London Banter - View Single Post

e27002 aurora

On 24 Oct 2015 09:05:46 GMT, Jeremy Double
wrote:

e27002 aurora wrote:
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 11:44:15 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(e27002 aurora) wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:32:15 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 14:53:44 +0100
Basil Jet wrote:
I travelled on the Gospel Oak - Barking line earlier in the week, and
was annoyed by the fact that half of one of the windows was taken up by
a panel of some sort. Later I realised that this was an electronic
destination display, facing outward. Why is it on the window, when they
have a whole train to put it on? And why is it so big? The text display
is only a few inches tall, but the panel holding it literally occupies
half of the window. I later saw the same thing on the Caterham line and
on the East London Line, so sacrificing half a window for a few inches
of display seems to be the norm now. Do train designers even know what
windows are for?

The internal design of modern trains leaves a lot to be desired, whether
its what you mentioned, needlessly thick interior panels using up space,
a lack of handrails for standing passengers, door bleepers that would
wake the dead and deafen anyone standing next to them and seats that are
too narrow for anyone larger than Kate Moss proportions.

Strange thing: In the early days of passenger travel by rail folks
travelled in discomfort. Those were the days of wooden bench seats
and no heating.

As time passed passenger comfort increased. By WWII trains had sprung
seats, heating, you name it. This lasted until the 1980s.

Now we seem to be regressing. Passenger comfort is taking a back seat
(no pun intended). At some point usere going to have to refuse to
accept the quality of the travelling experience.

Seats? Luxury! I remember them. Nowadays we have to stand.

And this surprises you! For four decades the railways were run down
under nationalization. A third of the network was closed. Remaining
track layouts were simplified, and train lengths reduced.

Since the poorly thought thru privatization, passengers have been
flocking back to the railway.

1997 thru 2010 the UK endured a socialist government that invested
little in the railways.

In a system run by private enterprise, surely it should have been the
private companies (Railtrack, the TOCs, the ROSCOs) that should have
invested in the railways?

Transportation (cue the parish language police) is an essential
service. In a sense the state as a whole is the customer.

But the private companies have frequently got it wrong, such as not
foreseeing that increases in frequency would also increase demand (e.g.
Virgin Cross Country and TransPennine when they acquired new trains).

Companies are far from infallible. Also keep in mind that issues like
rolling stock renewal are being micromanaged from Whitehall. Our
civil servants certainly can have a role in determining the level of
service required. But trains bought in the market place by the
ROSCO's may have given a more economic fleet than the IEPs. That
said, I am optimistic that Hitachi are producing a good product.