In article
,
(Recliner) wrote:

Of course, when new, the C stock was all-transverse seating, like the A
stock. Unlike the A stock, it lost that feature when refurbished. Despite
the change, the capacity didn't grow, so that was one refurbishment I
really didn't like.

The original C stock design was incredibly claustrophobic I found. So I did
like the refurbishment.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article
,
(Recliner) wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
,
at 18:35:42 on Mon, 30 Jun 2014, Recliner
remarked:
Of course, when new, the C stock was all-transverse seating, like the A
stock. Unlike the A stock, it lost that feature when refurbished.
Despite the change, the capacity didn't grow,

Seating capacity? There's room for more people standing in the new
arrangement.

Yes, that's why they did it. People are more likely to "move right down
inside the car" now. But the narrow bench seats between the arm rests are,
I think, slimmer than before, so very often only one person will be
sitting in each pair of seats.

That wasn't a problem on the tour so the seats can't have been that narrow!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article
,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote:
In article
,
(Recliner) wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
,
at 14:20:44 on Mon, 30 Jun 2014, Recliner
remarked:
Was the West Ham siding the only part of the route you couldn't have
done until recently on a C stock service train with a Travelcard (or
a more comfortable, probably less crowded S stock train today)?

Yes, but it as more about being on the very last C-stock train's trip
before it was scrapped.

And of course running non-stop, which was most noticeable in the
Paddington area after lunch when the platforms were full of obviously
very frustrated normal passengers waiting far too long for a service
train.

Yes, I can see the amusement in the non-stop element, but personally I
find it hard to get excited about the last journey on a fairly mundane
train. I wouldn't go as far as Boltar, but I don't mourn their
departure, as I much prefer their replacement. However, I suppose it
might be different if I'd been a regular commuter on C stock trains.

I used to take quite long journeys on C stock at times, typically
from Edgware Road to East Putney. I didn't dislike it and there was
more to see on the journey than on deep-level tube alternatives. I
prefer D stock because it has some transverse seats but the short
benches weren't too bad an alternative.

Gone, but not forgotten: guess which stock the BBC has used to illustrate
a pending strike story?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-28093118

The media are hopeless like that. A Cambridge News story yesterday about
delays on FCC at Royston had a picture of a GA class 379 which never go near
there.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message

, at 01:45:38 on Tue, 1 Jul 2014, Recliner
remarked:
Of course, when new, the C stock was all-transverse seating, like the A
stock. Unlike the A stock, it lost that feature when refurbished. Despite
the change, the capacity didn't grow,

Seating capacity? There's room for more people standing in the new arrangement.

Yes, that's why they did it. People are more likely to "move right down
inside the car" now.

According to literature they gave out the original style had a narrow
aisle that people rarely stood in (I could foresee getting trapped
and/or trapping the seated pax).

But the narrow bench seats between the arm rests are, I think, slimmer
than before, so very often only one person will be sitting in each pair
of seats.

I noticed that - on the final leg the chap sat next to me kept on
spilling over into my personal space. Of course, no-one at all will sit
on them again.
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message
,
at 01:45:38 on Tue, 1 Jul 2014, Recliner
remarked:
Of course, when new, the C stock was all-transverse seating, like the
A stock. Unlike the A stock, it lost that feature when refurbished.
Despite the change, the capacity didn't grow,

Seating capacity? There's room for more people standing in the new
arrangement.

Yes, that's why they did it. People are more likely to "move right down
inside the car" now.

According to literature they gave out the original style had a narrow
aisle that people rarely stood in (I could foresee getting trapped
and/or trapping the seated pax).

But the narrow bench seats between the arm rests are, I think, slimmer
than before, so very often only one person will be sitting in each pair
of seats.

I noticed that - on the final leg the chap sat next to me kept on
spilling over into my personal space. Of course, no-one at all will
sit on them again.

How do they compare with the S stock longitudinal seats (or the 378s)? I
didn't notice they were much different.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote:
In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message
,
at 01:45:38 on Tue, 1 Jul 2014, Recliner
remarked:
Of course, when new, the C stock was all-transverse seating, like the
A stock. Unlike the A stock, it lost that feature when refurbished.
Despite the change, the capacity didn't grow,

Seating capacity? There's room for more people standing in the new
arrangement.

Yes, that's why they did it. People are more likely to "move right down
inside the car" now.

According to literature they gave out the original style had a narrow
aisle that people rarely stood in (I could foresee getting trapped
and/or trapping the seated pax).

But the narrow bench seats between the arm rests are, I think, slimmer
than before, so very often only one person will be sitting in each pair
of seats.

I noticed that - on the final leg the chap sat next to me kept on
spilling over into my personal space. Of course, no-one at all will
sit on them again.

How do they compare with the S stock longitudinal seats (or the 378s)? I
didn't notice they were much different.

They have armrests and are wider (but harder, especially the 378s).