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.

I think Ken Livingstone will want some of the credit for the DLR.

Robin9 wrote:

'Recliner[_3_ Wrote:
;151330']Martin Edwards wrote:-
On 10/23/2015 9:46 PM, Recliner wrote:-
Charles Ellson wrote:-

-
Like much else that is wrong today, it has its roots in the Thatcher
era. It was assumed that everyone would eventually have cars and the
railways would die out. Today's problems are caused not by malice, but

the unprecedented demand on rail travel, especially to, from and round

London.-

I'm not sure how you can blame decisions on seat comfort that were
taken
under Labour governments on Thatcher? I wouldn't blame any particular
government for things like that, but if you must blame a government,
surely
the decisions were taken in the Brown era?

Of course what we can thank the Thatcher government for are the JLE and
DLR.

I think Ken Livingstone will want some of the credit for the DLR.

I'm sure lots of people will want to claim the credit, but we were taking
about the national government of the day. In any case, I don't recall that
Ken had very much, if anything, to do with the Docklands developments in
the late 1980s.

Martin Edwards

Like much else that is wrong today, it has its roots in the Thatcher
era. It was assumed that everyone would eventually have cars and the
railways would die out. Today's problems are caused not by malice, but
the unprecedented demand on rail travel, especially to, from and round
London.

Yet the quality and comfort of cars continues to increase.

Neil
--
Neil Williams

On 10/25/2015 4:36 PM, Neil Williams wrote:
Martin Edwards

Like much else that is wrong today, it has its roots in the Thatcher
era. It was assumed that everyone would eventually have cars and the
railways would die out. Today's problems are caused not by malice, but
the unprecedented demand on rail travel, especially to, from and round
London.

Yet the quality and comfort of cars continues to increase.

Neil

Certainly, but the pressure on railways round London continues to
increase also. It is more about congestion than the quality of cars.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 07:37:09 +0100
Martin Edwards wrote:
On 10/23/2015 9:46 PM, Recliner wrote:
No, the 378 seats are really hard, much worse than the 313s. The new
Victoria line 2009 stock also has thin, hard seats.


Like much else that is wrong today, it has its roots in the Thatcher
era. It was assumed that everyone would eventually have cars and the
railways would die out. Today's problems are caused not by malice, but
the unprecedented demand on rail travel, especially to, from and round
London.

Wow, blaming hard seats on a train built only a few years ago on a PM who
left in 1990 would be pushing it even for the most diehard, out of touch
Corbynista. Thats quite an impressive political contortion you managed there.

Thatcher was mainly a response to the **** The Lot of You attitude of the
unions in the 70s who were composed mainly of indolent, greedy, bloody minded
halfwits (see RMT for a modern equivalent). If the Wilson and Callagham
governments of the day had anything resembling a backbone the political
landscape of the 80s might have been rather different so if you want to blame
anyone blame them.

--
Spud

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 08:47:34PM +0100, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2015\10\23 17:17, wrote:
In article , (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 ...
I'm surprised you've not noticed the same on all the Electrostars and
Turbostars as well as the Desiros, but not on the S stock.
I did notice that the S stock have a tidy sign above the door, which is
where I'd put it.

The Electrostar and Turbostar are 1990s designs, and AFAIK they didn't
have those side-mounted displays when they first entered service.
They've since been added, but when you add something to an existing
design then you have fewer cost-effective options of where to add it
than if it had been designed-in in the first place.

--
David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david

Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt

In article ,
(David Cantrell) wrote:

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 08:47:34PM +0100, Basil Jet wrote:
On 2015\10\23 17:17, wrote:
In article , (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 ...
I'm surprised you've not noticed the same on all the Electrostars and
Turbostars as well as the Desiros, but not on the S stock.
I did notice that the S stock have a tidy sign above the door,
which is where I'd put it.

The Electrostar and Turbostar are 1990s designs, and AFAIK they didn't
have those side-mounted displays when they first entered service.
They've since been added, but when you add something to an existing
design then you have fewer cost-effective options of where to add it
than if it had been designed-in in the first place.

They may not have been in the original designs but I don't think any (apart
maybe from the original Chiltern units) were delivered without them. And the
Desiros have no excuses.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On 10/26/2015 9:39 AM, d wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 07:37:09 +0100
Martin Edwards wrote:
On 10/23/2015 9:46 PM, Recliner wrote:
No, the 378 seats are really hard, much worse than the 313s. The new
Victoria line 2009 stock also has thin, hard seats.


Like much else that is wrong today, it has its roots in the Thatcher
era. It was assumed that everyone would eventually have cars and the
railways would die out. Today's problems are caused not by malice, but
the unprecedented demand on rail travel, especially to, from and round
London.

Wow, blaming hard seats on a train built only a few years ago on a PM who
left in 1990 would be pushing it even for the most diehard, out of touch
Corbynista. Thats quite an impressive political contortion you managed there.

Thatcher was mainly a response to the **** The Lot of You attitude of the
unions in the 70s who were composed mainly of indolent, greedy, bloody minded
halfwits (see RMT for a modern equivalent). If the Wilson and Callagham
governments of the day had anything resembling a backbone the political
landscape of the 80s might have been rather different so if you want to blame
anyone blame them.

--
Spud


Apart from that, how was your goat hunt?

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 07:33:29 +0000
Martin Edwards wrote:
On 10/26/2015 9:39 AM, d wrote:
On Sat, 24 Oct 2015 07:37:09 +0100
Martin Edwards wrote:
On 10/23/2015 9:46 PM, Recliner wrote:
No, the 378 seats are really hard, much worse than the 313s. The new
Victoria line 2009 stock also has thin, hard seats.


Like much else that is wrong today, it has its roots in the Thatcher
era. It was assumed that everyone would eventually have cars and the
railways would die out. Today's problems are caused not by malice, but
the unprecedented demand on rail travel, especially to, from and round
London.

Wow, blaming hard seats on a train built only a few years ago on a PM who
left in 1990 would be pushing it even for the most diehard, out of touch
Corbynista. Thats quite an impressive political contortion you managed there.

Thatcher was mainly a response to the **** The Lot of You attitude of the
unions in the 70s who were composed mainly of indolent, greedy, bloody minded
halfwits (see RMT for a modern equivalent). If the Wilson and Callagham
governments of the day had anything resembling a backbone the political
landscape of the 80s might have been rather different so if you want to blame
anyone blame them.

--
Spud


Apart from that, how was your goat hunt?

If you're going to attenmpt sarcasm at least try and be vaguely intelligable
though judging by the nonsense you spouted above I suspect you find that
difficult.

--
Spud