only the hauling loco and the first 7 were at a platform and, if you were in the last two coaches, you were expected to have the wit to walk forward. After the loco had run around, 8 of the 9 coaches were at the platform.

 

At Magdalen Road (today "Watlington"), it was probably only 2 coaches that were at the platform (4 today), *and* you had to remember to ask the guard to stop the train for you.

 

Somehow we managed.

 

Paul

[31A]

Slam door was arguably easier, you just told folk what coach to be in, and if they got it wrong they end up in Kings Lynn, which is an incentive to get it right...

 

 

Or end up face down in the cess .....  

[cornelius]

All I can say is, I'm glad my current commute can be done entirely on Southern services.

[Glorious NSE]

Somehow we managed.

 

We went to Littleport by train waaaay back to visit our gran, on a Network Day - unfortunately everybody in London had apparently decided to go to Kings Lynn on the same offer. It was impossible to walk through the trains, and they ended up having to call at Littleport 3 times - dread to think how late that one was into Kings Lynn!

[Zomboid]

All I can say is, I'm glad my current commute can be done entirely on Southern services.

That's not a sentiment I've ever seen expressed before. Nor do I expect to see it much again

[Zomboid]

 

Slam door was arguably easier, you just told folk what coach to be in, and if they got it wrong they end up in Kings Lynn, which is an incentive to get it right...

That's no different to selective door opening. Though at weekends in particular you see lots of people who haven't listened to the 400 times they've been told "Front 7 for Piddletrenthide South" and end up rushing through to get off when they are in the wrong carriage.

[stewartingram]

All I can say is, I'm glad my current commute can be done entirely on Southern services.

 

Assuming they are not cancelled due to sickness?

 

Stewart

 

[Reorte]

Agreed with frequency of service etc, but the point is they were 9 coach, with the platform lengths as they still are. And they were slam-door, not OPO, but we managed.

Fair enough, always a sad sight to see very overcrowded trains pulling into stations with loads of platform length, the far ends looking like no-one has set foot on them for years.

[phil-b259]

Thanks for the sarcasm - always a good way to engage in constructive debate [\sarcasm].

 

But this is not *just* a commuter train, is it? The journey I cited earlier - Cambridge to Gatwick Airport - will likely take 2+ hours.

 

Er... That was me.

 

True for many, not all. I have a choice of driving from East Anglia to my north London office, and I sometimes do even though I would prefer in principle to take the train.

 

More useful would be the government doing what it had long ago promised - replacing 4-car EMUs with 8-cars. The line between Cambridge and Ely is, bizarrely, one of the most over-crowded anywhere, with people at peak times often unable to board the train.

 

Running 5-car trains (700s) which have been designed to be as basic as possible strikes me as a ludicrously poor substitute for 8-car trains with what I would consider the minimum necessary standards of comfort. SDO is not a new invention, for the occasional very rural stop unable to take longer trains.

 

Instead, we are to have a new railway station opening at Cambridge North to bring more passengers to trains that are already too full to board; then 700s south of Cambridge; then a long wait while a couple of platforms are lengthened; and then north of Cambridge apparently doubled-up 365s (the only non-air conditioned stock left operating a former InterCity service).

 

Paul

 

Please check other posts a little more carefully - as has been explained the 700s do not come in 5 car varents (for Thameslink that is) They are fixed formation 8 cars for services via Elephant & Castle (Wimbledon loop and services to Kent) and 12 car sets for services via London bridge (everything else).

 

As such you will not get 5 car trains - IIRC the proposed service pattern uses the 12 car variant to Cambridge whose services will go via London Bridge.

 

While yes long journeys like Cambridge - Gatwick will be uncomfortable, you need to appreciate that the overcrowding currently experienced daily during the peaks on what might be termed 'intermediate distance stock' through the core mean the design has to be optimised for people carrying - not mod cons. The current trains are full and standing from as far out as Gatwick sometimes and by the time they get to East Croydon / London Bridge they are not that far off Japanese style crush loading and the new 700s have been designed with that in mind.

 

You also need to recognise that if you want 24tph through the core that means quick boarding and alighting is a must (one of the biggest sources of delay at places like East Croydon is the sheer numbers of commuters alighting / joining and extended dwell times causing trains to miss their timetabled slots over the flat junction to the north). To enable 24tph the maximum dwell time that can be accommodated at all core stations as measured from the train coming to a halt then moving off again (i.e. not including the time taken for the doors to physically open and close) is just 45 seconds - just try and imagine a full and standing 12 car train mostly emptying in just 30 seconds on current stock!

 

At the end of the day Thameslink is never going to be as comfortable as people want because it has to serve two very different markets. Had Thameslink been proposed since privatisation it would no doubt be undertaken with as a Crossrail style project with TfL as a lead party and services going no further than the likes of Welwyn Garden City, Croydon and St Albans - where high density stock is no problem. This would have enabled you and other long distance commuters to have trains with all the mod cons and a layout more in keeping with your journey times.

 

However in reality Thameslink was conceived by British Rail as linking two outer suburban routes together. As is demonstrated on a daily basis outer suburban interior layouts are totality unsuited to the crush loading experienced within the M25 and as such layouts catering for the former must be prioritised over the latter, particularly if Thameslink is to offer the 24tph service in the peaks where consistently meeting dwell times - however full the trains are is fundamental to this aim.

 

Thus complaints about the spartan interiors of the 700s, while understandable need to be made with the recognition that there was not a lot the designers could do to improve them (other than say more padding on the seats). Much like many other things on the railways - be they certain Beeching closures, the 1950s  modernisation plan,the selling off of railway land, etc hindsight is a wonderful thing - but whats done is done and is not able to be changed however much whishfull thinking is involved.

 

With Thameslink this is particularly true given that the MML at St Pancras only has 4 platforms (thus no capacity to take outer suburban commuter trains), the rebuilt London Bridge will only have 6 terminating platforms (thus have limited capacity to take outer suburban commuter trains), the Bermondsey diver under directly links Thameslink to the fast BML tracks and Kings Cross suburban platforms cannot be lengthened to 12 cars (and there is no capacity to transfer services to the main train shed in the peaks)

[Joseph_Pestell]

We went to Littleport by train waaaay back to visit our gran, on a Network Day - unfortunately everybody in London had apparently decided to go to Kings Lynn on the same offer. It was impossible to walk through the trains, and they ended up having to call at Littleport 3 times - dread to think how late that one was into Kings Lynn!

I think I was on the same train. Only time I have been to Kings Lynn.

[Fenman]

Please check other posts a little more carefully - as has been explained the 700s do not come in 5 car varents (for Thameslink that is) They are fixed formation 8 cars for services via Elephant & Castle (Wimbledon loop and services to Kent) and 12 car sets for services via London bridge (everything else).

 

As such you will not get 5 car trains - IIRC the proposed service pattern uses the 12 car variant to Cambridge whose services will go via London Bridge.

 

While yes long journeys like Cambridge - Gatwick will be uncomfortable, you need to appreciate that the overcrowding currently experienced daily during the peaks on what might be termed 'intermediate distance stock' through the core mean the design has to be optimised for people carrying - not mod cons. The current trains are full and standing from as far out as Gatwick sometimes and by the time they get to East Croydon / London Bridge they are not that far off Japanese style crush loading and the new 700s have been designed with that in mind.

 

You also need to recognise that if you want 24tph through the core that means quick boarding and alighting is a must (one of the biggest sources of delay at places like East Croydon is the sheer numbers of commuters alighting / joining and extended dwell times causing trains to miss their timetabled slots over the flat junction to the north). To enable 24tph the maximum dwell time that can be accommodated at all core stations as measured from the train coming to a halt then moving off again (i.e. not including the time taken for the doors to physically open and close) is just 45 seconds - just try and imagine a full and standing 12 car train mostly emptying in just 30 seconds on current stock!

 

At the end of the day Thameslink is never going to be as comfortable as people want because it has to serve two very different markets. Had Thameslink been proposed since privatisation it would no doubt be undertaken with as a Crossrail style project with TfL as a lead party and services going no further than the likes of Welwyn Garden City, Croydon and St Albans - where high density stock is no problem. This would have enabled you and other long distance commuters to have trains with all the mod cons and a layout more in keeping with your journey times.

 

However in reality Thameslink was conceived by British Rail as linking two outer suburban routes together. As is demonstrated on a daily basis outer suburban interior layouts are totality unsuited to the crush loading experienced within the M25 and as such layouts catering for the former must be prioritised over the latter, particularly if Thameslink is to offer the 24tph service in the peaks where consistently meeting dwell times - however full the trains are is fundamental to this aim.

 

Thus complaints about the spartan interiors of the 700s, while understandable need to be made with the recognition that there was not a lot the designers could do to improve them (other than say more padding on the seats). Much like many other things on the railways - be they certain Beeching closures, the 1950s modernisation plan,the selling off of railway land, etc hindsight is a wonderful thing - but whats done is done and is not able to be changed however much whishfull thinking is involved.

 

With Thameslink this is particularly true given that the MML at St Pancras only has 4 platforms (thus no capacity to take outer suburban commuter trains), the rebuilt London Bridge will only have 6 terminating platforms (thus have limited capacity to take outer suburban commuter trains), the Bermondsey diver under directly links Thameslink to the fast BML tracks and Kings Cross suburban platforms cannot be lengthened to 12 cars (and there is no capacity to transfer services to the main train shed in the peaks)

 

If you had read the thread a little more carefully you'd see I've already 'fessed up to my idiotic confusion of differently lengthed (is that even a word?) EMUs. But thanks for keeping the levels of patronising down-talk so high.

 

Which is a pity, because I actually agree with your analysis of the Thameslink problem - and that a Crossrail solution would offer at least a better segmentation of what are utterly different markets.

 

I remain fascinated that something as basic as a comfortable seat is apparently a "mod con", and beyond the ability of the 21st century to provide.

 

Paul

[cornelius]

Assuming they are not cancelled due to sickness?

 

Stewart

 

 

For some reason I've also taken to working from home more recently.

[John M Upton]

There is a six car variant on the way to replace the 2 x 3 car 313 formations on the stoppers out of Moorgate though.  I believe some of the then rendered surplus 313's will be heading to the Sussex Coast to join those already there.  The Coastway commuters are just going to love that.....

[bescotbeast]

There is a six car variant on the way to replace the 2 x 3 car 313 formations on the stoppers out of Moorgate though.  I believe some of the then rendered surplus 313's will be heading to the Sussex Coast to join those already there.  The Coastway commuters are just going to love that.....

That's news to me, we were led to believe the 313's would be going at some point soon.......

[phil-b259]

If you had read the thread a little more carefully you'd see I've already 'fessed up to my idiotic confusion of differently lengthed (is that even a word?) EMUs. But thanks for keeping the levels of patronising down-talk so high.

 

I hadn't spotted that - in which case I apologise for the tone.

 

I

I remain fascinated that something as basic as a comfortable seat is apparently a "mod con", and beyond the ability of the 21st century to provide.

Paul

Oh don't get me wrong the level of comfort provided by modern train seating is indeed woefull - and I would agree that a decent seat is not a mod con as such. However other things like proper tables, or traditional narrow gangways with doors between coaches, first class with more generous seating, wifi, etc are if you get my drift.

[jonny777]

I don't think it is the absence of tables, or even seats aligned with windows that worries me about the new interiors, but the narrowness of the seats (when the population is getting fatter), and the ridiculous lack of leg-room (when the population is getting taller).

 

Yes, the accountants may want to cram as many standing commuters in the carriage as possible, but for the long distance adult traveller who needs to sit down, the seating is less than inviting - unless an ambulance will be standing by at all stations in order to deal with back and leg injuries sustained by having to wedge the body into a tiny space for 2 hours.