James Farrar wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:25:06 -0000, JB
wrote:



I agree these trains are pretty bad. To be honest I thought the
high,
claustrophobic backed seats was a new safety thing. They seem to
be
appearing on all new/refurbished trains (although not necessarily
as bad
as on the 376). I quite like the two by two seating though.

I love the high-backed seats on the new Southern trains. (Sorry, not

enough of an enthusiast to know the class number!) In fact, my train
home
from work is often a two-car old unit at the front and a four-car
new unit
at the rear, and I'll sit in the new bit by choice even though I
inevitably have a longer walk at my destination station.

Actually, the two-car units (456s) always had high seat backs. The
four-car units (455s) didn't till now.

On 15 Feb 2005 15:49:39 -0800, MIG wrote:


James Farrar wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 20:25:06 -0000, JB
wrote:



I agree these trains are pretty bad. To be honest I thought the
high,
claustrophobic backed seats was a new safety thing. They seem to
be
appearing on all new/refurbished trains (although not necessarily
as bad
as on the 376). I quite like the two by two seating though.

I love the high-backed seats on the new Southern trains. (Sorry, not

enough of an enthusiast to know the class number!) In fact, my train
home
from work is often a two-car old unit at the front and a four-car
new unit
at the rear, and I'll sit in the new bit by choice even though I
inevitably have a longer walk at my destination station.

Actually, the two-car units (456s) always had high seat backs. The
four-car units (455s) didn't till now.


When I say "high back", I mean "above my head"; I'd never seen those
anywhere until the new units started coming in at the tail end of last
year.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:55:40 -0000, "James Farrar"
wrote:

When I say "high back", I mean "above my head"; I'd never seen those
anywhere until the new units started coming in at the tail end of last
year.

I must say I like the higher-backed seating that is appearing as well
- unlike previous setups, I can rest my head on the headrest rather
than the back of my shoulders as on older designs.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

"James Farrar" wrote in message
newspsl9je2b0wnvjb9@whisk...

Actually, the two-car units (456s) always had high seat backs. The
four-car units (455s) didn't till now.


When I say "high back", I mean "above my head"; I'd never seen those
anywhere until the new units started coming in at the tail end of last
year.

They're not actually new - they're the old 455 units refurbished. If they
were cars they'd very soon qualify for a free tax disc.

Peter

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 09:35:41 +0000 (UTC), Peter Masson
wrote:


"James Farrar" wrote in message
newspsl9je2b0wnvjb9@whisk...

Actually, the two-car units (456s) always had high seat backs. The
four-car units (455s) didn't till now.


When I say "high back", I mean "above my head"; I'd never seen those
anywhere until the new units started coming in at the tail end of last
year.

They're not actually new - they're the old 455 units refurbished. If they
were cars they'd very soon qualify for a free tax disc.

They look new.

You see, this is the level of unawareness about trains I have...

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 11:18:54 -0000, "James Farrar"
wrote:

They look new.

You see, this is the level of unawareness about trains I have...

And that's the sign of a good refurb - indistinguishable from new for
everyone that doesn't know the detail.

The German Silberling coaches surprised me on that basis originally,
as I was not at the time familiar with them. It astonished me to find
that they were 1960s body-underframe stock of a very primitive design
indeed. All it took was a full interior re-panel and re-seat.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
When replying please use neil at the above domain
'wensleydale' is a spam trap and is not read.

I got to see the 376 at Derby before it was delivered and was a bit
shocked. SET claim it was the result of passenger/stakeholder
consultation. I expect more was down to the principle of more standing
room for shorter journeys, without knowing the full implication on the
end design. It is intended for journey times of 30-40 minutes and has a
normal range of Dartford/London (possibly Gravesend), but may extend to
Sevenoaks and Gillingham in the peak hours. It is replacing Networker
465s that are being 'refreshed' and cascaded to middle distance journeys
to Ashford and Faversham. The 376 is not a competitor for the 375/9 -
the 375 is longer distance and the /9 is just attempting to squeeze the
seats in to compensate for the slam door trains. There has been a lot of
criticism about the seats, very upright and some people with minor back
problems are in agony after using them - I hope there is a test case
soon by somebody affected. I had the joy of using them on the 17:46 out
of Cannon Street to Strood for a while on the old timetable, the 10 car
formation was taken off in the new timetable and replaced by 465/466
combinations as small as 6 car! - possibly punishment for the people who
complained.

I think we're kind of missing the point. Rush hour are what these
trains are designed for. Although I agree with the hard seating and the
OTT disabled areas, these trains work very well. Networkers get crowded
easily and it is logic that you could get more people standing. I can
see the 376 concept being applied to all London Inner Suburban line
(incl North London Line and euston-watford). Look at the refurbed 455s
for SWT.
I think that many people (including me) to a certain extent wish we
could have seat like 4-CIGs, but realistically their out of date. The
cream of the new-generation are the Desiro. The 450s are
excellent...444s brilliant.

"Rich Mallard" wrote in message ...
"David Campbell" wrote in message
...
"Rich Mallard" wrote in message
...

I can well believe that Connex is reponsible for the negative aspects of
these reprehensible units. Their last spiteful act, perhaps.

Rich


I believe Connex actually went out and sought the views of commuters
as to the layout of the trains and that some seat designs were "tried
out" with some commuters who answered and filled in a customer survey.
A selection of these were taken to try out various designs to
establish in their view which were the best to go for. I was handed a
fairly comprhensive "customer survey" form by Connex staff at
Faversham a couple or so years back and it included a section about
the new 376 trains and the layouts then in the design stage. Could it
be that SET took over before the plan ran it's course? Or are there
some in Kent who find these seats acceptable?

"826" wrote in message
om...
"Rich Mallard" wrote in message
...
"David Campbell" wrote in message
...
"Rich Mallard" wrote in message
...

I can well believe that Connex is reponsible for the negative aspects
of
these reprehensible units. Their last spiteful act, perhaps.

Rich

I believe Connex actually went out and sought the views of commuters
as to the layout of the trains and that some seat designs were "tried
out" with some commuters who answered and filled in a customer survey.
A selection of these were taken to try out various designs to
establish in their view which were the best to go for. I was handed a
fairly comprhensive "customer survey" form by Connex staff at
Faversham a couple or so years back and it included a section about
the new 376 trains and the layouts then in the design stage. Could it
be that SET took over before the plan ran it's course? Or are there
some in Kent who find these seats acceptable?

I went to meetings about the 376 as part of the Connex passenger forums, so
no doubt they would claim I was part of the "consultation". It was a total
and utter sham - Olivier Brousse had already decided that they were going to
be building "tube" trains for the routes closer to London, and there was
certainly no debate to be had on that. What it came down to really was: Did
we want a moderate OR very severe cut in the seating numbers compared to
what we're used to?!

We passed comments on some of the original designs (which I never found
particularly clear - they never once produced a proper diagram of the train
layout from above) and were horrified to find some original designs included
sections of longitudinal bench seating at the edges of the train! (Now I
think about it, they really did have an agenda to make these trains as
uncomfortable as possible maybe)

We certainly never discussed or were made aware of there intentions to
remove all padding from the seats, and for them to be so extraordinaly high
and oddly shaped. The assumption was that they would be along the lines of
Networker seats but in a 2x2 formation with slightly wider spacing (which
sounds great...)

All I would say - don't believe most of this "consultation with commuters"
garbage; they were prepared to listen and make only superifical changes, but
what you see in the 376 is largely what *they* wanted.

I thought we would be getting something much closer to a 375 than a
Networker (but with more space by the doors, and wider doors). I wrote a
long follow-up document to Connex, but it would appear that most of my
points were discarded, now I look back at it! In particular:

"Please include carpeting on these new suburban trains. Cold, lino-style
flooring makes for a dull and dreary interior, reminiscent of tube trains
and the current 465 Networkers. There are many very hard-wearing carpet
materials available that are relatively easy to clean, and look very smart."

I hate lino!

Nick